Fly tying qualities and preferences

[Tigereye]

Not wanting to hijack the Game Changer thread, I am starting a new one.

Though a beautiful fly (Game Changer) i think the effort, expense, and possibility of failure to "swim" properly make it a show stopper no pun intended. I would think an appropriately colored zonker would be just as effective

What qualities are foremost when tying flIes for fishing? (DOES NOT INCLUDE PRESENTATION FLIES OR FLY ART)

I would think the following apply to many. In order of preference.

1)ability to catch fish consistently. Highly specific flies that work once in a blue moon do not interest me.

2) made of readily available and inexpensive materials.

3) ability to tie in a reasonable amount of time. 5 minutes is about the max time I want to spend on a fly. There may be an exception or 2. Muddler minnow comes to mind, but the fly has proven itself by many fisherman for decades.

4) durability . I don't like one fish flies. Some CDC creations while fish killers are only good for a fish or 2 before they get slimed up and need changing. Worse are flies that fall apart after being eaten. Some feather wing streamers show way to much fragility.

5) ease of tying. We all have are crosses to bear and I am not referencing learning curves. But who among us would prefere to tie a muddler over a green weenie or a 24 trico over a 12 EHC.

 

[Dave_W]

I'm inclined to see things much as you do and agree with your points, especially for those getting started in fly tying.

With regard to streamers the most important consideration, in my view, is that they swim correctly and hook fish when struck (I'm a real stickler about this). Flies that look good in or on the water are what matter, rather than how they look in the vise.

I experiment with many adaptations and tying structures and many of my flies that look great in the vise are abject failures when used on the water as they don't float, drift, or swim as I had imagined.

But yes...
Function over form (and I say that as one who likes detailed flies that mimic specific prey species).

 

[PennKev]

The importance of points 2, 3, 4, and 5 all depend on 1. The more effective a fly is, the less time, difficulty, and expense of tying are less of a concern.

For example, parachute dries are a pain in the butt to tie, but I find them to be often more effective than catskill style dries. So they are worth the time and effort it takes to keep a supply of them in my boxes.

 

[RLeep2]

I think, at least to some extent, a part of the answer is tied in with how we fish. For me, with trout at any rate, the vast majority of my fishing is of a searching or speculative manner, so I tend to gravitate towards and favor patterns that are more impressionistic than imitative. If your fly (ostensibly) looks to a fish like any of a half dozen things he might want to eat as opposed to just one, you've tilted the overall odds a bit more in your favor.

The same holds true for me with warm water species. Broad spectrum suggestiveness like that produced by wooly buggers, simple fur leeches and even flies like Harry Murray's Strymph series are my best producers for smallmouth. I'd like to believe this is at least partially because of the versatility of their appeal.

 

[Tigereye]

PennKev I agree 100%. The muddler exemplifies your point. I detest tying them but a well weighted muddler in brown or black absolutely destroys fish in high off color water. I look forward to spring flows every year.

I should also point out that by highly specific flies, I do not mean flies such as Tan caddis, Hendrickson, BWO and the like. I'm talking about the once in a lifetime wonders such as " they were taking a 14 hares ear with pink bead, green flashback, and purple ribbing- they wouldnt touch anything else" flies .

 

[redietz]

PennKev wrote:
The importance of points 2, 3, 4, and 5 all depend on 1. The more effective a fly is, the less time, difficulty, and expense of tying are less of a concern.

I find the opposite can be true as well. The less time and effort that went into tying a fly, the more I've willing to risk throwing it into the kinds of places where fish live -- under a tree, into a brush pile, bumping bottom, etc. If it takes me a lot of time or effort to tie a fly, I'm going to fish it more conservatively and avoid casting into those places. As far as I'm concerned, 1 depends on 2,3,4 and 5. There are enough really simple flies that catch fish that I don't waste a lot of time tying those that aren't, except as an exercise to keep m skills up.

 

[dc410]

Three things I usually focus on when at the vise are:

1. Movement - I really like selecting materials that provide some kind of movement to the fly when it’s in the water regardless of how subtle that movement may be.

2. Contrast - many of the natural food sources that we are trying to imitate with our flies have some sort of contrasting hues. I think some amount of contrast in a fly is an attention getter for a fish.

3. Durability - I will always take a few extra moments during a tie to do whatever I can to increase the durability of a fly in an attempt to catch just a few more fish on that particular fly.


Confidence in a fly is very key. One will always catch more fish on a fly that has instilled a lot of confidence over a period of time. It’s always neat to add another pattern to your confidence list. Some flies will never even come close to getting there and you probably won’t spend much more time at the vise tying those types of patterns.

 

[dryflyguy]

After tying for 35 years now, I like to think that I know what works well for me.
And have pretty much settled on some favorite patterns that I tie and use over and over.


I don't typically tie anything that's complex and time consuming.
Although I will try something new that strikes my fancy, just to see how it works.
And to have something a little different in my arsenal.

One of the most effective flies I use - the Crowe Beetle - is also one of the simplest to tie.
And catches lots of fish for me from late spring, through october