Sparse Dressing on large hooks discussion

[Otter]

It would be interesting to see the views and experiences of well experienced wet fly fishers here regarding the pros and cons of fishing patterns tied short on larger hooks and on what types of water and during what types of hatches etc... Achieving depth is a good reason, overall sparseness of the imitation is a good reason but surely it must be a balanced approach not simply blind faith in the old universally applicable one liner "it does not seem to matter to the trout" - that line goes against all my many many many experiences of failure to deceive our adversary.

Call me an old sceptic, but there are so many things in fishing that cannot simply be accepted at face value as many anglers simply and un-wittingly pass on percieved wisdoms from one generation to the next without actually understanding the background and other things that can be so vital to successful fishing.

How often do we try fishing a particular method or way based on commonly percieved wisdoms, fail miserably and put it down to our own ineptitude and leave it at that without maybe questioning the validity of the pervcieved wisdom or at least figure out if we are in possession of the full facts.

Food for thought I hope , maybe ?

There are probably various styles to be considered here, and if no one minds I think the Tummel style with its sparse wings is worth including as it is of major historical interest and is close to being wingless in the sense that the wings are more an allusion in keeping with the allusion of wings in many wingless wets as compared to more fully dressed wings.

What strikes me immediately when approaching a discussion on this is that for it to be meaningful, one must be precise in explaining their experiences by outlining the style of fly and how they fished it, on what type of water and any comparison with same fly dressed in a standard manner.

[willowhead]

Otter.....maybe your aware of it already. But there is a very good book i would reccommend, written quite a while back. What i mean is it's not recent. It's called, As A Man Thinkith by James Allen. i read it back in my 20's.....
What first brought it to mind was when you used the word "adversary." i don't see a Trout that way.....for me, a Trout is simply a part of nature that would just as soon never want to lay eyes on me, but a man's curiosity sometimes leaves Mr. Trout no choice.
The second time i was struck to think about it, was when you used the two word phrase, "successful fishing." Over the last few years, i've come to realize that successfull fishing, is when i leave the house to go to the river. Right then and there, success has been achieved. Catching is another matter......but since i've already achieved sucess that day.....the catching is not that important. That, in a nutshell, is the 5th and highest level one can ahieve as a fly angler/conservationist. Or as i should say, conservationist/fly angler.....first things first.
Obviously there's no way i could "mind," i'm to ignorant for that.....but as far as style is concerned. i think one should invent their own.....trying to copy what others have done in the past by reading about it in books is all fine and dandy, and highly educational academically i'm sure.....but it just seems to me, that the adventure of discovery is much more exciting when you (let nature), teach yourself. The kid who's never been to school, on the bank with 20 fish in his creel.....along comes this other kid with all the best tackle who's read all the books and can't catch squat, comes to mind.
Since ("Food for thought, i hope, maybe?") your settin' the table........ p.s. kid number one, outta get to school.....learn a little bout conservation.

[Otter]

Willowhead, should I ever reach your level 5 you shall be the first I let know, in the meantime I enjoy thinking about and discussing with others the art of fooling trout and the art of tying flies to achieve the fooling. No doubt I will fool myself as often if not more often, but hopefully no one will die as a result of my pursuits.

Anyway here is two of mc's softwings tied on a size 14 in two styles.





and in about 6 - 7 weeks time, when the LDO's announce the full arrival of spring I will present them to some trout and see which, if any, they should prefer.

To follow when time permits a few greenwell's spiders, and a few flymphs tied in standard, clyde and tummel proportions to be equally presented.

[Otter]

Willowhead
Just an afterthought, for me successful fishing for me starts 1st January and Finishes 31st December, and due to too many kids and the inconsiderate necessity of trout to spawn, and the need for winters to occur I can only actually fish a short few months, the other months it is virtual fishing.

[William Anderson]

Otter, I'm glad you're asking for specific details about fishing these flies. A question comes up already that muddies the water. (no pun intended...I swear.) The previous conversation was two-fold.
One: Is there evidence to suggest a difference in the catch rate using flies tied with different body lengths? and
Two: Is there evidence to suggest a difference in the catch rate using flies tied small on larger hooks? That is, tying an imitation for a size 20 fly, on a size 18 hook.

