Goto soft hackle patterns for trout

[Mike Connor]

Tim,
I would like to try to accommodate you with an answer, however, before I begin, there’s a few things I must say.

First, this response is not an intention to rebut anyone else’s responses. I can’t and the reason is simple. Responses like this are based on experiences and the knowledge that has gained through them. Anyone’s theories or ideas are spot-on accurate in every way. For me, however, they may not be, and for you as well, they may not be. The only way to tell is by testing them.

It is my belief that fly fishermen are formed as much by how and where they fish as anything. Their ideas and beliefs come from the fish they fish to and the flies methods they use. This includes other anglers that assist them on their. My experiences are different from everyone else, so while we would probably agree on some things, on others we would not.

So, for me, the term “go-to” fly means a fly which could work well in any given situation and probably be quite generic making it more versatile in its appeal. It can also be fished in a variety of ways which will also make it more versatile. It is my true belief that beginning fly fisherman concentrate too much on pattern selection. They should select a versatile/generic fly and try it out using different techniques.

As already mentioned, technique can be a very important factor in taking fish. SO, familiarization with various techniques will most definitely be helpful, BUT I would not discourage anyone from giving it a try because, your tests could reveal something important to you, which you can add to your experience file.

Here’s some generic flies I like:
Leisenring Spider---http://libstudio.com/FS&S/html/leisenring_spider.html
Red Hackle---http://libstudio.com/FS&S/html/red_hackle.html
Gray Hackle---http://libstudio.com/FS&S/html/gray_hackle.html


I hope this is helpful, and WELCOME to our forum.

Mark

Indeed, all opinions are merely facets of the great game. It matters not whether one agrees with them, they are information.

[redietz]

Wow, Lance. Until I saw that color version of those flies, I didn't realize how similar in appearence the Old Blue Dun is to a Waterhen Bloa. That shouldn't surprising, since Pritt described the WHB as "identical with the blue dun of Ronalds." I never cease to be amazed at how well flies tied to represent specific English insects work in the US.

[gingerdun]

Wow, Lance. Until I saw that color version of those flies, I didn't realize how similar in appearence the Old Blue Dun is to a Waterhen Bloa. That shouldn't surprising, since Pritt described the WHB as "identical with the blue dun of Ronalds." I never cease to be amazed at how well flies tied to represent specific English insects work in the US.

Bob,
That is a sharp observation. I had not noticed the similarity. That trio, mole, blue dun hackle, and yellow silk, is classic. Leisenring's rib of yellow buttonhole twist is different from the typical British pattern, isn't it? The adaptation of foreign fly patterns to American waters would be a great topic for a book.

Mark, thanks for those links to your flies. Perfection.

Lance

[redietz]

That trio, mole, blue dun hackle, and yellow silk, is classic. Leisenring's rib of yellow buttonhole twist is different from the typical British pattern, isn't it? The adaptation of foreign fly patterns to American waters would be a great topic for a book.

Yes, the rib is different. Pritt's dressing of the waterhen bloa used water rat as touch dubbing. (Water rat is really a water vole, as is the muskrat.) The modern dressing uses mole because water rat is a protected species. (Obviously the muskrat is not.) As far as I can tell, Edmonds & Lee were the first to use mole.

I agree it would make a great book.

[raven4ns]

Thank you for the pictures, gingerdun, what is the body material on those 3 flies you mentioned by Mr. Hidy? They look interesting and coupled with the 3 or 4 patterns I have already may give me a good start on a soft hackle flybox.... and just when I thought I wouldn't need anymore flyboxes...lol. Thank you.

Tim

[Ron Eagle Elk]

Tim,

If you keep hanging around with us, your going to need several soft hackle fly boxes. Welcome to the forum.

REE

[raven4ns]

Thank you for the welcome, Ron, but it's a fine time to tell me I'll need more flyboxes. There should be a warning on the site about this: " don't join as new flyboxes will be required"......lol.

Tim

[gingerdun]

Thank you for the pictures, gingerdun, what is the body material on those 3 flies you mentioned by Mr. Hidy? They look interesting and coupled with the 3 or 4 patterns I have already may give me a good start on a soft hackle flybox.... and just when I thought I wouldn't need anymore flyboxes...lol. Thank you.

Tim

Tim,
The dark Iron Blue Dun in the middle is definitely mole fur. The other two are harder to tell, but probably some lighter fibers from the hare's mask, like the cheek. Could be some dyed wool fibers mixed in too. But anything from the hare's mask would probably work. Pete Hidy spun his bodies with the Clark spinning block. In case you haven't see William's info on the Clark block, here's a link.
http://www.williamsfavorite.com/clarks- ... -sale.html
But other dubbing methods work fine too.

Lance

[fflutterffly]

Ginger your panels are very special. I recognize that little iron grey nymph as something similar to the fly I tossed at those pesky little slurpers.

[Mike Connor]

Got a couple of e-mails about that, I have tried to clarify matters, may be of interest;

> so you are saying they wont work?

No, I am not saying that at all, they may well work in some circumstances, but I have no idea in what circumstances, so it is impossible to choose them on any logical basis.

As an example, in an Iron Blue hatch I usually choose a small stewart style spider with purple silk and a starling hackle. I choose this because I know it is a pretty good imitation and it has worked well for me in the past. I fish it upstream dead drift in or just below the film.

There may well be other flies that will work, but I don't know them. If you just choose "one o' them little black things" from your box it may work or it may not. Random selections are just less likely to work. Fantasy flies, dressed because they "look good" to the dresser are not good choices generally. They may work or they may not, most likely not. I want to use flies that I know will work, not some random stuff that I know nothing about. I am well aware that many people will argue about this. That is not my problem. My methods work for me and quite a few people who have tried them say they work for them as well. What you do is up to you. If you want to carry a big box of flies you know nothing about then that's fine with me. You wont catch as much and you will often be in a quandary what to choose. I never mount a fly without a reason for doing so. I don't have any "desperation" flies, or "go-to" flies ( except as specific choices in specific situations like the Stewarts style spider above). Generic flies will work, just not as often as the "right" flies. The major problem for most is that they don't even know what is hatching or what the fish are taking, so even the "right" flies are not much use to them as they don't know when or how to fish them. You might well catch a fish on a black spider in an olive hatch, that is just serendipitous. I prefer to rely on known facts, not recurring luck.

If you want to catch a lot you need to get everything possible in your favour. Choosing random flies is the worst thing you can do, assuming you get everything else right you are ruining your own chances by using a fly that is highly likely to be unsuitable. It is not "certain" that it wont work, just highly likely. Whereas a good fly chosen for the right reasons is highly likely to work.