Universal Appeal...

[michaelgmcgraw]

Messy - Spiky Rocks !

[DOUGSDEN]

Wow!
You guys are impressive! I was just reviewing all the post and the answers are terrific!
I have to agree with all of you! There doesn't seem to be any wrong answers to my question.
I have learned a great deal from reading all of your post and I really appreciate the quick responses!
Think back to when you first tied and then fished these "fuzzies" (I like that). You looked in your boxes and prob. said "No way, I am picking something else. These can't possibly work."
But, when no one was looking, you finally had the guts to tie one on and fish it. Suddenly, you are drawing an audience of fishermen (and women) from two counties over with the fish that are coming to hand because of your new found wonder fly. Next thing you know, you are signing books at a major conclave and you've just entered the next higher tax bracket......
This is my brain at work again. Please enjoy the humor!
You have to admit that there is at least some satisfaction in catching fish on a pattern that doesn't look like anything in particular but could represent alot of alive and kicking morsels. What more could we ask for? A ready made fish catching wonder! I wonder who thought up this pattern and/or system? Donald, any history associated with this one?
You folks are fantastic,
Dougsden

[willowhead]

Had never seen this great thread before...........way cool. Bottom line.....fish gotta eat. The scrubby patterns look good to me.........and i spose if it were commin' at me naturally.....i'd eat it. And since i've had more skunked days than KILLER days.....i MUST know somethin'.....

[kanutripr]

For me, anything "Hares Ear" is a mess fly. I would have to pick the Hares Ear SH as my go to messy fly, followed closely by the Olive Hares Ear SH.
One thing that I ponder is, after these flys become waterlogged they take on a very slim profile. The "buggyness" is gone. This goes for alot of scud patterns aswell. I think the buggyness catches more fishermen than fish, but it instills a sense of confidence in the fly. I still dont believe anyone can tell me what a fish percieves when it looks at our offerings. All I know is that the fish I go after are either blind or stupid. I cant figure how else I can catch them.

I may be off base here but any flies I've wetted and observed did become very slim when you pulled them out of the water but when they went back in they fluffed up once again. I'm guessing that the spiky fluffiness probably imitates many things from legs to antenna to the scruffiness of the shuck on an emerging insect. The spikiness also seems to help keep the hackle from compressing into the body as well. I guess it's up to the fish to decide what it thinks it's seeing anyway.



Vicki

[William Anderson]

The real question for me is...is the spiky appearance or action a trigger? Aside from luck and indescrete feeders, is there something special that makes the messy body important? Check out Bill (tie2fish)'s new post in the fly dressing section.

w

[kacbo]

I believe that key word is nonspecific. March Brown Spider has mix of color that are common among bugs and more important can be tied in appropriate size. Most important feature is the nonspecific shape. These three features (shape, size, color - respectively important) plus movement of the fly in water due soft hackle makes March Brown Spider that good.

I believe in words of Gary LaFontaine, that fish keys on positives, not negatives... so even one of the features (shape, size, color, movement) is enough on most days.

Speaking of famous qoutes, there is one by Skues, commenting March Brown Wet (winged!):
"...and there is no doubt that it is an excellent fly, and, as generally tied, quite a poor imitation of the natural March Brown, and quite a passable imitation of almost anything else."
http://www.archive.org/stream/minortact ... arch+Brown

[hankaye]

kacbo, Howdy;

Thanks for the link. Now I have another in my library ........ and soon to be digested.

GAPCF (General All Purpose Catcher of Fish), I'm likin' that concept. Sorta makes the
process of decision making less confusing.

hank

[NJpatbee]

Although he wrote his book mostly in reference to dry flies, Len Wright's "Fishing the Dry Fly as a Living Insect" makes a simple point that applies to all artificial flies and trout fishing in general: Trout are exposed to a lot of "stuff" in the stream's current and in their own simple way have a choice of nymphs, emergers, drowned flies, duns, and your artificial fly. One of the most neglected attributes in fly-fishing literature is the fact that our artificals should look and act "real", whether its the motion of your soft-hackle, a tiny hare's ear thorax to trap air or show movement along with the hackle, the living gill appearance of a ribbed fur, or the "sudden inch" of fluttering caddis pattern. Something triggers a trout to take a passing by morsel, and I have taken to heart the idea that it is a simple as something good to eat and alive. For some patterns an overall "fuzziness" may prove effective, while for others such as the Tups Indispensible a light, slim, and somewhat reflective abdomen with a small thorax and active hackle together convince the trout. It's a key reason why the hyper-imitative molded nymphs never took off, and an important factor making the soft-hackle so effective.

[Old Hat]

Who knows what the fish see. I actually use sparseness or messyness as a tool in presentation, usually dependent on water variables. But if you want to know the purpose of all that messyness in a flymph go to the source.

http://flymph.com/html/literature.html

[hankaye]

OldHat, Howdy;

Thanks for bringing us back to the basics.

Always been a firm believer in the basics, …… without which all seems to go awry.

hank