> some general advice on all these flies, the best ones, and could you possibly give me an > outline of these definitions? I am really floundering with all these names.
It is very hard to give general advice, or even specific advice on such wide ranging matters, and some of the questions you asked require very complex answers and explanations, but I will do my best. I warn you now, I have some pretty firm views on some of these things, and as a consequence this will be long and involved!
With regard to the "outline of definitions", basically, no! I can't give you one, at least not one which would make much sense to you, and it would be useless anyway. Even trying to give you a broad outline would take far too long, and be quite pointless in any case. Indeed I would consider it a disservice! I will try to explain why I think so.
The desire to define, categorise, and name various things seems to be an innate human trait. Unfortunately, in many cases, and this is one of them, it merely causes more confusion. This is mainly because people look at it from the wrong perspective. The only really sensible way to define these things in this particular case is to know the function, ( whether designed to float or sink for instance, how to dress and fish it for a specific purpose, when, etc), and what the artificial is actually designed to represent when used in a specific manner. This is of course complicated when the vast majority are not dressed to resemble any naturals at all, but to meet some definition of an artificial, or some pattern or type which somebody once invented, and perhaps then only on a whim, with little if any concern for, or even knowledge of, any natural insect.
Many of these names and definitions are completely arbitrary, and some are quite wrong, even to the extent that the definition is a contradiction in terms, some have changed over the years, various people have widely differing ideas on things, and so on. "Wingless wets" which you mentioned, is a complete misnomer which basically arose because artificial flies dressed "only" with hackles to represent the wings, are different to flies which have "extra" wings, ( as well as hackles to represent "legs), made of feather fibre slips or similar to represent the wings. In those cases where no "extra" wings are present, some refer to these flies as "wingless wets". Just silly really, makes no sense at all, even to those who know what is meant, but that's how it is. "Upright Double Split Wing Dry Fly" is a fairly old definition which I have seldom seen used recently. Probably because hardly anybody dresses them any more. At least this "definition", gives an inkling of the wing construction and general purpose, if you know what the terms mean, but is otherwise just as pointless really. A lot of these terms and descriptions predicate extensive knowledge of the subject matter. Unless you have that, the names and definitions are largely useless. Learning the names and definitions independently of anything else is also completely useless in my opinion, because it wont do you any good at all.
The flies now sometimes referred to as "Wingless wets", and many variations of the basic hackled designs, have been referred to in various ways, "Hackles", "Spiders", "Flymphs", and some people go to some lengths to "define" them, and can become passionate about it. In my opinion, this is completely pointless from an angling perspective. One should know what a fly is designed to represent, and how to use it. What one actually calls it, or how one categorises it, is basically immaterial. Of course it is convenient when discussing these things to have some "common terms" as general descriptors, but these are only of use if you know what they are, and the people who are discussing them more or less agree on what those descriptors mean.
Adhering to various "strict" definitions or patterns or even dressing sequences, ( as some advocate in regard to traditional North Country Spiders for instance), is completely useless from an angling perspective, and wont catch you a single fish unless you know how to dress them properly for your intended purpose, and when and how to use them. Some materials are in my experience quite important to the success of some flies, but by no means all the old patterns or indeed virtually ANY patterns at all are completely dependent on specific materials, excepting those cases where the material has a specific function that other similar materials don't have.
A lot depends on why these materials were chosen to begin with, and how they affect the fly's appearance or behaviour. In many cases these things were chosen arbitrarily, and in the majority of such cases it doesn't matter whether you use the original material or a substitute. Even in those cases where the material was carefully chosen as part of the design, there will invariably be a substitute which works as well. I do prefer some specific materials for some of my flies, and this is based on personal experience. I have found some materials to work better than others on some of my flies, but I have not tried every single possible material or combination of materials. When I have found something that works extremely well, I stick with it.
There is not a lot of point in trying to "improve" flies that work extremely well. How are you going to improve them? They obviously do the job, you can not ask or expect more than that. No artificial fly is a "magic bullet", and whatever you do you will never find an infallible fly, that is manifestly impossible. Fish wont even always take the naturals, so it would be foolish in the extreme to expect them to always take an artificial, regardless of how "good" it might be. Also, how are you going to decide that some other fly is "better"? There is no sensible way to tell. Your only option is to test the flies under similar circumstances. If you catch ten fish with one fly under such circumstances, and ten fish with another fly under such circumstances, which is better? Of course if you catch no fish with one fly and ten fish with another, then the fly you caught no fish with is probably not as good, but there is no way to be certain, it might be better under other circumstances.
