I?ve been waiting for Superman to get back to post this, ?cause I think he might have an opinion that I would like to hear?
What do you all make of the guys like Gary LaFontaine and Vince Marinaro whose ideas about fly-fishing have been so different from the rest of the world?s that they have been ridiculed unmercifully. You can still get a major flame war started by claiming on any of the major FF websites that caddis pupa propel themselves to the surface surrounded by an air bubble, and I still read in major fishing mags (yeah, I still read them once in a while) the same old story about caddis larva (yeah I know) rocketing themselves towards the surface like a missile and providing little opportunity for the fisherman to catch fish with them. The things that some people call thorax style dry flies are abominations. While I have yet to tie any (thorax style flies) that were very good, clipping the hackle off the bottom of a traditional fly hardly makes it thorax style.
So where do these two in particular, and any of the other radicals you can think of , where do they stand today? Are they still heretics? Are they pioneers? Are they just one step in the continuing evolution of fly-fishing knowledge?
I hope this doesn?t turn ugly? I really am interested in understanding how our knowledge of fish and insect behavior and the tools and tactics needed to catch them is growing, and the influence of individuals in that process.
Good post Pastor Ed
I hope this generates lots of discussion
There are flies designed to catch fishermen and there are flies designed to catch fish.
The "fishermen " flies work often enough so that many hang around.
Some of the “fish” flies never catch on because they’re so unlike flies that are normally used.
Fear of the unknown
Lafontaine’s “trigger” is something that John Goddard also thought was important and not that unusual when you think about the trout’s window of vision. Much, but maybe not all, of his theories are accepted as Gospel
In my opinion, even though Gary Lafontaine’s “Theory of Color” was meant to be for trout, it’s application to salt water is nothing short of amazing. At dawn, dusk, and in many other lights, it can be as important to match the fly to the sky, as it is to match the size and shape of the bait.
Galileo ran afoul of the catholic church for proclaiming that the earth revolved around the sun.
Innovation advances the sport and society as a whole, but is very often met with resistence. Whoever first looked at a chicken feather and decided to wrap it around a hook and cast it to a fish was probably doing something very different for the time.
The classic “heretic” of our sport was G.E.M. Skues
In the late 1800s, lead by Frederick Halford, dry fly fishing went from the “new” way to fish to the “only” way to fish
If you weren’t casting upstream with a dry fly, you weren’t doing it right
Skues changed all that in 1910 with his book Minor Tactics of the Chalk Stream, in which he introduced the world to nymph fishing
The controversy created by these two gentlemen did more for fly fishing than almost any other single development
(excepting the advent of the split cane rod)
Oh, thrilling the rise at the lure that is dry,
When the slow trout comes up to the slaughter,
Yet rather would I
Have the turn at my fly,
The cunning brown wink under water.
I found myself re-reading this post several times. I am not the fisherman that I once was due to several reasons, however, I can still tie a mean fly.
PasterEd, another “radical” may be Wally Lutz from Canada with his Wally Wing concept. Which I find quite fascinating. The reason that I find it unique is light tranfer through the feather and you don’t need fancy stuff, like Shimizaki wing or stuff like that. Check it out: http://www.flyanglersonline.com/flytyin … 2fotw.html
What I personally say about Gary’s Caddis patterns is they spawned many wild colors. I’m not saying that they won’t catch fish, I’m sure they will. I am not up on what Marinaro has done. Are they actually fish catching colors?..Maybe JC or those more experienced than I can answer “that” question. I do know that the "unique’ colors and blends are expensive propositions in regards to the funky dubbing mixtures out there such as the SLF developed by Dave Whitlock.
I’m gonna pay for this posting, but what the hay.
But my experience over several years of “lurking” have derived several thoughts.
Like the “Ausable Wulff” by Fran Betters. I don’t know if the “true” recipe is out there for anyone to use, I know I don’t have it, but I can come close.
I’m not privy to the “flaming” that you are talking about, but my personal thoughts are several come up with these wild things for personal gain.
