1. Troutnut Forum
›
2. Fly Fishing
›
3. KIS(S) in fly selection

The thread on simplicity and Dano's story about the gentleman he met made me think a bit. Do we actually carry too many flies? Are we over-infatuated with fly selection? Has anyone noticed that the simplest patterns are, most often, the most effective? Are we prone, as creatures that pay very close attention to detail because of the nature of our sport, prone to not keeping it simple? How exact must we be in fly imitation?

Wow-a lot to think about. Any answers?

Mark

Mark,
Before I can go into greater detail I need one clarification.
Which fly are we talking about? On second thought I think I'll just zip it shut and stay out of this one.


Hoping all is taken in fun!

in theory, the more you know, simpler the whole process becomes. eventually, if you persist, you grow out of the phase where you buy and carry every fly known to angler-kind in those "boxes bigger than Baltimore." (i'm in debt to Dano for life for that one!)

when you know what is going to hatch and what you can do best to imitate it, you head for the stream with exactly that, plus one or two others in case the fish don't fall for "exactly that". and when you're fishing a completely new stream, the simplest thing is to hang a bhpt off a Wulff and go enjoy the day. or stop at the fly shop and get some local advice and 6 flies...:-)

now, personally, i don't find "simple" very satisfying at all, probably because i tie flies and spend an inordinate amount of time fantasizing as i tie them. i have to carry at least one rep of each one to the stream--superstition, y'know. two of each is even better. in different colors...

Just conservatively, I'll bet I carry over 150 different fly patterns when all boxes are added up regardless of fly type.

I'll bet that in an average year, no more than 25 of them ever see the end of my leader.

But every time I start to think about paring back, I begin to break out in a cold sweat and start having nightmares about falling out of a boat into deep water without my life jacket.

Actually, I think I'm more interested in hiring a caddy than reducing the number of flies I carry, even though I know that's the weakling's cop out...:)

Along the lines of keeping it simple, a friend's father, who I sort of look up to as far as his fishing knowledge goes, is getting a little older. He is probably in his early 70's now. He fishes a lot and is very good. A few years ago when I got back into fly fishing, I spent the evening on a local stream with him. After fishing we shared some beers and he showed me his fly tying stuff (I hadn't tied in years and was going to get back into it). He explained to me that he doesn't even bother tying wings on his may flies anymore. A tail, body and hackle is all he uses. He doesn't have the patience or eye sight for messing with the wings anymore. What would seem like a major omission to some, has proven not to have any negative effect on his ability to out fish most people.

Lam

I know I carry too many flies. I just don't usually have time to pick the ones I might need out of my boxes, so I bring everything. It's not the best system.

The only mayflies I tie with wings are mostly tied for others and for a few very specific hatches on a few select highly pressured waters.

But I carry tons and tons of patterns "just in case."

Well, Mark I don't have any answers, just opinions. I certainly think the fella that I met on the the Williamson did, not to mention too many rods...

When I first learned how to tie flies, I did probably what most neophytes do; tied up damn near every pattern in the book. As I learned more and more about fly fishing (and fish) I started tying less a variety of patterns and more variety in sizes. I also began to experiment more with patterns of my own design. But basically, I'm of the firm belief that presentation is most critical, followed by size, then color...

I haven't counted the actual number of different patterns that I have. As a guess, including wets, nymphs, and streamers, I probably have somewhere around two dozen, mebbe a tad more. As a result I only carry 3 boxes ("standard" dries & wets, nymph, and a "what's hatching" dry fly box) plus a streamer wallet. On the other hand I do have a "display case" box that I made out of White Oak to store all the patterns not in use during any given hatch period.

Some, I think, are "over infatuated" by fly selection or, perhaps, they are confused; the more they have to choose from the more difficult it becomes to make that choice. I do believe that the angler that is concentrating more on his/hers presentation of the fly more than the actual pattern that's tied on will have greater success.

At least in the case of "traditional" flies; regardless of type, they all are pretty simple, at least by my definition, it's the materials that make'em different. However, I experimented some with the Swannundaze Nymphs back when they were the "rage" in the late 70's early 80's. Those and wiggle nymphs, I would say are "complicated", and they disapeared from my nymph box in very short order...

As to exactness of imitation, I think there's much to be said in its favor. With the caveat, that the flys' proportions are what's most critical. Swisher and Richards pretty much hit that nail on the head. I do find myself tying more extended body parachutes than I used to. But, I will always carry a good selection of traditionally tied Adams, Red Quills, Bivisables, and Elk Hair Caddis. With wets, well, I only carry about 5 or six different patterns all year 'round; the Blue Dun and Pheasant Tail being my "go to" patterns. Same goes with nymphs and streamers; about the same number of patterns. The Pheasant Tail Nymph and G.R. Hare's Ear being the most effective for me. Streamers are a tad different; for Browns I use a Muddler Minnow or Dark Spruce, for 'Bows and Brookies either a Royal Coachman Bucktail or Light Spruce. FWIW.

