Wingless wet or not?

[William Anderson]

I realize the conversation has shifted from the fly in question to the nature of hackles in general, but I am surprised by Mike's response about the usefullness of CDC in submersed flies. I dont tie any with a cdc hackle, like in a split thread loop, but I use the cdc on bodies wrapped like Hans' CDC and Elk, but with a partridge or other "hackle" and I like the results. I've done the little dunk in a glass with a toothpick test and noticed that they are a little more interesting than the herl bodies that I like so much (pheasant, grouse, turkey tail feathers...among others.) With some stragling fibers at the thorax behind the "hackle" and I like the liveliness of the material...along with a dubbed thorax and hackle. Mike may have a great point about the CDC alone as a hackle, if the fibers are left long to serve as a hackle.

I also like the Once and Away from Hans 2, It's a great fly in the film, but works well in a few inches below as well.

I have to respect Mike when he says he has tried lots of ways to make the material useful. I haven't done much with it besides emergers and like I said, as a body material, but to call it useless seems a bit strong.

The discussion about hackles is way cool, and those fighting cocks are awesome. Cool shot.

very interesting.
w

[daringduffer]

Regarding the glymphs - they sure look fishy.

Regarding "Commercialism and general bullshit" and being jaded - it is quite understandable. I am quite ambivalent in this regard. Usually I think there is nothing wrong if people can make a living supplying other people with what they need or want to enjoy themselves but the bullshit part seems to grow the more experienced you get. When people make a profit by misleading other people - "you just need this", "you must do it this way" - well, it feels dirty. I am a silly fool but I want flyfishing to be kind of sacred and with a lot of respect.

dd

[William Anderson]

Mike and everyone else for that matter, you never have to qualify what you say with me. I would prefer a bit of disagreement in a conversation. And I don't disagree with you at all.

Ditto to DD on "I am a silly fool but I want flyfishing to be kind of sacred and with a lot of respect."

Me too. That's what makes this board stand out.

w

[Soft-hackle]

Hi All,
Not that this has any relationship to this thread, but it reminds me of a book I read while being educated as a teacher. The book was Teaching As A Subversive Activity. I totally agreed with general assumption of the book that school does not teach students a very important aspect of dealing with everyday life-detecting bullshit, or to put it more nicely-what is relevant to them and what is not. With regards to fly fishing I have found that many beginning students of fly fishing are so very anxious to learn and be successful that they will listen to everyone and anybody in order to attain that success. Unfortunately, this is often taken advantage of. As Mike has so nicely pointed out, after a while one realizes that we need to wade through the murky water to finally see things clearly and sort a lot out for ourselves.

However, with that said, I'm always willing to listen to new ideas, but they will be scrutinized.

Mark

[Soft-hackle]

OH, Mike, I do not disagree with your thoughts that on "wingless wet flies" the "hackle" also represents the wing, but for sake of definition I prefer to denote a "Wing" on a fly as a material attached to the fly, other than the hackle, to represent the wing of an insect. When looking at diagrams of flies showing the various parts of a fly, the wing is usually separate from the hackle-whatever the hackle is made from. So, the term "wingless wet fly" helps to define the idea of the fly as having no material tied on "specifically" as a "wing" in the dressing".

Mark

[hankaye]

Mike;

QUOTE;
For newcomers it is a veritable avalanche of information they are trying to assimilate. Just getting up to speed on the jargon can be a real problem.
CLOSE QUOTE.

TOO True.

hank

[Old Hat]

Hm. Old Hat, are you citing the use of a stiffer tail or a longer than Clyde body as grounds to disqualify a fly as a soft-hackle?

w

No, not at all. I was only answering the question posted at the beginning of the discussion, pertaining to the fly displayed. I see 3 main attributes associated with this fly (long stiff tail material, long narrow body and a parachute style wing). The tail or body by itself may or may not appear on a wingless wet, I understand that well, as I often use coq de leon tails on my flymphs, or tie spiders with bodies of thread or biot material only. But, I will still stand that the three features this particular fly displays, when taken together, do not say wingless wet.
To quote the famous fly fisher, Yoda "A drowned dry fly does not a wingless wet make". You're still only fishing a drowned dry fly....

[Otter]

To quote the famous fly fisher, Yoda "A drowned dry fly does not a wingless wet make". You're still only fishing a drowned dry fly....

Much wisdom and wit giveth in that quote you.

I recall one of my club members, a very very experienced angler when asked what he caught on during very difficult conditions, replied dry, then muttered, well a drowned dry and simply stated that was what the trout wanted. The better trout were refusing everything else and being experienced he reached deep into his bag of tricks. So maybe drowning Lucians fly is one for when desperation has set in, then maybe it could be the greatest wet dry fly ever.

[willowhead]

i haven't even got past reading Carl's reply yet.....and you see what i mean bout opinions and you know what's..... And i happend to agree with both of them.....(his and Mikes'), and they are both right.....not that they are in any disagreement inherantly. It's just that who really cares or what difference does it really make what you call it.....sure....it matters to those to whom it matters, and we need to keep a clear referance for beginners......but when it comes to fishin' flies.....all that really matters is........YUP, you guessed it.
That fly is exqusitely tyed.....and for me THAT'S, what matters. It is actually, for all intents and purposes, perfect. Let's pray it doesn't get a refusal.....
Upon first look, i thought emerger.....because it's a dry with no legs and an undried wing is all it is.....i mean that's the sillouet the fish will see.
OMG, i've gotta check the rest of this thread out.....
btw.....is that the Polish hook Kevin Compton brings in to the U.S.?