Soft Hackles

mdk77 wrote:

Santa came early and I have a new book that talks about soft hackles.
It's "Wet Flies" by Dave Hughes. I already had a book by Hughes,
"Trout Flies - The Tier's Reference" that I REALLY liked. I can't
wait to read about the soft hackles in this new book by him.

It's a great book, and he shows a way of tying the hackles on that I
have used ever since I read about it. I don't think anyone mentioned
this method yet in this thread (though I'll admit I haven't follwoed it
really closely).

I'm working from memory here, but the way I remember it is he ties
the feather on parallel to the hook shank by the butt end (with the tip
extended past the eye in front) with the concave side facing the tier,
and strips the barbs off the top of the feather.

Then with the thread hanging just in front of the thorax area, he
takes a couple of wraps of hackle back towards the thorax, traps the
feather and then wraps forward through the hackle, being careful not to
trap any of the feather fibers.

This makes for a very small, neat head on the fly, plus it adds
durability.


Chuck Vance (I did a horrible job describing it, but you'll see
how easy it is in his pictures)

Conan The Librarian wrote in news:fjmcq0$mhe$1
@news.txstate.edu:

It's a great book, and he shows a way of tying the hackles on that I
have used ever since I read about it. I don't think anyone mentioned
this method yet in this thread (though I'll admit I haven't follwoed it
really closely).



Even more importantly, he describes a number of methods of fishing the wet
fly, which range all the way from the way we would fish an emerger all the
way to a quartering swing. It makes you less afraid to try different
things.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

"Scott Seidman" wrote

way to a quartering swing. It makes you less afraid to try different
things.



It IS a good book and I don't really know why I'm going to tap this out

except that "the power of published" sometimes amazes me, including it's
"power to reduce fear"


In my own little field, I've known and worked with several people with
published books, or multiple articles, on training retrievers. Most were
mediocre dog trainers, at best. In several cases they paid me to train
their dogs because their own efforts didn't succeed.

Anyway it always astounds me how we all hang on the words of an "expert"
that has a book. My personal experience simply doesn't support the idea
that "published" and "knows a damn thing" always go together.

In fly fishing, almost all books are little more than a re-do of previous
books. The approach seems to be ... read five books ... pick a thing or
two you like from each .... rewrite those things ... and organize them into
a new volume. In Hughes' case, his co-authored "Western Hatches" series
really adds new knowledge to the angler's bookshelf ... new to angling,
moved over from the too damn boring entomology literature. IMHO, "Wet
Flies" is almost all re-hash and reading Lidy, Leisering, Polly, Nemes etc
in the originals might lead to more pleasure ( did for me ).



I sometimes wish I had less fear to try different things that MY thoughts
suggest, even if they aren't supported by the "experts." Indeed, I often
wish that I could wipe my mind clean, for short periods, of what I've read
about fishing, so that I'd be forced to be more observant and creative, not
just do what it says on page 39.



DISCLAIMER::: I own Hughes' book(s) and find them worth reading, this is
not about him or his work but about the whole idea that published = expert

On Dec 11, 11:47 am, "Larry L" wrote:
"Scott Seidman" wrote

way to a quartering swing. It makes you less afraid to try different
things.

It IS a good book and I don't really know why I'm going to tap this out

except that "the power of published" sometimes amazes me, including it's
"power to reduce fear"

In my own little field, I've known and worked with several people with
published books, or multiple articles, on training retrievers. Most were
mediocre dog trainers, at best. In several cases they paid me to train
their dogs because their own efforts didn't succeed.

Anyway it always astounds me how we all hang on the words of an "expert"
that has a book. My personal experience simply doesn't support the idea
that "published" and "knows a damn thing" always go together.

In fly fishing, almost all books are little more than a re-do of previous
books. The approach seems to be ... read five books ... pick a thing or
two you like from each .... rewrite those things ... and organize them into
a new volume. In Hughes' case, his co-authored "Western Hatches" series
really adds new knowledge to the angler's bookshelf ... new to angling,
moved over from the too damn boring entomology literature. IMHO, "Wet
Flies" is almost all re-hash and reading Lidy, Leisering, Polly, Nemes etc
in the originals might lead to more pleasure ( did for me ).

I sometimes wish I had less fear to try different things that MY thoughts
suggest, even if they aren't supported by the "experts." Indeed, I often
wish that I could wipe my mind clean, for short periods, of what I've read
about fishing, so that I'd be forced to be more observant and creative, not
just do what it says on page 39.