However, if you catch fish consistently with a certain fly under certain circumstances, then that is in my opinion a "good" fly, and unlikely to be bettered. It might not work every time, in fact it most certainly wont, but if it works say 70% of the time under specific circumstances, then it is a really really good fly, and considering all the other factors involved here, unlikely to be bettered in any meaningful way, and even if it were possible to "improve" it, how will you know? You caught five fish on one fly and four on another, so the first fly is better? There is no meaningful way to make direct comparisons of that nature. People still do it all the time, disregarding logic and common sense. The only way to make sensible comparisons at all is over time and under similar circumstances, and apart from being an imperfect method in itself, this also by its very nature takes time. Lots of time and effort, and this just for ONE natural fly!
There are far too many factors involved to make positive pronouncements about lots of things. You are playing the probabilities, the "whims" of fish, variations in presentation, skill, weather, and many other things. The probabilities, when coupled with logic and common sense, indicate that you will be most consistently successful with a good imitation of what the fish are taking, well presented, and this is borne out in practice over time. There is really no room for any other "strategy" if you want to be successful. Having a massive box full of flies is contra-productive, but I will mention that later.
What applies to definitions also applies to individual names, quite apart from some of the more outlandish modern names which people use for their fly patterns, which say absolutely nothing at all about the type or function of the fly, even quite simple names which are widely accepted are more or less useless to an an angler who actually wants to catch fish with them.
Take the "Hare's Ear", it would be hard to find a more "standard" name for a fly, but this "name" says absolutely nothing about the fly. Here are some "Hare's ears";
http://www.google.de/search?q=hare%27s+ ... 22&bih=604
You will barely find two alike. There are thousands upon thousands of variations, many of which differ completely in form, function, purpose, and ingredients. So the name is actually meaningless! Of course you can qualify such names further, as in "Hare's ear nymph", which at least tells you that the fly is presumably designed to represent an actual nymph, but you still have no idea at all which, or how to dress it or use it. In order to be able to use that fly in any sensible fashion you have to be able to relate it to something or other, and the only sensible way to do that is to know what it is designed to represent, and how it should be used. You may well catch a few fish if you don't know anything at all about the fly, fish can be extremely catholic in their tastes, and will often grab anything at all that looks like food to them, and they will also grab other things as well! However, you will definitely catch far fewer than you would if you knew what the fish were taking, used a suitable representation, and fished it correctly.
The only really sensible way to "define" flies, for an angler whose main aim is to catch fish, is to learn what they are designed to represent when dressed in a specific way and how and when to use these specific dressings. In other words, to study the naturals.
Nowadays this is actually the only sensible course of action, the number of artificial fly patterns extant outnumbers the naturals any angler is ever likely to need, or could possibly use, by a very large margin, and the number is increasing all the time.
However, this is not what the vast majority of people actually do.
Of course, although most people who dress flies will say they dress them to catch fish, and may actually firmly believe that, that is not what many of them actually do. They have lots of other reasons for doing it, and they are also firmly bound by their traditions, beliefs, background, inclinations, and experience, or the lack of it, and this materially affects their approach to the matter, how they go about it, and what they produce. This is quite apart from professional dressers, authors, and others, whose primary motivation may well be to sell or promote their flies. This skews things considerably. You can't sell anything to a fish, or bullshit it either! The same does not apply to anglers!
If you want to chat along with people on various boards, at the local club, etc, in an apparently "knowledgeable" manner, then you must perforce learn some of the jargon and background they use, but you should be aware that knowing stuff like this wont do you any good at all as far as catching fish is concerned. Indeed, in my experience there are a large number who can "talk the talk", but only a few can actually "walk the walk". Also, being a very good fly-dresser, or caster, or angling historian, or author, or tackle manufacturer, may have very little to do with actual angling skill, although it may play a part of course.
Before you waste a great deal of time and effort on learning a lot of useless jargon, meaningless fly names, "definitions", and a whole lot of other angling related stuff, by rote, or filling your fly box with loads of "names", you would be better advised to learn something about the insects on your local river or lake, where you are actually going to fish, what they look like, how they behave, when they are present, when the fish take them, and so on. With this knowledge you can decide for yourself what flies you need and how to use them. On a perfectly simple basis, if you look at the naturals, and can see no resemblance at all in any artificials that are recommended, and no good reason to use them, then DONT! Use something YOU think might work. If it looks good to you, it will probably look good to the fish as well. If you have no idea what it is, there is a good chance it wont work very well. You don't need to know anything at all about artificials in order to do this. Just ask yourself, "does it look right?". Of course you can take advice when given it, and capitalise on the experience and knowledge of others, but think about it, and don't just accept it blindly.
