Sparse Dressing on large hooks discussion

[Soft-hackle]

I'm going to add a bit more after reading more. Flies that work the best, to me at least, are flies which are overall impressionistic. The argument for the successful fishing of a bare hook might have a little weight, here, in arguing to that point. The point being that, if fished correctly, there are times when a bare hook will catch fish, and that the impression the fish is getting is it is something to eat. I'm not say this is the way to fish, but if it occurs, one must consider it.

As I've said before, I do not think replicating an insect to a T when tying for fishing makes a pretty useless fly. Overly realistic flies leave no room for the fish to interpret what it is they are seeing, and they usually can tell that the fly of this sort is fake or just does not possess the "life" it needs.

Impressionistic flies, like our wingless wets, leave room for the fish to "see" something they can interpret as something alive. There is a thing humans do which is called "closure". Closure is a process wherein the brain fills in what is missing in what we see. This could be a process the trout do as well. Of course, this is conjecture. We attribute trout with having the ability to discern colors, and variations in color. We attribute them having the ability to discern size differences, and behavioral differences. Perhaps, they also possess the ability to commit closure. I believe minimalistic flies have a place in our arsenal, and while they probably will not work all the time, there may be times or places when they work quite well.

On the other end of the spectrum is the idea that trout are totally stupid and incapable of making such fine distinctions. In this case they do not "see" the hook as dangerous or something that should not be there. They take the fly simply by reaction to a stimulus-which somewhat looks like and acts like food. It's a stimulus-response thing. If this is the case, it would not matter how much of the hook is dressed and how much is not. If it somewhat looks like food, acts like food, it is FOOD.

I have heard many arguments as to trout being very selective, at times. I've fished in situations where they seem to be. Is it selectivity to behavior? Selectivity to size? Selectivity to color? Selectivity to body shape? Perhaps it is all. Could it be selectivity to something we are totally unaware of? I know trout have a sensory detection device in their lateral line. Who can tell what information this passes along to the fish?

Now it is is possible that trout are a lot like us in that, at times, we pay close attention to details, and at other times, not so close. Why, however, would a trout need to pay closer attention to what it is doing/seeing? Hmm, could be some good conjecture on this one.

So, I don't think we should discount bare bones flies. Lots to think about.

Mark

[William Anderson]

Mark, I can't argue with anything that you've written above. You are spot on. However, and we are really boardering on completely neurotic to a fault at this point, the question is not about the livliness of the fly or body, the behavoir of the fly or body, or the color or the fly or the body, but only of the length or sparseness of the body. Yes the fly needs to be lively. The body also needs to have attributes to send the message that this is food; sparse, silhouettes, or only behaviorally similar. All of the theories postulated so far are correct...at one time or another. The question for me, and this is why I find this important (and interesting) is the moment, waist deep in cold water, when you (meaning all of us) open your box, which fly do you have the most confidence in...and why. Not the quesswork or recalling what you've read, but the reason for your confidence in one fly over the other.

Yes...all flies work at some point, but I like to tie, and I like to catch trout, so I'm looking to optimize my chances, and I am interested in this issue of the body. The big 5: presentation, size, silhouette, ......, and color (what was the fourth one? behavior?) are far more important than the question of immitation length vs. shorter bodies, but this is the question.

It's the same as color (or colour for some readers - smiley). The trout may not be able to discern nuance in color...maybe they can, but when you tie you DO choose a color, and when you choose a pattern from your box, you do choose a pattern with a color, so which color should you have the most confidence in, given the conditions and why. So it is with bodies. As you wrap thread around the hook, you have to choose the length, and choosing from the box, you choose a fly with a body length, so what should that length be, given the situation. Clearly there is no way of knowing the correct answer and there is not one, but you do tie and you do choose, so rather than just leaving that question open assuming you can't know leaves me wondering, which translates to just...guessing when you're on the stream.

So as I tie...I want to have more confidence that I'm making the best choices. This thread may seem over the top for some...but I have really enjoyed it. Thanks for all the contributions. I would like to hear in a simple line why you (each of you) choose what you do, when you're wrapping silk around your hook. Just for simplicities sake. Experimentation, immitation, tradition, novelty or tried and true personal success...are all correct answers. What is yours?


w

[kanutripr]

Chironomid ties are barely more than a plain hook - just saying.