Both questions are interesting and I would love to hear some serious anecdotal discussion that moves away from the trite "one-liners" myself. I can only add that I've fished several soft-hackles tied in the three generally discussed regional styles. I know these are generalizations as styles, but they move the conversation further than trying to parse out minutea from particular villages across a any given time period. I wish I could offer water type, species, weather, etc. It's just that I tied several in the three body lengths, fished them pretty much interchangeably and didn't note any differences. But then, I wasn't looking for any.

For starters, the two flies shown above look to me to be the same size, only with a shorter body. Do they actually fish the same?
I hope we have some folks that have productive days tying small flies on larger hooks. It's something I've never tried.

w

[willowhead]

Otter, i fully appreciate your question and situation. Like William said, it is very interesting.....i will follow this thread whole heartedly, and silently, to learn something. i just throw "food for thought" when and where i can, in order to get those who may have never let it cross their minds, a chance to look at and see things from another point of view. That's what forums are for. i'm would never try to interfere or be trite. i'm very serious about fly fishing as a way of life.....not just a sport. To see it as a mere sport, is to belittle it, and deminish it significantly imho. Hence the ceaseless emphasis on conservation. Something more fly anglers and all fisherman need to be much more vigilant about. Good fishing.....back under my rock now.

[hankaye]

Otter, Howdy;

It would be interesting to see the views and experiences of well experienced wet fly fishers here regarding the pros and cons of fishing patterns tied short on larger hooks and on what types of water and during what types of hatches etc... Achieving depth is a good reason, overall sparseness of the imitation is a good reason but surely it must be a balanced approach not simply blind faith in the old universally applicable one liner "it does not seem to matter to the trout" - that line goes against all my many many many experiences of failure to deceive our adversary.

I saw and commented on the other conversation that started in another heading on this forum.
I'll just let you know that as far as fly fishing goes, YES I am a beginner. I feel that my participation and that of other less experienced fly fishers can benefit the mix of opinions. My comments tend to be more of the questioning kind in threads such as this one. When I do ask questions it is for clarity. Fly fishing does indeed have a language all of it's own I am trying to learn that language as well as anthing else I can here. I think that, for the greater majority of members here the length of time is close to a 20 year average that they have participated in fly fishing. I only have ............ almost ONE year so please forgive me for injecting a question here and there to allow me to follow what it is that is being said. I am not trying to be sarcastic nor belligerent. I just want to not be excluded in the first sentence of a posting. That's all.

I'm done now....for now
hank

[CreationBear]

Sounds like a great project! Let me suggest a variable to you: current speed and turbulence; in other words, which works better in confused, choppy water and which works better in slower pools? I think most of us would intuit that Fly #1 with its "natural" proportions would work better in the latter, where a trout has time to inspect the offering. What I might hypothesize though is that the optics of current seams, ripples and the like might favor the "foreshortened" silhouette of Fly #2 as it comes tumbling down from upstream. Could it be the that long association between the Stewart Spider's "bit o' fluff" and heavy current has less to do with its relative ballast and more to do with how light is bending its outline underwater? Or, if it's not a matter of refraction, could it simply be a matter of velocity and "persistence of vision"? I.e. could the after-image of the "short" fly that's really hauling look more "natural" to that piscine retina than the "real thing?"

[Otter]

My apologies to Hankaye , and any others that were put off by my inexcusable use off "well experienced" .

i DO NOT SEEK TO EXCLUDE ANY POSTER, AND WELCOME ALL POSTS NO MATTER HOW MANY SEASONS YOU HAVE UNDER YOUR BELT.

[kanutripr]

I really want to thank Hank for bringing us all back to reality, temporarily, and remember what it was like when we started fly fishing (haha five whole serious years for me). I can still remember being in the fly shop with zero flies and zero real experience and not knowing where to start and afraid to ask questions.

And thanks Otter for starting an interesting discussion.


Vicki