Fly-fishing and related matters are fraught with myths, traditions, misconceptions, confusion, jargon, precepts, wildly differing opinions, beliefs so strong they are almost religious in nature quite regardless of facts or logic, and the whole complex is more or less delicately overlain with vast amounts of bullshit. This is heavily compounded nowadays by commercial interest. Fly-fishing is an industry, with all that entails. Some people will tell you anything at all if it means they can sell you something. There are others who will bullshit you all day long, apparently because they think they can, or it makes them feel good, or whatever. Others will try to impress you with their knowledge of various matters, and boast of their skills. You will invariably find that those who actually have these things in good measure do not boast about it, and nor will they try to bullshit you. Many, if asked, will try to explain things, some will avoid all contact. These people have no need to boast or try to impress others and would see no point in it anyway.
People do not become first class anglers in order to impress others, they do it for themselves, and having done so, have no need to boast about it, ( apart from commercial considerations which are now rife). There are also some very complex social phenomena involved nowadays, and this can motivate some odd things as well! The internet has also introduced a lot of oddballs to the mix, who have found a place to make themselves heard without the risk of getting punched on the nose, and they are often extremely strident and abusive, to the extent of actually drowning others out, or causing them to retire, these can be safely ignored! Indeed, that is undoubtedly the best policy.
However all this may be, one major problem facing most beginners is just to dig through the bullshit, then they can actually start on the misconceptions, jargon, etc etc. If you approach things properly from the start, then you can actually avoid most of it, and start catching fish quickly and consistently. If you don't approach it properly, you will waste an unconscionable amount of time wading through bullshit, wasting money on what is basically useless to you, learning bad habits, and general silliness instead, indeed, once you are deep enough in it, you may never get out of it! This assumes of course that your main motivation is actually fishing and catching fish! If you are doing it for some other reason, then I assume you will need a different approach! This also depends on where you are going to fish and what you are going to fish for. Not much use learning about ephemerid nymphs if you are going to fish for Tarpon!
If you are going to be "stockie-bashing" then that has its own rules and jargon, and also its different approaches. It is rather a bastardised form of fly-fishing for the most part, but many do it, and they doubtless enjoy it. Not much I can say about it really. I don't fish for stocked fish, for a variety of reasons, which would take far too long to explain here, nor do I fish in competitions, so I will not make any further comment on it.
Whatever you do, the right approach is the key to the whole affair, just as it is the key to catching the fish you wish to catch.
As to "filling your box up" with flies, there is no more pointless or self-defeating exercise for a beginner, ( or for most others either!). Six good flies that are well chosen, well dressed and which you know how and when to use, will consistently beat any other box full of flies in existence. Boxes full of flies don't catch fish! Well chosen, well dressed, and well presented flies do.
This applies to stocked rainbows as well, although if the fish have been chucked in the lake half an hour ago, and have been eating pellets in a stew pond their whole lives before that, all bets are off! There is no sensible or logical way to decide on a suitable artificial fly for such fish. They wont even recognise a natural as food until they have at least some time to acclimatise! People who fish "snail" imitations of clipped deerhair whose resemblance to floating pellets verges on "perfect", are merely deluding themselves that they are "fly-fishing". Although it might be argued that they are indeed "matching the hatch". In any case, the skills required to catch such fish consistently are different, and there are a lot of "ifs and buts" involved, but the basic approach is still similar in many respects. "Chucking the fly-box at them" is not a good idea in any case. If you have absolutely no idea what to use or why, then you need more information, not more flies.
You should always have a good reason for mounting a fly. Just trying flies at random will not be consistently successful. Not even on densely stocked lakes full of fish! If you don't have a reason, then think about it and observe until you come up with one! It might not work, but it is far more likely to work than any random choice, and if it does work, ( which it will quite often), then you have the satisfaction of having "worked it out". Of course, the better the reasons you can find the better your choice is likely to be, that's why you need the information. The name of the fly you use is irrelevant, you just need to know when to use it, and preferably why.
