Tim's Bitch Creek Nymph

[DUBBN]

Wayne,
That's why I don't get too carried away with the "extras" on mine, realizing that they may be sacrificed to the bottom on the first drift.

If I am going to spend 60.00 dollars in gas just to go fishing, I won't mind spending 30 seconds on a pattern to add an "extra".

That being said, as much bottom bouncing as I do in my fishing, I think it's silly to spend 15 minutes on one fly just to loose it in 5 minutes of fishing. The patterns I use reflect that.

I am still awaiting the rivers I fish to start to warm and rise. The Roaring Fork here in Colorado has been running between 250 and 500 CFS at it's confluence with the Colorado River at Glenwood Springs. At peak run-off near Memorial Day it will be running at 2500 to 4000 cfs. That is not much when compared to the large rivers in the East, but in the Roaring Forks 40+ mile journey from its head waters to its confluence, it will drop farther in elevation than the Mississippi River does from its head waters to its final destination of the Gulf of Mexico. I will be fishing the Roaring Fork then, and I do understand what you are saying about losing flies fast. Even using 1x tippet, I will be donating a lot of flies to the fishing gods.

Good luck fishing today. I hope you can report back on your trip.


Wayne

[gingerdun]

This string is good. Tim, your comments about fishing this as an emerger are interesting.
Wayne, Great bugs. That quick-to-tie philosophy is solid.
That would make an interesting topic. Proven fish-getters that are quick to make.

Tim and Ray, I've been thinking more about the nomenclature. I found this post from Bill for a Stonefly Flymph.
http://www.flymphforum.com/viewtopic.ph ... t=stonefly
So there's precedent for calling this a flymph. I suspect that Pete would have chided Bill for calling the weighted nymph a flymph. But Tim's unweighted version, fished with that about-to-hatch behavior, could qualify--except Pete specified fur bodies. No chenille or herl. I'm not trying to be the flymph police. I know that's what it looks like. It is important for the book that I understand how Pete would have handled some of these borderline flymph/nymph creations. Personally, I think splitting hairs over names quickly becomes ridiculous. I need to find the right way to write about this problem. I may ask your advice briefly when we're together in Roscoe this weekend.

[tjd]

Wayne,

Great comments!

Hi Lance,

I understand your perspective. I wonder if the best way to approach it would be from an evolution perspective? You mentioned the Brooks stonefly nymphs, which were tied up with yarns, hackle, and crow quill (from memory, I may be mistaken). The silicone floss tails on the pattern I tie would be, in my opinion, evolutionary, as they weren't available then, and when applied to a tying "problem" today, offer a modern look to a classic pattern.

I don't know...mylar tinsel, nylon tying threads, synthetic dubbing, beads, etc., aren't in any way bad things. Classic and contemporary can meet, and meet in harmony-especially at the tying bench. This topic has been kicked around a bit, on this board and others.

Good primer for a weekend discussion and tying session, sir.

Will have to think about the quick ties aspect. I consider all of my flies "fishing flies", so I may work up a list later tonight. School, work, and TU meeting. Hope to sneak an hour in on a stream today, just because it's the traditional opening day of trout season. Have a great day, everyone!

Best,

Tim

[Jim Slattery]

It's a nymph. Weighted or unwieghted. Stoneflies hatch out of the water. Looks like a great fly out these parts.

[Kelly L.]

Way cool flies!

[Roadkill]

Mayfly flymphs are also nymphs!