FLYMPH FORUM

Oh yeah!

Really? How far down this slippery slope dare we go? Anything with soft hackles?

This is a crawl upwards from "Nymphs" IMO.

I do agree though when the title says "A Forum to Discuss the Wingless Wet Fly"

I'm on the fence...and its rather uncomfortable.

Bill,

I understand your concern. Any changes to the forum come with the risk of upsetting the longstanding balance of the forum. The winged wet fly section is intended to contain the types of winged wet flies that were fished by Skues, Leisenring and Hidy, Hopefully, along side the simple European winged wets (i.e. - Clyde, Tummel, Derbyshire, Tweed, Hampshire, Teme, Usk, Commonplace, Henwing, etc.) style flies.



In the past I have posted these sorts of flies into the "Fishing Cabin" section of the forum, even though I think then are very closely related to the wingless wet flies, and their history. Unfortunately, these posts quickly get lost among other things in the Fishing Cabin. It is sometimes difficult to go back and find them between the other types of general posts in the Fishing Cabin.

Yes, it could be a slippery slope, but one I am hoping one that can be embraced without damaging the nature of the Flymph Forum we love so much.

Not what you had in mind Ray

Not quite...troublemaker...

letumgo wrote:Bill,

I understand your concern. Any changes to the forum come with the risk of upsetting the longstanding balance of the forum. The winged wet fly section is intended to contain the types of winged wet flies that were fished by Skues, Leisenring and Hidy, Hopefully, along side the simple European winged wets (i.e. - Clyde, Tummel, Derbyshire, Tweed, Hampshire, Teme, Usk, Commonplace, Henwing, etc.) style flies.



In the past I have posted these sorts of flies into the "Fishing Cabin" section of the forum, even though I think then are very closely related to the wingless wet flies, and their history. Unfortunately, these posts quickly get lost among other things in the Fishing Cabin. It is sometimes difficult to go back and find them between the other types of general posts in the Fishing Cabin.

Yes, it could be a slippery slope, but one I am hoping one that can be embraced without damaging the nature of the Flymph Forum we love so much.

This needs to be stickied at the top so members get an idea on guidelines.

Unfortunately I do not have the necessary privileges to "sticky" posts. Perhaps Jim could help out with this.

My opinion, winged wets are very similar to wingless wets, the two representing different stages of an insect. One might argue that a winged wet tied to simulate an emerging insect (& many do emerge fully winged) is the very definition of a flymph. Both are useful. Leisenring carried both, & for good reason; & nowhere in his writings have I found any indication that he defined the soft-hackle style by a lack of wings, but rather, defined it by natural materials, motion & obfuscation (simulation). It is an approach to design that is not limited to the wingless designs alone. Nor is it limited to the examples given on that old English fly chart, forgive me for saying so. I suspect adherence to the wingless designs alone was not what Leisenring had in mind, he was far too practical an angler for that kind of tight framing. Just my take. I've no say about what defines this place. In any case I am glad to see this fitting addition. And yeah, I'd say it is a step up from the 'nymph' section -- & hey, if the 'nymph' section didn't pollute the place, then I certainly doubt this will.

Roadkill wrote:

Not what you had in mind Ray

Hmmmmm.... Could be just "unfinished"... put it back in the vise and throw some big hackle to it!