So, in the words of a certain character from the Fantastic Four “Flame On”.
Gary’s deep sparkle caddis pupa is a must have fly. It must be the best selling fly, along with the emergent caddis, that Gary created. These are two that look buggy enough to catch fishermen. Personally, I do want my flies to look like bugs or baitfish. Even if I catch fewer fish than if I used a streamer with the eyes on the tail.
Now that Gary LaFontaine is gone, I don’t think his work will ever be fully appreciated
Sure, his Deep Sparkle Pupa and Emergent Sparkle Pupa are a must in every fly fisherman’s fly box, but as he states in his book Trout Flies most anglers fish them differently then he intended.
All of his creations were researched and designed to fulfill a purpose, but like Greg says, a lot are just too weird for anyone to want to use.
the funky dubbing mixtures out there such as the SLF developed by Dave Whitlock.
sandhiller, I think you’re thinking of Davy Wotton
One of the things that brought this question to my mind, was an earlier string about whether or not ?technology? was making fly-fishing too easy. The amount of information catalogued and stored on the internet now is incredible, but is that information being put to productive use on the trout streams? How is this mass of information being sifted and how is the garbage being separated from the truth? This especially relates I think to the people like LaFontaine and Marinaro and maybe some others whose idea?s in some ways remain outside of the accepted doctrine of fishing.
Those older heretics have become the ?Patriarchs? of the sport. For instance, there are still lots of people who would rather fish a dry fly than a nymph, some might even argue that it is more ?sporting,? but few are likely to claim that nymph fishing is not now a part of the mainstream of trout fishing.
Did the underwater observations of LaFontaine and Marinaro have such an effect on how future generations will tie flies and fish? With the advent of higher quality hackle will people start tying the REAL dry mayfly imitation, the ThorX? (I?m not really pandering to J.C., if you haven?t read his Fly?s Only it makes a strong case for this) Or if not that, will fly tyers start where he ended, and develop a fly that creates the correct footprint and underwater profile? Is the Deep Sparkle Pupa just ?buggy? or does it accurately depict an important and vulnerable stage in the life of the Caddisfly?
To be sure the naysayers have a variety of motivations, some probably less honorable than others. But how much of their disagreement comes from ?scientific? observation and how much of it is merely opinion? And with the advent of the electronic age have those opinions made those who (I hate this term) stepped outside the box, less or more accessible and accepted?
Any way?
continue on as you will, I am very interested in your observations and thoughts.
There is certainly a lot of misleading or just wrong information on the internet, too. Yes, technology has improved the tackle but it is still the fisherman that has to catch the fish. I think that due to the tradition of imitating insects and bait in fly fishing, flies must look “buggy” in order for fly fishermen to buy or tie them. What looks buggy to us may or may not to a trout. There is nothing buggy or imitative looking about a gold castmaster or chrome cleo, but many a fried trout fell for it.
I think there are many folks doing things are are not in the mainstream now.
They have found that the ideas work and thus they do them. They may not have a format to promote the idea or the name that would allow it to happen.
It was not to long ago that Richard Comer got an award for designing a fly, but nobody mentions his name along with LaFontaine, Whitlock, Best ect.
Look at some iof the dieas that have come up on the fly ofthe weeks or people have posted under fly tying.
I admire anyone who is willing to figure things out for themselves, and think with their own brains, instead of just parroting what some “expert” in the field wrote in a magazine somewhere. I haven’t read either of those gentlemen’s work, nor anyone else’s, for that matter.
Yes, the dry fly. All others were attempts at making the original wet fly float. Even when cast up stream, a floating wet fly is not a dry fly. The placement of the hackle and wings prove it.
Heck, add a chunk a worm and evry fly is a killer.
It is interesting to experiment with the monsters at the Camp Sherman bridge. I toss in bits of stuff off trees. The bits that float ON the surface film are completely ignored. The little bits of twiggy stuff I toss in that float IN the surface film are immediately chomped upon. I guess trout are leg lovers.
