Why are traditional streamers not weighted?

[Rollingdog]

"back in the day"... people had class
Fly fisherman fished flies knowing the limitations... and fished bait if they wanted to fish bait


some of the "modern aspects" of the sport are more akin to bait fishing than fly fishing

 

[KeithS]

But there are no rules.

 

[FrequentTyer]

KeithS wrote:
But there are no rules.

You didn't get the rule book?
;-)

 

[FrequentTyer]

Cold wrote:
Maybe. Another way of looking at it would be that a 2" sculpin (the fish) weighs significantly more than an unweighted 2" sculpin pattern, so adding weight helps it behave more like the natural.

Not when the fly is wet and the sculpin has a full swim bladder.

 

[JeffK]

Back when I started bucktails were the workhorse flies, like the wooly buggers of today.

Mending was an art form and the bucktails were tied slim. At the time the tinsel was real metal tinsel so you could put it one a little heavy for a little more weight and tie one on a 2X or 3X hook for more of a jigging action with the weight more to the front. One classic way to fish under a bank across a stream was to cast up and across with a decent upstream mend to get the bucktail to sink to the zone. Then a massive downstream mend was made so the line pulled the streamer downstream along the undercut. The old masters had plenty of cool tricks to get bucktails to tough places.

IMHO the rules weren't so restrictive though. Spinner blades on bucktails, flyrod Flatfish lures, and dead drifting single salmon eggs by high sticking were all popular and deadly.

 

[redietz]

JeffK wrote:
At the time the tinsel was real metal tinsel so you could put it one a little heavy for a little more weight and tie one on a 2X or 3X hook for more of a jigging action with the weight more to the front.

I wondered when somebody would get around to mentioning that. My initial reaction to the subject of this thread was "who says traditional streamers were not weighted?"

You wrap metal tinsel eye to bend and back again and then rib with wire, and you've added a non-negligible amount of weight. (It one of the reasons that I'm skeptical of mylar on sunken flies.)

Colonel Jos. Bates in Streamers and Bucktails, mentioned several methods of weighting streamers, including bead-chain eyes and wrapping dental lead under the floss. He also pointed out that if simply put shot on the tag end of you tippet knot, the shot drags on bottom and is less likely to hang up than if the fly itself is dragging bottom.

 

[Cold]

Not when the fly is wet and the sculpin has a full swim bladder.

Elaborate please.

 

[JackM]

Tinsel is so modern. A traditional streamer was "mudded up," and the compleat angler used his casting and mending skills to reach the right depth at the right time.

All this modern stuff is merely an improvement, and, therefore, should be avoided-- just like graphite and non-click-pawl drag mechanisms and strike indicators.

I have spoken.

 

[redietz]

JackM wrote:
Tinsel is so modern. A traditional streamer was "mudded up," and the compleat angler used his casting and mending skills to reach the right depth at the right time.

Tinsel goes back at least as far as the split cane rod -- look at 19th century flies like the Alexandra. It's been around longer than "streamers".

The compleat angler (Walton and Cotton) was using horse hair, which pretty doesn't sink at all, for both line and leader. No amount of mending, casting, or mud would sunk a fly very far.

All this modern stuff is merely an improvement, and, therefore, should be avoided-- just like graphite and non-click-pawl drag mechanisms and strike indicators.

I certainly avoid them.

 

[Heritage-Angler]

FrequentTyer wrote:
Not when the fly is wet and the sculpin has a full swim bladder.

FWIW - sculpins don't have swim bladders.

Seriously.

 

[FrequentTyer]

Heritage-Angler wrote:

FrequentTyer wrote:
Not when the fly is wet and the sculpin has a full swim bladder.

FWIW - sculpins don't have swim bladders.

Seriously.

Huh. That is odd.
Well then I guess they are not very buoyant then.
My point was that most fish and aquatic insects are close to neutral buoyancy in water. Saturated bucktail, rams wool, etc would also seem to be close to neutral buoyancy in water.
Mike.

 

[sandfly]

any bottom dwelling fish or minnow doesn't have a swim bladder. sculpins fresh and salt are bottom dwellers. Darters are included as bottom dwellers with no swim bladder. The tessellated darter which is found here is a big food source for brookies in the north central pa area.

A lot of old patterns used natural materials such as wool, fox for the pattern to help absorb water. This is a tessellated darter pattern using wool and fox. metal tinsel did not have that much effect on sinking the fly . A heavy wire hook worked better. bucktail would float if not for the hook weight.

 

[Cold]

My point was that most fish and aquatic insects are close to neutral buoyancy in water. Saturated bucktail, rams wool, etc would also seem to be close to neutral buoyancy in water.

And my point was more to the effect of weight, buoyancy, etc. not necessarily being directly related to action and location in the water column.

You can fish an unweighted pattern on the bottom with a sinking leader and/or creative mending, and it may or may not move like a fish...likewise, you could put lead wraps and tungsten eyes on a fly that needs to drop like a rock to get it to the bottom (where the much lighter natural hangs out) and with some zonker or marabou, get more action than you would with a much lighter bucktail.

Simply put, weight/density is irrelevant if the fly is still ticking all of the boxes on a fish's checklist to identify food.

 

[Camp]

I really like the mud suggestion. The mud silting away from the streamer after reaching bottom would add to the presentation effect.