Of course you should try to garner as much information as you can about various things, but you should not blindly accept what anyone says or writes, and you should consciously avoid getting into bad habits, or making illogical choices, or even worse, random choices, the only way to achieve this is to think about it! Does it make sense to you? If it doesn't, then it most likely is not sensible or useful. If you don't understand something and nobody can give you a reasonable explanation, then it is not unlikely that somebody is bullshitting! Anything you blindly accept WILL cause you problems down the road. Some things are so incredibly silly that it beggars belief, but people still believe them and try to emulate them. You can waste months or years on some things, simply because you accepted them, instead of thinking about them. The more you learn the better you are able to evaluate things, and the more precisely you know what to learn, and how to build on what you know.
Fly-fishing and fly-dressing are about collecting the right information, observing, and THINKING about it! Not at all about learning a lot of stuff by rote, or because somebody says so, or the latest magazine says a fly is "infallible", or some material is a "must have". I will guarantee you that it is not! People have been dressing flies and catching fish on them for centuries, and the vast majority did so without all this. Some of them were absolute masters, just as a few still are today. Some of these have special talents of course, but even these only become masters because they think about it and practice a lot. That is the only way you will become good at it.
Knowing all the names of all the flies ever invented, how they are "defined" by various people, or indeed having them all in your box, will not catch you a single fish! Indeed, it will actually prevent you from catching many because you will never learn what to do with them all. Knowing a few basics about natural flies, what they look like and how they behave, will catch you a lot of fish in time.
Finally, regardless of how you go about it, you will not learn any of these things in five minutes, nor will you acquire the necessary skill to implement what you learn very quickly either. There are no short cuts. It takes time and application, although some things go a lot faster if you have a talent for them. Nevertheless, if you avoid a lot of nonsense, you will save a lot of otherwise wasted time and effort. People spend lifetimes on these things, and still never learn as much as they would like to, or become as good as they might wish to. Really, I think that in some cases it is more a vocation than a "hobby" or a "pastime". Also, to a great extent, you get out what you put in to it.
If you can only go fishing a half a dozen times a year, and you don't have time to sit and study things, dress flies etc, then you are not going to get as good at it as somebody who spends all his time doing it. Also of course, the less time you have to spend on these things, the less time you have to waste on silliness if you want to get even moderate results. You must of course decide what is silly and what is not. But this is not as hard as it might seem as long as you think about things.
WHY you do these things is also of major importance to your eventual results. Personally, I have always geared my efforts towards actually catching fish, in the manner I wish to do it, but there are lots of people who spend far more time on dressing nice flies or building rods and all the other enjoyable ancillary stuff, than they do actually fishing, simply because they enjoy doing that, or it is easier for them to do that than actually going fishing, or many other reasons. Your "target" defines to a considerable extent what you have to do and how you have to go about it if you want to be successful.
My main "target" was always actually catching fish, invariably in a specific manner depending on how I felt at the time, or on what I wished to learn etc. That incidentally is not at all the same thing as simply catching as many fish as possible , at all costs, with any method. I can do that too, but it's not something I would normally do, it actually gets boring pretty quickly. How you catch your fish is just as important as catching them at all, at least it is to me. Apart from those provisos however, and within those parameters, my main aim is to catch fish. All the other stuff is enjoyable and interesting, often intensely so, but I have never lost sight of my main aim, and I have never allowed ancillaries to blind me to it, regardless of how enjoyable, interesting, and absorbing I found them, they were always still only means to an "end", although of course there is no "end" as such, just a constant progression which gives a lot of pleasure, which also increases as one progresses.
Of course one can enjoy these things without becoming "good" or "expert" at anything at all. A nice day on the river is a pleasurable experience in itself. So are a few pleasant hours at the dressing bench, or reading angling books, or perusing an angling forum, or whatever takes your fancy. Best not to lose sight of that either! If you become frustrated because things are "not going right", then you are doing something wrong! The main idea is to enjoy yourself catching fish ( or at least fishing for them!
), or fly-dressing, or whatever, it is not a competition, or a race, and there is nobody forcing you. It should not matter to you at all how somebody else goes about it, except insofar as you might learn something from them and thus increase your own enjoyment.Consider also that all the major "advances" in fly-fishing and fly-dressing were made by people who thought about how to improve their own fishing. They did not slavishly copy others, abide by various definitions, or limit themselves to conventional wisdom or tradition. They THOUGHT about what they were doing and why. There is nothing to stop you doing the same. You might not go down in history, but you will certainly enjoy yourself more, and catch a lot more fish!
Regards and tight lines!
Mike Connor