Interesting topic but I don't believe the hook itself turns the fish off (but then who am I?).



Vicki

[Soft-hackle]

William,
Selecting a fly does hinge on experience and current insect activity. I tend to select something somewhat non-descript, representing a rather large range of insect stages and types in an appropriate color for the insects that are or might be present.. This is why I like wingless wets. With that said, I would tend to select a well, full dressed fly. If, for some reason I suspect a sparser dressing would work, I'd give it a whirl.

Next, you have got to consider what mode the fish might be in by observation and experience. If we agree "selectivity" is true, we have to determine whether the fish are in "selective mode" or "opportunistic mode". I find fish are, for the most part, opportunistic, with an occasional deviation into selective(During large hatches of easily taken insects) mode. One has to select a fly that will represent a large range of insects and it must be fished in a manner that tells the fish it's something to eat. In opportunistic mode, the trout mught pay less attention to color, size, and sillouhette. Take a good Leisenring Spider (Hare's Ear spider), present it well, and I'm sure you will be successful.

In selective mode, selection is based upon the natural insect, most likely. Watching fish feed will clue me in as to how to present the fly. We've discussed selectivity, somewhat in another thread, and I have my doubts as to whether fish key in on insect stage as they do insect, but, again, watching how the fish are feeding, often tells the story in regards to presentation. I think of selectivity as a preference. I don't think trout have a preference. I think their built in survival instinct tells them to feed on the most abdundant food source which is easiest to get.


Mark

[michaelgmcgraw]

My choice in what fly I tie or select to fish with is based on many years of fishing the same waters. Most always I go with an impressionist style to copy the insects I have encountered on these waters. IF I travel somewhere to fish I make a general impression of the insects I might encounter. These patterns almost always are in a Flymph/soft hackle style.

[CreationBear]

One thing I'm curious about is the "posture" of insects that are in heavy current, and how much the overall size of the bug affects its rigidity. (May one of y'all engineering types can come up with a constant for the tensile strength of chitin. ) In other words, it would be my guess that the appearance of the little buggers (say a #18 or smaller) isn't really affected by current that much, while big stoneflies, hexes, et al, would have their bodies contorted when caught in the "spin cycle."

If that's the case, I'd expect that "anatomically correct" tiny soft hackles would look natural in all currents and conditions, but for larger flies (say, #12's and up) in heavy current, an unnaturally rigid abdomen tied along the the hook shank would make for a "negative" trigger of a sort. In other words, perhaps the only natural looking part of a big fly in current would be the hackle and thorax (if of course we're assuming that the fish's brain "edits out" the rest of the hook.)

Now, somebody go and tie up some "wiggle-nymph" soft hackles on short-shank hooks--I'd do it myself, but I think Mark would ban me for life if I posted photos, and rightfully so.

[Soft-hackle]

Wiggle nymph soft-hackles, hmm, I'd be interested in seeing those. Actually they'd be wiggle bodied soft-hackles. Interesting! (Oh, Ray might have beat you to it.)

Mark

[letumgo]

Yeah, I have already tyed a wiggle bodied soft hackle and posted it recently. Mark let me of the first time with a warning... If it happens again I owe Mark a dozen for his fly box.

[michaelgmcgraw]

That wiggle body thing for soft hackles,hmmm. . .
I know this could be heresy in the making but if you add a tail to your partridge & orange or similar patterns it does add some
extra movement. The tail would be from the same feather as the hackle.

[hankaye]

Soft-hackle, Howdy;

Plus anyone else, exoskeletal critters are not really known for their flexibility. Sure in one direction like a Lobster or crayfish folding it’s tail. They are not so well suited for side to side movement.
Like the Knights of olde in their suits of armour. That and the good old strength to weight ratio of which we humans are generally last in these comparisons. Leads me to believe that unless it is a true maelstrom anything smaller than a 4 would just ride it out and not really be bothered by it to much nor would it be flexed very much, unless it wanted to be (Vicki, I use "it" as a generic term as they are too small to sex whilst on the move).
Only my thoughts so please help yourselves to the portion that you feel may apply, discard the rest.

hank