When replying to the post by Padishar regarding scuds and thinking about
ugly flies, the thought process kicked in. A dangerous thing... Does anyone
have an opinion about ugly flies verses the fine, beautiful, sometimes
exquisite flies we all have in our fly boxes? I think I do and the next few
trips are going to be experimental in nature (assuming the trout are willing
participants). I am going to fish ugly flies along with not so ugly flies
using two similarly strung rods, equal alternating casts and imitating
drifts as closely as possible (definitely room for error).

Several flies in my fly box have been "retired". Two in particular. They are
ugly, falling apart and deadly. One is an old hare's ear coming unraveled
with broken wing case barbs sticking out, gold rib gone and missing 30 to 40
percent of the dubbing.
The other is a Kaufmann style black stonefly nymph. Same condition as the
hare's ear but worse. One biot for a tail with 1/2 biots left for antennae,
sectioned wing case twisted around hook and dubbing sticking out where it
shouldn't. Both these flies sustained vicious trout attacks taking more than
30 fish each.

Note: 20 + years ago I wrapped black yarn on a weighted hook (with biots) to
imitate the profile (silhouette) of a standard tied stonefly. There was no
discernable difference in the number of fish hooked. This "test" took place
during the stonefly hatch on the Deschutes. The yarn fly was ugly and an
embarrassment to show anyone after spending the time and effort to tie
perfect R.K. stones.

This does not mean ugly flies will be turned out on my bench on a regular
basis (though that may be the norm due to the aging process). And, yes. I
will continue adding to my collection of fly tying materials which is
enough now to last several lifetimes.

Any experiences or thoughts?

Thanks,
Guy