Dano

Interesting answers from everyone. With all the wonderful patterns of yesteryear and new and innovative patterns coming down the pike we do weed out those that don't seem appropriate for us. I generally carry patterns appropriate to where I will be fishing. Most of the time, that's my home water. Consequently, I find I've cut down greatly on what I carry, when.

I'm a complete believer that flies do not have to be an exact imitation, so lifelike they get up and walk. Impressionism is, to me, more important as is the behavior of the fly (presentation). I am also a complete sucker for wingless wets. I find they are very versatile and can be presented to represent different stages of the insect. This also cuts down on my fly selection. I am not ruling out using dry flies, nymphs, and streamers if I feel they are appropriate. However, more and more I find myself relying upon my Soft-hackles, Flymphs and spiders.

I read, in Art Lee's book "Fishing Dry Flies For Trout On Rivers And Streams",noted fly fisherman Ed Van Put used only three fly patterns all season long- The Adams, The Royal Coachman and the Pheasant Tail Midge. Lee claims Ed's secret to success is making each trout an offer its opportunistic nature won't let it refuse. Other more vastly experienced fly fishermen than myself offer the same advice. Trout are predatory and should be presented with an opportunity that appeals to that predatory nature.

While, for the most part, we rely on that $2 (if you buy them) fly, it's how the fly behaves that is important, for if it doesn't act alive
(real), it seems the trout will not give it a second glance.

Mark

I like this thread. my answer to the first question softhackle laid out is......yes... we probably do carry too many flies.

I actually used to carry way too many- 6 or 7 different pmd patterns in a range of sizes, when in reality, they all worked. I have since scaled back.

It starts with the move from a vest to a pack.. then to a smaller pack.

I have a duffle in the truck with my main stash of flies, but really only take to the stream what i think ill need. i have too much pride to make the walk back to the truck to get a fly i might have in there. I usually make do with what i have on me then...which might be a box of generic patterns and my nymph box which is pretty much a box of pheasant tails, scuds, hares ears, beadheads. I also carry a ziploc baggie with about a dozen streamers all the time.

i rarely if ever tie before a big trip anymore. my time is too valuable these days. I'll get to the destination and buy a dozen of the hot local pattern and have at it. 24 bucks on flies is a small price to pay for the time id give up at the vice. thats just me, and i wasn't always like that. i really dont tie much anymore.


Fly shops stock so many different patterns for the same fly its ridiculous. how many foam hopper imitations do you need? most of the ones ive seen have no difference from the fish eye (underside) view. but some of them are fantastic looking from the top...they hook the fisherman!

anyways, the bottom line is i rarley if ever feel that i should carry more flies. I'm always thinking i should carry less. not to mention, my buddies i fish with are over obsessed with multiple full fly boxes, so ill bum theirs!

Gentlemen:

The reason we probably all carry too many patterns is because at one time this has happened to all of us. We are midstream and either run out of the pattern that the fish are hitting or forgot the best stuff back at the car and it's 30 minute hike or more back to the flies.

This happened to me on Penns Creek years ago and we had walked down to the bottom of the fly zone. So once this happens we all have an "elephant memory for this." And in the recesses of our sick fly fishing minds guarantee to consciousness and subconscious desires that this will never happen again.

However, the number of fly boxes etc. is often determined by where we are fishing. A stream like Penns reaquires more flies than a small spring creek. One of the things I have done over the years is to organize by boxes in some form of insanity so that it will work on the stream. I've guided enough fly anglers to know that most people have no idea what's in their vest or where to find it sometimes and by the time they get it out and tie it on...the hatch is over!

I've done this for years and it's simple and it works for me..it may not work for you but here goes.

1) Soft hackles ...all in this one box
2) attractor and suggestive general color nymphs..such as Hare's Ear; Montana, general color patterns.
3)specific nymphs and emergers for certain hatches like sulfurs, bluewinged olives etc.
3) standard dries and attractor dries
4) No hackle duns, and related selective patterns for specific hatches
5) Spinner box..all spinners
6) Caddis dry box with emergers in
7) caddis larvae and related patterns
8) one stonefly nymph box
9) one midge box and related flies
10) one streamer wallet
11) one terrestrial box etc.

Now I don't carry all of these boxes all of the time. The terrestrial box is only carried during that season. The caddis boxes are smaller than the larger general color and suggestive patterns etc. Also, in some of the boxes I have the flies grouped either by color, patterns or season. This sure makes things easy. I also have separate spring creek boxes with those patterns such as tricos etc.

With this set up I just pull boxes and replace them in my vest and I can fish most waters anywhere.

