Universal Appeal...

[DOUGSDEN]

Ladies and Gents,
I have been curious about a certain subject for at least 34 years now. It's the seemingly universal appeal of jumbled up looking messes such as the March Brown Spider, certain Caddis immitations, and even scruffy looking flymph patterns (intentional or un-intentional). On the surface, it doesn't make sense. Why fish would mistake this fuzzy, spiky, unkempt mess for anything good to eat. Even Skues pondered this very question and I don't think he was totally satisfied with why it worked so well. I know all the explainations of what this pattern is suppose to immitate and they are all good and I have no argument with any of them. People often ask "If you had to pick one fly.....which would it be?" The March Brown, in all it's fuzzy glory, tops the list. Others are nipping at it's heals however. In almost every instance, if you knot on a sparsly hackled March Brown and toss it in, things happen. From the bluegill pond to the smooth glides of the chalk stream, the fuzzy mess has universal appeal. Thank the Good Lord for that!
What are your thoughts and experiences and what is your favorite "mess" of a fly?
Dougsden

[DUBBN]

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.

[tie2fish]

My theory is that the loose/misdirected/spiky fibers trap air bubbles, which in turn mimic the gas bubbles that help aquatic insects split their larval/nymphal skins during emergence. Just a theory ...

[William Anderson]

There's always the theory that without very specific detail...they might interpret what they see as what they want to see. We certainly do it all the time. Indescript allows the mind to fill in the rest of the information. And many of us have brains similar to those of trout. And some the size of even cruder fish. I'm not naming names...you know who you are.

My question is how messy is messy? A moderately fuzzy Flymph body can range a great deal. Spikey or just soft and wild. I believe it helps to include the kind of motion in a design the imitates the type of motion found in the naturals. That would include gills on some, swimming, legs, tails, etc. Maybe even a pulsing of hackle goes a long way to represent a living, active (nutritious) bite.

This is only conjecture, but doesn't it follow that any fiber on a body that moves, adds a living quality to a fly? Don't hate me, but I often find brassies or even copper johns to be very effect. I often add a softhackle to the brassies, because I can't imagine that it's not more lifelike. Sawyer must tied a very slim pheasant nymph. But I believe..on faith, that the fibers of a herl body have movement...trap air, move water around the body like a natural insect.

or maybe...we just like messy. This is an excellent question. I'm curious to hear all the theories.

[hankaye]

Dub-ya, Dub-ya, Dub-ya, Howdy;

There's always the theory that without very specific detail...they might interpret what they see as what they want to see. We certainly do it all the time. Indescript allows the mind to fill in the rest of the information. And many of us have brains similar to those of trout. And some the size of even cruder fish. I'm not naming names...you know who you are.

italics by hank

Really ....

I realize that you are probably speaking of humanity in general rather then speaking of individuals, some may not .............
The problems of strictly written communications ..................

hank

[William Anderson]

Hank, It's just stupid humor, mostly self-depricating. Not true, not directed at anyone I know, and not even directed at humanity. Sorry...I'll add the emoticon. You really have to assume I wouldn't intend an insult. Not even to the cruder fish.

w

[JohnP]

I think Mr. Anderson has hit the nail on the head. A suggestive pattern can be taken by the fish for any of a number of things. And in fast water, a fish does not have much time to decide whether to try to eat something or not.

[hankaye]

Dub-Ya, Howdy;

After what happened a few months ago, I reckon I'm still a bit sensitive to the idea that some folks out 'there' take alot of things that are written as what it says instead of how it was intended.

As far as being smarter than a trout, I ain't .... otherwise I'd go catch trout instead of going fishin' for trout

hank

[Otter]

I think trout are like us, just plain stupid, there I said it.

From my humble experience I tend to categorise ( for my own sanity ) trout feeding into the following. The accuracy of this is wholely questionable but it suits me and prevents me from going doo la la when I can't attract a fin.

1. Not actively feeding, but will take the occasional morsel, will not move far to intercept and are most likely to take small stuff, and fuzzy small stuff can work well in this instance.

2. Very Active, have moved into prime feeding lies and feeding in well defined patterns. When these prime feeding lies are in good riffly water,which they quite often are, and when there are multiple foodstuffs available, a fuzzy wuzzy pattern may fish nearly as well as a percieved correct imitative pattern.
An experienced fuzzy wuzzy fisher will likely outfish an angler that is not able to correctly switch his imitation to match what the trout are doing but rarely will outfish a really experienced imitative angler. Off course this is not always the case but from my own experience on my local river it is more often the case than not.

3. Semi Active, grouped up and hoovering anything that moves in the right way in the feeding zone. This behaviour tends to early and late season when fly life is limited and fish tend to be on the edge of flows in slightly slacker water. This is a funny one as the feeding zone tends to be very narrow defined bands of water. if there is major competition between trout for available food then fuzzy of the right size can do serious work but cannot be guranteed to always yield results.


If I was to make a definitive point of view on fuzzies I would say that if both Caddis and upwings are actively on the menu then a right sized /coloured fuzzy can be reasonably effective - just change your presentation style to carry off the illusion for each type. It really is a question of personal preference of whether u prefer to fish general ptterms or more specific.

Whatever the hairstyle you prefer on your imitations, its how you fish em that will make the difference .

[Ruard]

I will not say anything about trout and also nothing about running water, because my experience with them are in my opinion not long enough.

We fish in canals and the water is not running sometimes it moves a little. you can take fish with any fly if there are several fish in a school. They have to eat every creature in there environment. So they must strike faster than their neighbours. If the fly has movement then more fish of the school will try to strike and movement means live and something that is alive and more little than yourself you can eat it. So movement helps and that is why we give movement to our flies by a figure of eight or something like that. Dead drift mostly give no strike at all. So I go for messy and spiky flies.

Greeting