DISCLAIMER::: I own Hughes' book(s) and find them worth reading, this is
not about him or his work but about the whole idea that published = expert

In my case, I'm just beginning my journey into fly fishing. My entire
book experience is limited to 6 or 7 books at this point so I don't
have anything to compare with - good or bad.

I do like the way Hugh's books are simple for a guy like me to
understand (especially the "Trout Flies" book). I live in an area
almost totally devoid of fly fishermen (Central Illinois) so books
that I can understand have been really helpful. I think I've also
learned a lot from just "doing" the fishing and learning hit-and-miss
that way. It's probably not a very good way, but it's what I have
right now.

Other books that have helped me a lot a

"Fly Fishing for Beginners" (The Freshwater Angler)
by Chris Hansen

"The Orvis Fly-Fishing Guide"
by Tom Rosenbauer

"The Fly-Tying Bible: 100 Deadly Trout and Salmon Flies in Step-by-
Step Photographs"
by Peter Gathercole

"The Fly Tier's Benchside Reference"
by Ted Leeson (Author), Jim Schollmeyer

"Midge Magic"
by Don Holbrook

"Fishing Small Flies"
by Ed Engle

These books sure helped me this year. I envy you folks who have been
fishing for many years & who already know all of this stuff.

- Dave

On 11 Dec, 20:09, mdk77 wrote:


These books sure helped me this year. I envy you folks who have been
fishing for many years & who already know all of this stuff.

- Dave

What is a wet fly? Well basically, most of the old traditional wet
flies are dry flies that don´t float very well!

Most of these flies, including very many soft hackles, represent dead,
or spent flies, and emergers. Some, (like those I showed), are
specific nymph imitations.

In a hatch, nymphs will be taken at any point in the water column, but
often just below or in the film.

I do use some of these soft hackle nymphs, ( the nymph 2 type) with a
couple of turns of lead under the thorax. This helps to ensure that it
penetrates the film well, ( "good entry") , but it wont usually make
it sink very far, and in medium to fast water hardly at all, unless
other steps are taken, ( mending) as that is dependent on the leader
set up, and how one fishes it.

The only reason I differentiate, is to suit the various stages of the
hatch, and also the water being fished. In fast broken water, a more
or less "standard" soft hackle will usually be most effective. The
calmer the water becomes, the better the imitation has to be.

Without movement, none of these flies will work very well. In fast
water, the water itself, and the drag on the leader provides more than
sufficient movement. In calmer water, one needs a better imitation, or
must supply movement by "working" the flies.That is the reason for the
various types. They are all "soft hackles", but designed to do
different things under different circumstances.

This is also why many of these flies will not be successful unless
there is a hatch!

Most modern nymphing techniques depend on getting down to the fish, by
using bead-heads, etc etc. and will work even when there is no hatch,
simply because one covers more fish at the fishes´ holding depth, and
few fish will pass up a serendipitous titbit in easy range, hatch or
no hatch.

These flies just don´t work like that. There are ways of getting them
down, using weight, and they will work, but you can not fish these
flies deep (and under control) without weight of some sort somewhere.
They are primarily designed to catch fish holding on the edges of fast
broken water, or in pocket water, and in relatively shallow water.
They work best when a hatch is in progress, the fish are feeding, and
the appropriate pattern and type is used At other times under other
circumstances, they can be quite useless! They are not a universal
panacea.

There are also times when a winged wet fly dressed and fished
correctly is a great deal more successful.

Sometimes, the only way to catch fish consistently is by"dredging" the
bottom, with some form of deep nymphing technique. At such times, the
soft hackles just wont work.

Something else of importance here, which is more or less universally
ignored, or forgotten nowadays. These and practically all other
traditional wet flies ( excluding fancies) are basically failures.

All the old literature constantly repeats that the best time for a
rise was when the dry flies first alighted on the water. Nymphs as
such were not used. This was also the reason for the extremely
frequent short line casting. The only really successful anglers were
those who fished upstream. If they could have gotten their flies to
float, then they would have done! They could not, so they designed
compromises. Those compromises are what we have now.

They were never designed to sink at all, and it was impossible to sink
them much with the gear in use anyway. They are the next best thing to
a floating fly. Namely a barely sunk fly. ALL the winged wet flies
were designed with this in mind, which is why they are very poor when
used as "swung" flies etc. ( There was never any sensible rationale
for this ). They were designed to be good imitations of FLOATING
flies.