It works for me but I do believe if you don't have some kind of system it really slows you down. During those cold winter nights it makes sense to develop something that works for you. I also put the same fly boxes in the same pockets of my vest and have an order so I know where everything is.

Well I hope all you get good laugh at my diatribe of insanity of the fly boxes but just remember as late Arnold Gingrich once said.

"Fly Fishing is the most Fun you have standing up"

tight line and dancing nymphs
gene
www.flyfisher.com

Well, Gene, I'll be the first to thank you for the laugh...

I do agree with everything being in the same place and never even thought that it should be mentioned...I don't guide (yet), so I guess I've never noticed that being a problem.

When I lived in Michigan the only terristrials I tied were Black Flying Ants, LeTort Hoppers, and LeTort Crickets. Since I moved out here eleven years ago I haven't seen a flying ant...anywhere. Now the only terristrial I carry is the Grasshopper (Orvis, Supplement I). I'd never tried that pattern before (why change?) but just for giggles I tied one up and tried it out (#10). After catching a 6.5lb Brown on the second cast first time out, it's a no brainer. They reside in my streamer wallet and is my midday go to "dry" pattern.

'Course I only have 61 fishing days under my belt this season so far and the one time I went fishless was more than likely due to my presentations being "unworthy", at least that's how I see it (hope I don't jinx myself for my Sunday outing), than not having the "right pattern.

I dunno if this holds true to anyone else but, I've noticed times that when I haven't had a strike in 45 minutes or so when I tie on a fly that I have supreme confidence in I'll get one on by at least the third or fourth cast. Be interesting to know what role "attitude" and "confidence" plays. I've never pondered it much; whenever I go out I just "know" I'll be playin' with the trout...

Dano

Hi Mark,

Here's my take on two of your questions:


Unless you're getting neck strain from the weight of your vest, I guess it really depends on what gives you confidence (just to touch on Dano's post). Personally, although I have hundreds upon hundreds of flies, I hardly ever carry more than one smallish box on the stream. I think that carrying lots and lots of flies isn't caused by putting too much emphasis on fly selection, but rather too little, if you get my meaning.


I hope you won't take my response as flip, because I mean it sincerely. The simple answer is "as exact as the fish require."

Best,
Gonzo

How exact must we be in fly imitation?
I believe the question may be irrelevant. It predisposes the trouts refusal to be a result of a faulty fly. Do we question the fly or the reason for the trouts refusal. No, we automatically assume a lack in imitation. All of my flies are an exact imitation of my creativity based on how I perceive the fly to be. Its just that some catch fish and some don't.


As I sit babbling by the brook it occurs to me that I may very well be the perfect imitation of nonsense.

Interesting post, I'll probably draw fire for my response but I can't see any reason to make exact duplications of anything. I would much rather fish an impressionistic fly than a perfect imitation. IMHO we give trout way more credit than they deserve. So often you'll hear someone comment on "that wise old fish" that just can't be fooled. Malarky! I am convinced that a good angler who pays attention to presentation and size of his presentation can take fish anywhere in the world using just a few differant flies.
Having fished many waters myself from Wisconsin to California I would be willing to bet that one can take fish on 6 or 8 patterns in various sizes in almost any situation.

Gentlemen,
I believe, and Lloyd has already touched upon this in his response, that no matter how hard we try, we will probably never create a fly that is an exact imitation. We tie our flies on hooks, and I have looked through many of the great photos on this site of natural flies and never saw any with a hook for a body.

So, in actuality, it is the trout that determine what they need to perceive as real or not real.

Mark

Don, I agree 100 percent...

My previous statement in regard to exactness of imitation and much being said in its favor was poorly constructed.

With the caveat, that the flys' proportions are what's most critical. Swisher and Richards pretty much hit that nail on the head.

Swisher and Richards use "imitation" and "impression" pretty much interchangeably. I don't believe their discussions on "imitation" were ever meant to be construed as "exact" which is very clear when they write about no-hackle and parachute patterns. Even in their discussion on wiggle nymphs it is crystal clear that these patterns more realistcly imitate the movement of a nymph, not an exact visual imitation of any specific nymph...

Nonetheless, I truely enjoy tying flies and still feel great satisfaction on catching fish with patterns of my own design, just as much as I did when I caught a trout with my first fly I tied...

In my view angling, regardless of tackle, isn't a competitive nor a team sport. Rather, it's a sport that should allow one to enjoy the solitude of the outdoors with quiet contemplation and reflection.

Years ago on the cover of a fishing catalog, either L.L. Bean or Orvis, was the painting of a very scholarly gentleman in tweeds repleat with pipe, half glasses, creel, hippers, and chest full of flies taking a minow sized trout off his fly. Walking past him is the proverbial ten year old under a straw hat, tee shirt, cut off jeans with suspenders, and of course, barefoot. All this little shaver is carrying is a cane pole with the line tied from the end dangling a worm off the hook and a very fine mess of trout. The faces of both are beyond my descriptive powers but, the message was very clear...

