FLYMPH FORUM

In another thread, gingerdun stated something about the durability of flies. Maybe I should say that durability is less of a factor in today’s flies than in generations past. Yep, I got to thinking about it. Do I worry about the durability of my patterns when I am at the vise?

I have to admit that I don’t. I take it for granted that my tying skills will produce a fish taking, durable fly. I have not worried about durability for decades. As I write this I dont know if thats a good or bad thing.

I am guessing here, but I would say close to 90% of my fishing is done dead drifted with weight near the bottom of the river. When fishing this zone one must expect to lose flys to dead falls, rocks and any other debris laying in wait to snag their offerings. Sad to say my unofficial motto has been, "Why spend 15 minutes on a fly when i will probably lose it in 5 minutes on the river?". When I would say that to myself I was referring to the construction of the pattern rather than the durability. I wanted to stick to basic, easy patterns. When I first learned to tie a Kauffman Stone Nymph it took me 30 minutes to tie it. Yeah, I lost it to a snag in the river the very first drift. Went back to a more basic 5 minute Stone pattern and did well with it.

I would guess 10% of the time I throw Streamers or swing a couple Soft Hackles. In my opinion it is in this area that durability plays a big part. If you have ever been on a river that the trout were chasing emerging caddis out of the water, then you know how deadly a pair of Flymphs can be when swung down and across. The Gunnison prior to her surge in popularity use to be that river for me. A pair of Muskrat Flymphs could easily account for 100 fish in a day. Mind you, most of the fish were small. I would say 10 inchers were the average, and I think I am being generous in my guess. Replace one of the Flymphs with a Woolly Bugger and the average size would jump to 14 inches, but the numbers went down. It was a typical quality VS quantity issue. I have to admit it is a dilemma I don’t mind having.

Ok, this is the paragraph where I beat my fists against my chest and tell you how durable my patterns are. 100 fish between two flies? Why folks, my patterns and I must be the greatest things to hit water since Moses parted the Red Sea! OK, that was a little sarcastic, but I do feel it was a way for me to determine that my patterns were tied with quality and care. In other words durable. Maybe not as durable as with tiers in past generations, but good enough for me.

So, where do you as a tier place the importance of durability in your patterns? Perhaps, like me, you have taken it for granted and no longer think about it. There is no wrong answer.

Lance (gingerdun), thank you for making me think at 2:45 AM!

Now the part of the post that I will dedicate to confessions. Here it comes. Ready?
A couple times a year I have a pattern fall apart due to ………Operator Error! There I said it! Once in a while I am embarrassed to discover that I am capable of tying subpar Flymphs. Yes, I hope I can be forgiven, and I completely understand that if you ever invite me in your home, you make me enter through the back door.

Crud!!! I thought I had posted this in Tying Wingless Wets! My bad.

DUBBN wrote:Crud!!! I thought I had posted this in Tying Wingless Wets! My bad.

Generally speaking, durability matters more when fishing then when tying.

I do care to some extent about durability; I always counter rib a herl bodied fly with wire, for example, except when I wrap the herl over head cement. OTOH, I've never seen a fly come un-dubbed (and I have had flies 100 fish), so I find Leisenring's argument on that point a bit odd. The weak point for me on flymphs/spiders tied with game bird hackle is the actual hackle. I'm not talking about it coming unwrapped -- I mean that the barbs come off the stem. I find this especially true with snipe. I don't think I've ever had a snipe and purple last more than five or six fish. By that point, there might be one or two barbs left. The same is true to a lesser degree with other game, like partridge or grouse. If I tie a fly slightly over hackled, by the time I put it into box and take it out a few times, it has just the right amount of hackle; take a few fish and it's decidedly under hackled. Given that, I don't see much point in spending any extra time to make a dubbed body more durable. (I do sometimes use the "on the knee" technique for other reasons, though.)

Interesting. I really don't give it that much thought, but now that you've brought it up, it's like that song you can't get out of your head.
I've just been toodling along and doing things the way I do them. It depends on the material and also the method of construction. Certainly, the delicate materials like herl I reinforce with thread or wire rib, and I do think that helps the fish/fly ratio. Bodies from a dubbing loop I don't give much thought to, and often don't use a rib just to get a more "spikey" body. Dubbing noodles I don't trust as much, also touch-dubbed bodies.
I usually coat the heads with SH or something, not because of durability, but 'cuz I like the look of a shiney head.

Interesting comments about the durability of different hackle. Never paid that much attention to it before, although I do reinforce the hackle on some patterns by wiggling the thread through, like Stewart's Spiders. But I will do that once in a while also when I find my thread on the wrong side of the tracks , not for durabilty.

chase creek wrote: Interesting comments about the durability of different hackle. Never paid that much attention to it before, although I do reinforce the hackle on some patterns by wiggling the thread through, like Stewart's Spiders. But I will do that once in a while also when I find my thread on the wrong side of the tracks , not for durabilty.