The fact that they sank was a severe disadvantage to many anglers. So
designing them to sink as little as possible was the next best thing.
Other flies, for other hatches were designed to sink immediately and
imitate sunk spents etc.

These flies were used for hundreds of years, They represent adult
floating flies,practically WITHOUT EXCEPTION!!!! and WERE NEVER
DESIGNED TO SINK! This is a modern application.

The whole rift between wet and dry flies is basically nothing more
than a series of misunderstandings, and also explains why virtually
nobody knows how to fish wet flies properly any more. They should be
fished as dry flies, upstream and as accurate imitations of the hatch.

This is also why ALL!! the old literature specified cock hackles for
wet flies. It floated longer! The whole soft hackle movement was a
separate affair.

Having just re-read over a hundred and fifty of the older books, this
theory is borne out by every single one of them, and also accounts for
some apparently odd ideas, which in the light of what I just wrote are
not odd at all.

TL
MC

Mike wrote in news:e267f1a1-1403-4c1b-91d3-
:

The whole rift between wet and dry flies is basically nothing more
than a series of misunderstandings, and also explains why virtually
nobody knows how to fish wet flies properly any more. They should be
fished as dry flies, upstream and as accurate imitations of the hatch.

Yes, that certainly is one way to fish a wet fly effectively, but all the
old gents I know that tie on a cast of three or four winged wet flies (the
same three or four flies for one or two seasons!) who swing down and across
while wading downstream certainly catch many big fish-- and they work much
less hard at it than a nymph fisherman, certainly.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

On 11 Dec, 20:49, Scott Seidman wrote:

Yes, that certainly is one way to fish a wet fly effectively, but all the
old gents I know that tie on a cast of three or four winged wet flies (the
same three or four flies for one or two seasons!) who swing down and across
while wading downstream certainly catch many big fish-- and they work much
less hard at it than a nymph fisherman, certainly.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Indeed, it works, but it is much more successful, ( although
admittedly a lot more work), upstream.

TL
MC

On 11 Dec 2007 19:49:27 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

Yes, that certainly is one way to fish a wet fly effectively, but all the
old gents I know that tie on a cast of three or four winged wet flies (the
same three or four flies for one or two seasons!) who swing down and across
while wading downstream certainly catch many big fish-- and they work much
less hard at it than a nymph fisherman, certainly.

When my mother died several years ago, Joanne and I found two of her
old Wheatley fly boxes. One full of dries she had tied, and the other
full of wets she had tied. There was no nymph fishing for us in the
40s, early 50s. Dries, wets, and streamers were the only flies we had
in our fly boxes.

We would fish wets not unlike we fish nymphs today, albeit without
weights, and included swinging them down and across. When we fished
in northern NH every June/July, the favorite pattern was the Light
Cahill, both wet and dry. The wets worked when there was no hatch and
many times we would get hits/catch fish while retrieving the fly after
it had swung down stream. If there were strike indicators in the 40s,
they would have worked well with a wet. Every strike was *felt*; no
telling how many fish we *did not* feel.

Dave

"Larry L" wrote in
:

I sometimes wish I had less fear to try different things that MY
thoughts suggest, even if they aren't supported by the "experts."


I'm actually not this way with most books. The two "fishing", as opposed
to "tying", books that I really like are the one being discussed, and
Rosenbauer's "Prospecting for Trout". Hughes really expanded my concept of
what a wet fly is, and why we use them, and Rosenbauer gave me some early
insight about what to do when there's no hatch.

There are a variety of "experts" that certainly carry little sway on how I
do things-- some well published, and some self-appointed. For me to take
them seriously, they have to write well, and they have to have something to
say.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

"Scott Seidman" wrote


I'm actually not this way with most books.

I didn't think you were ... or worded better .. I knew I was, to a degree,
misreading you when I tapped out my reply.

It's just the phrase struck me, and not really as it applies to fishing
books, but to all our culture and our reverence for books. Every stupid
thing ever thought has been published in a book ... and then again on ROFF
G. The first semester in an honors program at college my son was
required to take a course designed to make more careful in their choices of
sources of information ... I thought that was a great idea.


Hughes is one of my favorite modern authors ... well presented, documented
and helpful ...never inflexible or "my way is the one right way".



The modern author that causes me to "smile" the most is Borger, who has line
after line that read like, " After I invented wet flies, and my son invented
the basic overhead cast, we caught 387 fish that afternoon in 55 minutes,
all in the 7 to 12 pound range." Makes it hard for me to even try and
believe the real content on technique.