Dano

Dano, I couldn't AGREE MORE,on your second to last paragraph from you post, thank you truly, for making the statement!
The drawing you refer to.... "the stately chap and cane pole carrying boy", is a Norman Rockwell, actually and was first commissioned by Outdoor Life many many moons ago. I still love it, when I see it!
This same piece of "art", I've also seen redone in more "cartoon form" in various publications, with wording added to it, to the effect of "Young fellow, how would you like to fish with my "EXPENSIVE CANE ROD, here? Just because I'm a "fine outdoordsman", son, I'd be willing to sacrifice a bit of my fishing, in order to make the trade of gear with you for say...................an hour or two?"
As to, the "exact imitation of insects", boiling down to one of our sport's oldest and worn out, slogans, "Match The Hatch", I think, no, I KNOW, I'd give up this sport/religion/obsession/mental illness, I so dearly love, IF I couldn't "make up my OWN fly patterns","experiment with new materials", and generally "fly fish the way I want to fly fish", because I had to 'stick to a regimental set of rules", concerning correct fly construction!
Of course, like we all do, to some extent........ I'm not going to use a black ant, if the caddis flies are coming off the water like snow flakes. But, still, the fly I tie on, will be of my OWN design and probably not even close to resembling the actual insect.
If all of this; "match the hatch, as absolutely close as you're able to imitate the natural" I highly doubt, then, that the Royal Coachman, would have remained such a fine fish catcher all these years!?!
I may carry a lot of fly boxes with me, on the water every trip, but I DON'T carry a lot of different PATTERNS.

IF I couldn't "make up my OWN fly patterns","experiment with new materials", and generally "fly fish the way I want to fly fish", because I had to 'stick to a regimental set of rules", concerning correct fly construction!

From your post in another discussion ("Vests vs. Chest packs") you and I are about the same age. I "grew up" in a time and place where the "traditions" of fly fishing were damn near a set of "regimental rules" at least in the minds of the majority of the members in the local FFF chapter I belonged to for a couple of years back in Michigan. I mention "a couple of years" because their eliteism and snobbery became unbearable. My other two buddies and I were somewhat "radical" in that we caught fish with fiberglass and graphite rods instead of Tonkin bamboo, we fished with wets, nymphs, and (gasp) streamers and most were tied without "natural" dubbing...Bill even went so far as to convert a Dunlop "Fort" tennis racket into a trout net!!!

To this day, I have no tolerance for such attitudes and will go to great lengths to "demystify" the sport of flyfishing. It's not complicated, difficult, or an art...and one certainly doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to master it...

Earlier this season while fishing the Williamson near a state park, a young couple was walking along the bank. The lady made some comments to me along the lines of the "beauty of flycasting" and how she had always wanted to learn how. She asked me if it was as hard to do as she'd heard. I replied that it certainly wasn't, the main difference being that a line is being thrown, not a lure. I gave her a very brief explaination/demonstration, climbed out of the stream onto the bank and showed her a roll cast. I handed her my rod, showed her how to hold it and on her 3rd attempt she performed a 20 footer pretty darn good. I took 15 minutes out of my life, hopefully she went back to Portland and got "outfitted" as she and her husband said they would.

The measure of an angler is not what he knows, it's what he passes on to others. This is basic to my nature.....

Dano

VERY, well, stated Dano, again I couldn't agree more!
The only times I refer to fly fishing as "an art", or as an art "form", is when I see a rod in the hands of a few friends of mine, like Dave Hughes,or one of my fishing buddies; Henry Hoffman. Those two can "just DO something" with a fly rod and line in the air, that's really beautiful to watch!
Also, I don't know of any, other, sport where such wonderful "actual art work" has been accomplished with, from painting to wood working, to of course "the "pen".
No,it's NOT hard to take up fly fishing, or Lord knows, with my 13 thumbs, I'd never have gotten as far with it as I have! I've, also, had the unmeasured pleasure of starting off a new fly fisher or two by meeting people on the water who have stopped to chat.I,love, doing that!
I'm usually "adorned" in some way, or, the other with fly fish like items on my coats, or a hat, when NOT on the stream and even that has gotten complete strangers to stop me and ask me questions about it. And, too, our fly club every year at our annual picnic- invites the public out, (via the newspaper and flyers), to "come join us and see what fly fishing is all about!"
This, generally, like this year's fun time, brought out many potentially new-"addicts" to the sport! When shown the basics, almost "to the man", (ooops, or WOMAN!), they'll say; "Wow! I thought it was MORE complicated, than this, or I would have tried it, YEARS AGO!"