Soft Hackles

"Mike" wrote in message
...
On 11 Dec, 21:25, "Wolfgang" wrote:

You want advice? Find someone to teach you how to use your computer.

Wolfgang

Thanks for even more useful advice

You're welcome.

Grandma.

O.k.......go ahead......amaze us.

Wolfgang

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

"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.

Mike wrote:
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


I don't agree.

IMO, dead drifting is over rated. Although dead drifting will
consistently catch fish most of the time, it isn't always better.
Insects both on and in the water MOVE (unless they're dead or are
pretending to be). Adding movement to your flies both wet and dry can
increase your take. It's also more fun, IMO. There are a variety of
ways to give your flies some action.

Willi

Willi wrote in
:

Mike wrote:
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


I don't agree.

IMO, dead drifting is over rated. Although dead drifting will
consistently catch fish most of the time, it isn't always better.
Insects both on and in the water MOVE (unless they're dead or are
pretending to be). Adding movement to your flies both wet and dry can
increase your take. It's also more fun, IMO. There are a variety of
ways to give your flies some action.

Willi


I like spending the day casting upstream. Come days end, though, I can
walk back to my car streamside, or I can tie on a cast of wets, and wade
downstream, covering a ton of water very quickly, in what is to me the
laziest most enjoyable fishing experiences I have. The guides around
here always say that wet flies are what you fish when you want to catch
big fish.



--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

On 12 Dec, 00:14, Willi wrote:
Mike wrote:
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

I don't agree.

IMO, dead drifting is over rated. Although dead drifting will
consistently catch fish most of the time, it isn't always better.
Insects both on and in the water MOVE (unless they're dead or are
pretending to be). Adding movement to your flies both wet and dry can
increase your take. It's also more fun, IMO. There are a variety of
ways to give your flies some action.

Willi

I didn´t mention dead drifting. In point of fact, I use a lot of
movement on my upstream flies.

TL
MC

On 12 Dec, 00:14, Willi wrote:


http://www.mike-connor.homepage.t-on...am_choice.html

TL
MC

http://www.mike-connor.homepage.t-on..._choice_2.html

http://www.mike-connor.homepage.t-on..._choice_3.html

"Larry L" wrote in
:


"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".



IMO Hughes seems to be the same way in person. I've attended a couple of
tying sessions at shows with him as the lecturer and enjoyed them
immensely. I've recently acquired a book on soft hackles put out by Frank
Amato Publications by Allen McGee that looks informative and useful. More
info at:
http://tinyurl.com/35x5u2

As always YMMV.

one of the JM's