Winged Wets.......design based on misunderstanding?

All about flies Fly Tying
1

Recently, I was re-reading some noted authors on sub-surface flies, their designs, and the reasoning behind their designs.

I have never believed in winged wets. Never understood the reason for their design.

I have not found any insect who’s wings came completely out of the shuck before reaching the surface.

I have seen innumerable dead insects floating on the water surface - not below the surface.

I have seen dead spinners and I have seen many, many cripples IN the surface film…none sunken with wings over their backs.

I found a piece written be Ed Zern. He maintains that winged wets were based on the incorrect belief that insects got blown down to the water surface, died, and sunk…or they were cripples and died and then drowned.

I believe some earlier fly designs were based on just bad understanding of the lifestyle of insects and their behavior.

Your thoughts?

2

Interesting Byron,

Some points you make I can address.

Insect that fully emerges sub surface, yellow may dun. The adult appears fully formed on the surface and almost immediately takes to the wing. This behaviour makes it one of the hardest insects to imitate. It hatches about now, and I’ve had some very frustrating times trying to find an imitation that works.

Insects that are blown onto the water and become “awash” In a few days the hawthorn and heather flies will begin to appear (if they haven’t already) Last year I had a couple of hours on L. Lannsaidh in my float tube. I was being hit by heather flies being blown onto the water, something of a clue as to what is going on. I set up three imitations of these on my leader. The top fly being a deer hair dry the other two wets. No fish came to the dry. Twenty three fell to the wets.

Similarly, on the R. Ribble one evening. There was a large mixed hatch going on in the first pool I came to had rises everywhere. I couldn’t catch. I walked upstream to find a huge spinner fall 100 yards upstream. Walked back to the first pool and put a spinner over the fish. Then I realised these were not rising, but bulging fish. They wouldn’t come to the dry spinner. Sink it, and it was fish after fish.

I know both those are anecdotal evidence, but if the fish never saw these flies sub surface, why would they prefer the artificial presented in that way?

There are examples of flies that evolved into other flies that show us something relevant. I’m thinking of the likes of William’s Favourite, add a tail of GP tippet and you have the Black Pennel, further add a wing and you have the Blae and Black. All flies you will find in my fly box. Some days the fish will take the William’s Favourite other times the Black Pennel, still other times the Blae and Black is preferred. If the wing is a mistake why does adding it on some days mean you catch, when without it you don’t? It must be adding something to the pattern.

Add to that the places where these patterns developed are not the richest of habitats for fish. Therefore, a lot of the patterns are based on attraction rather than imitation, and many times somewhere in between. It is perhaps a hard thing to say that they are a result of a mistake in understanding insect behaviour. Rather it seems that the mistake, if there is one, is in understanding what these flies are intended for, and how they work.

Good point there Byron, got me scratching me 'ed!

Cheers,
A.

3

Byron,

It is interesting how 2 people can have different thoughts about any subject. I do not have the “insect knowledge” either one of you have and probably never will due to not wanting to devote that much time to studing them. All I have are “thoughts” and you did ask for any thoughts so here is a thought I had. I have been a bystander listening to two people having a heavy discussion on a subject to the point of one of them becoming upset because the other person did not agree with them and I have seen this happen here on FAOL and at fly fishing club meetings. I do not feel either one of you will reach this point because you both have knowledge on this subject. My thought is could there be a difference between what the insects do on a pond or lake due to the depth of the water and no movement as compared to the same insects in a river with moving current? After all, there are flies that are tied for pond/lake fish that will not work as well on river fish and vise versa. Just a thought and if you feel I am full of crapola, be kind to me when you tell me so!:smiley:

4

It only matters what the fish believe.

5

I don’t have the reference but Ak Best wrote of netting emerging green drakes 2 inches off the bottom with wings out. Also with the green drakes some people fish a winged dead cripple green drake after the emergence and do very well. I don’t have any personal experience in this

6

Some species of Caddis lay there eggs by diving or crawling below the surface. This probably didn’t have anything to do with the development of the wet fly, but imitating a diving Caddis might be a very good use for them.

Drowned flies might be another application. I know I’ve caught quite a few fish on a salmonfly imitation that has sunk.

7

Jay,
You are right about the female caddis. I meant to say that my post referenced mayflies. And, “winged Wets” are generally tied to imitate mayflies - not caddis.
But, even with a diving female caddis, when dead, they float.
I am also not talking about any insect in the film, but rather at the location one would be fishing a " winged wet" in the water column.
Thanks for pointing that out.

8

I’ll say this a winged Quill Gordon wet was a very effective fly for me. The QG exits their shuck on the on the bottom.

9

Narc,
You are right. “Some” of the Eporus eclode before arriving at the surface, but “most” do not.
Please see this:
http://www.troutnut.com/hatch/5/Mayfly-Ephemerellidae-Hendricksons-Sulphurs-PMDs-BWOs/index3.php

Warren,
You are right. Minds are rarely changed, but I think even the discussions lead to clarifications on certain subjects.
I do think challenging our thinking is a good thing.

10

Those pictures are amazing. Explains why Flick went with a pinkish cast on the light hendrickson

11

I meant to say that my post referenced mayflies. And, “winged Wets” are generally tied to imitate mayflies - not caddis.