I hadnt thought about reinforcing hackle either. Guess I should. Especially Peacock.

redietz wrote:
I do care to some extent about durability; I always counter rib a herl bodied fly with wire, for example, except when I wrap the herl over head cement. OTOH, I've never seen a fly come un-dubbed (and I have had flies 100 fish), so I find Leisenring's argument on that point a bit odd.

I watched a Borger video back in the 80's He made a big tadoo about dubbing coming undone. Until you mentioned that you had never had that happen, I had forgotten about his (Borgers) statement. You know, I cant recall ever having the dubbing come undone either.

Now you have me thinking again.

My theory, is that durability may have been more of a problem before the days of the tying bobbin. Before bobbins became popular in tying, the fly was often constructed with a long strand of thread that was simply secured to the tying table with a pin, during the tying process. If there was every any slack in the thread, during the tying process, the resulting fly was less durable. I am guessing, that the thicker tying threads (less contact pressure) may have resulted in a less durable construction. In my opinion, the simple thread bobbin has dramatically improved the construction of files over the years by providing greater thread control, more tension during the tying process and holding secure tension during the intermediate steps. In my experience, thread tension and thread control go a LONG way towards improving the durability of a fly.

Durability is certainly an important consideration for fishing flies, but not one that I loose sleep over, nor worry about on stream-side. I take special care, when constructing patterns to ensure the flies will be durable when fished. When I use peacock herl, I almost always reinforce it with a thread dubbing loop. I highly recommend the Mitch's Bobbin, for herl bodied flies. There is no need for a tinsel rib when the herl is reinforced with tying thread.

I have not experienced many problems with fly durability, but then again I don't think I have any "100 fish days" to my credit. I have had a few flies that I have "retired" after they have caught at least 30 fish (smallmouth & steelhead). These flies showed evidence of wear and tear, but were still very fishable flies. The thing that I noticed was, the flies were very worn in the area at the back of the fly. The teeth of the fish, had damaged the flies in the area just in front of the hook point. I actually concidered changing the construction of my bucktail flies, as a result of this observation. I think shortening the tinsel body by 1/4" would result in a much more durable fly. Have I tried this? No. I simply tye more flies to replace the ones that I retire. If they catch me thirty fish, before they wear out, they have served me well and are worth keeping above my tying area.

Great thread, Wayne. I look forward to reading what others have to add to the conversation.

I have had flies last a dozen trout without major deformation, tinsel tags being the exception. Then again I have had flies fall apart on the first fish!

If you liken in to handloading rifle cartridges or shotgun rounds then the 1 fly to 1 fish ratio is about the same, I mean while you can reuse the case you don't get the chance to reuse the projectile, but if that one round bags you a nice buck..... then all is good with the world. I treat flies the same, if the gift you one good fish per tie, what more can you ask.
With me it is not about volume of fish but the story behind each one. Sure it is nice to be able to fish all day with only one fly and not have to replace it, but I do not spend time at the vice ensuring the flies I tie are the most durable, I do try and work in action and form- sometimes durability can effect the natural action of the body materials. How many times have you heard or read of bedraggled beat up flies often catching better than new ones?

Durability will also be tested by the size and tooth structure of the target species you are casting to!

This discusion got me wondering whether I have ever had a fly catch more than say a dozen trout before I retired it. Perhaps there have been just a few though. Bob's comments about the game bird hackle is right on in my experience. They're really nice looking and I think effective but fragile. The Stewart spider was mentioned which just last year I started using a few. These have all been in small sizes but I was pleasantly surprised how well they stood up. I dub quite a few of my flies with game furs noodle style and I am not at all surprised in some cases to see the bodies getting a bit thin after five or six trout. I suspect there are any number of reasons for durabilty or the lack of it. The size of the fish, the type stream flow we're fishing in which can account for how fast we are able to land a fish and the means used for extracting the fly may be just a few things to do with how long a fly lasts. Oh yes, just one last possibility, where the fly is hooked in the fishes mouth. All said I really don't mind seeing a fly getting trashed by a fish. Well that is as long as I have a few replacements along with me.

Regards, Jerry

Durability is very important to me... i too fish the deep water, with deep flies, and loosing them is part of the game. However, i can't help that. What i can help is now many fish can be caught prior to having to retie on the same pattern. I too find the week point of my wets is the hackle, because otherwise, i use wire, biot or quill bodies, which i've found to be pretty bullet proof. I also use wire to counter rip. On my streamers, i coat the floss with HAN, i always hit my streamer heads with HAN, and generally they hold up pretty well. Nothing pisses me off more than my own user error, when an un-treated whip fishing begins to slip on the river... i wish had a nickle for the number of River Side Half Hitches i've had to do because of that, so i don't let it happen any more.

Now, that said, my favorite dry fly is a biot body, CDC Caddis, the problem with them, is that once they get slimmed, you need to pull out a new fly.... good thing they're so productive, becuase otherwise, i would have given up on them long ago!