Now that changes things totally. I’m scratching my head trying to think of a winged wet tied to represent an up wing fly (I presume you mean up wing flies not Mayflies). Generally winged wets are not tied to represent up wing flies. The Greenwell’s glory may be the only one I know of, though it would be fish only just wet. I can make you lists of winged wets tied to represent caddis flies. Can’t for the life of me think of another winged wet intended to imitate an up winged fly. Some of the Irish Dabblers may be considered a winged fly, but the wing is spread around the top half of the fly. That isn’t really what you are meaning, I’m sure. They do imitate Mayflies. That’s as close as I can come to winged wets to represent up wing flies.

Sorry Byron but I beg to differ. Very few winged wets are tied to imitate Mayflies, or other up wing flies. Of the ones I know they represent midges, caddis, terrestrial flies, fry, or are attractors.

I do think you are right, trying to use a winged wet to imitate an up wing fly would be a problem. Which is why I don’t do it, and neither have most people, as evidenced by the lack of patterns.

Cheers,
A.

12

The leadwing Coachman, Quill Gordon Wet, Light Cahill Wet, Hendrickson Winged Wet come immediately to mind. I fish a blue winged olive wet.

13

Google March brown wet. It’s one I use all the time but I’m using it during caddis hatch times. What the fish are taking it as, absolutely no one will EVER know for certain except the fish.:cool:

14

Tig,
Lots of different “March Brown Eets” come up on a google search.
As I said, my original post was about mayflies.

Most “caddis hatches” people refer to are actually sort of a reverse hatch when the females return to the surface, or dive to the bottom, to deposit eggs.

If you are fishing when these caddis are returning, there is a “diving caddis” pattern.
This isn’t mine, but representative of diving caddis flies.

15

EXACTLY! Now it just seems interesting that in the early 1900s, the William Mills Co. had many wet fly trout patterns for sale. There is an entire plate(s) of wet flies in the book Streamcraft by Holden. The copy I have was printed in 1920. If you have faith in a fly pattern/style/method/etc. then you’ll use it. Over the course of 50+ years of fly tying I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard that Mustad trout hooks are dull. Well, over that time a lot of fishers have gotten stuck with these hooks and not surprisingly even more trout!

16

You mean the part where he says “All Epeorus duns emerge from their nymphal shucks below the surface, often while still attached to the stream bed. Most species (with the exception of Epeorus pleuralis) take to the air quickly after emerging. These two factors make wet emerger patterns especially effective during Epeorus hatches.”

Several points:

  1. People have been catching trout on winged wets for millennia. Most of the early writers divided flies into hackles (i.e. wingless wets), palmers (wingless, hackled the full length) and flies (winged and not necessarily hackled). Most of, say Charles Cotton’s, flies fell into the latter category. They had names like Green Drake, Whirling Dun, Little Yellow May-Fly – they represented upwings. And as pointed out above, many winged wets that are still in common use do too.

  2. Wet flies for most of history were fished at or near the surface. Horse hair didn’t sink very well, and if you wanted to fish more than a few inches deep, you switched to bait. A winged wet awash in the film is a very good imitation of either a cripple or spent spinner.

  3. The traditional team of the threes wet flies allowed the angler fish one below the surface, one skimming the surface and one bouncing along on and off the surface. Of course you want the top dropper to be winged. That skill has unfortunately diminished with the advent of shorter rods (i.e. shorter than the 14-18 feet common until the end of the 19th century) and longer casts, but I can tell you from experience, it can be darned effective.

  4. For certain hatches, winged wets just seem to be more effective than wingless. Others, not so much. I usually fish a team of a winged wet and a wingless one, and switch them up from time-to-time (swap point an dropper) and have years of empirical data to suggest this is true.

  5. Ed Zern was a noted as a humorist, not necessarily as an expert in entomology. I remember reading the quote you mention back in the day, probably in Exit Laughing, and bought into it at the time. I’ve since seen enough similar arguments coming from dry fly purists that I realize it’s just their way of saying “we may not be catching as many fish as wet fly, but we’re more scientific and therefore better.” (Soft hackles were not in the picture in the 60’s.) I don’t buy into that line of thought at all any more.

17

Redietz
This is the quote from Troutnut.com discussing emergence method

“These are fantastic dry-fly insects. Behavior varies by species, but almost all have excellent qualities for the angler. Most eclode laboriously in the surface film, where emerger and floating nymph patterns are excellent. Others before reaching the surface, making them good wet-fly fare. Some species have been documented to engage in both forms thus opening debate over whether these two styles of emergence are driven by genetics or environmental influences.”

As you can see, it does say “most eclode laboriously in the surface film…”

18

Yes, but it was on the page about Emphemerellidae, not epeorus (which are Heptigeniidae), two very different sets of insects. The quote I included was from the epeorus page (which was what the discussion had been about.)

19

Sorry,
Got you now.
I am talking about mayflies in general. And I do use plenty of wet flies…just not winged wet flies.

For centuries, the caddis was not deemed important to fly fishing…sure is now.

20

Byron,

“For centuries, the caddis was not deemed important to fly fishing…sure is now.”

Not necessarily true. For centuries fly fishers may or may not have known what fly it was that they were imitating. They probably figured out what worked but not why. Caddis or mayfly, and I’m using that word in our terminology, not British or European, maybe they just thought of all of them (maybe to include some terrestrials) as ‘bugs’?

On water conversation from 1850 - 1st fisher: ‘Those fish are biting on some green thing on the water’.
2nd fisher: ‘Yeah. saw that bug too’.