Palmering

"Mike Connor" wrote in message
...

If you want to tie "humpies" with such stuff, then use a hackle bunch or
similar for the tail ( or some other hair, antelope, calf, zebra, etc
etc),
and then tie in a bunch of your flaring hair at the bend with the tips
pointing forwards. Wrap the body, tying down the tips, and then bring the
hair over, and tie it down.

If I'm reading this right, you're suggesting tying the wing/back hairs with
the butt ends as the exposed ends? Won't that screw up the wings? I use the
tips of the hump hairs as the wings, then tie on some hackle.

--rm

"riverman" wrote in message
...

"Mike Connor" wrote in message
...

If you want to tie "humpies" with such stuff, then use a hackle bunch or
similar for the tail ( or some other hair, antelope, calf, zebra, etc
etc),
and then tie in a bunch of your flaring hair at the bend with the tips
pointing forwards. Wrap the body, tying down the tips, and then bring
the
hair over, and tie it down.

If I'm reading this right, you're suggesting tying the wing/back hairs
with
the butt ends as the exposed ends? Won't that screw up the wings? I use
the
tips of the hump hairs as the wings, then tie on some hackle.

--rm



Tie in the tail using a bunch of fibres that suit you, tie down and cut off
the waste. Tie in the "shellback" using a bunch of fibres that suit you,
( or just use the ends of the tail fibres), form the body, tie the shellback
down and cut off the waste. Tie in your wings using a bunch of fibres that
suit you. Wind your hackle, and finish.

This saves quite a lot of buggering about, the flies work perfectly well,
and look good too.

This is doubtless the method you are using;
http://www.visi.com/~mpv/FlyFishing/Humpy/Humpy.html


Here is Harry Masons excellent tutorial;
http://www.troutflies.com/tutorials/humpy/01.shtml

Here is another method ( more or less as I described);
http://www.westfly.com/patterns/dry/humpy.shtml

Another; http://www.eflytyer.com/patterns/m_humpy.html

Another; http://www.danica.com/flytier/steps/...iobo_humpy.htm

http://www.virtualflybox.com/swaps/swap.php?id=31

http://www.flyanglersonline.com/flyt...20699fotw.html

http://www.guidebc.com/flypatterns/humpy.asp

There are hundreds more, many with some other trick or variation. They all
work.

TL
MC

"Mike Connor" wrote in message
...
There are hundreds more, many with some other trick or variation. They
all
work.

For YOU, maybe! ;-)

--riverman
(thanks for the links, btw)

"riverman" wrote in message
...

"Mike Connor" wrote in message
...
There are hundreds more, many with some other trick or variation. They
all
work.

For YOU, maybe! ;-)

--riverman
(thanks for the links, btw)



It does not really matter how you achieve some results. I spent a very great
deal of time learning all sorts of tricks, tips, and wrinkles, however, for
my own flies, I generally use what I find to be the quickest and simplest
method.

Unless a certain method gives a functional advantage, or a specific effect
which is not otherwise achievable, or only with added difficulty, then I
usually choose the easiest. This is also dependent on the availability of
certain materials.

The main functional aspect of the humpy, is that the "shellback" when
properly applied with the correct hair, makes the fly more or less
unsinkable, but it still sits "in" the film like a real half drowned beetle,
even when completely waterlogged. No floatant is required, ( and is actually
probably detrimental in this case).

One may achieve the same results using foam, cork strips, etc etc. instead
of the deer hair for the "shellback".

Although many tie the humpy with longish tails and very dense hackle, in
order to get them to float high on the film, ( when treated with floatant),
I now tie them sparse, and have often tied them without any hackle at all,
or just a few wisps of hen hackle. This was after I noticed that the
"waterlogged" versions, ( only being held up by the buoyancy of the deer
hair "shellback"), caught a lot more fish under most conditions, than those
which were riding high. More of the fish which rose to the waterlogged
version were also hooked. Takes were more confident, and hook-sets easier.

The less superfluous appendages one applies, the less to get waterlogged
anyway. A couple of minimalist versions I use are merely a shell back of
black deer hair, over a purple, red, or brown silk body. These get darker
when wet, and "shine" through. Just like the real thing. One may add a few
wisps of hackle if desired, but I have not noticed any remarkable difference
in the success rate of such flies with hackle, as opposed to those without.
Used as "bombers", ( thrown with a "plop", to get the attention of the
fish), or dead drifted when appropriate beetles are in evidence, "dragged"
to give some action, or even just as a "searching" fly, these are hard to
beat. They are also extremely durable, more or less unsinkable, ( WITHOUT
floatant!), easy and quick to tie, and very very successful.

If one uses this fly as a mayfly ( American sense of "mayfly", meaning
practically any upwinged fly), then a high floating version may be better,
but I would not normally use such a fly as a mayfly imitation, ( although
tied sparse and long with a fullish hackle it is an excellent Mayfly
[E.danica] or "British" mayfly imitation). In such a case, the "shell back"
serves no function, as it never gets near the water, and one might as well
leave it off!

As a beetle pattern, in various colours, it excels. Also as a moth pattern
with white wings etc.

The function of this fly is far more important to me than its appearance.

When "inventing" flies, I usually strive to imitate the desired function
first, and worry about the appearance etc later, ( if at all!) I have
had a great deal more success doing this, than I have had by using any other
method.

It is interesting and fun to learn all the various methods people use, and
in some cases this is the only way to tie certain flies. This also assumes
that one knows what the original inventor was trying to achieve, ( or it was
just a lucky accident!), and why certain materials were used. In other
cases it is merely a monumental waste of time, most especially with various
"fancy" flies, that have no specific function, or any real practical
application. For years I carried a lot of such flies in my boxes, as a
result of recommendations, magazine articles etc etc. I no longer do so.
This makes it a great deal easier to choose a fly, I have a great deal less
to start with, ( although still a fair number), but I now know the function
I require, and what I may expect of it.

There is no point in carrying fifty different torpedo shaped weighted nymphs
in a range of colours. One will invariably suffice. The same goes for
practically everything else. It is of course still fascinating to tie all
these things, and most people I know who tie, do so. I rarely bother much
anymore, and have not done so for quite a while.

If one analyses the function of many flies, then it is a great deal easier
to "invent" better ones, or at least improve one´s own versions. This
reduces clutter, makes fly-choice easier, and invariably results in greater
success, not least because one knows exactly what one is trying to do, and
this gives greater confidence. A secondary advantage is that one finds it
easier to substitute materials, methods etc.

Several hundred ( or even just a dozen!) flies in box, about which one knows
nothing, are equally useless.How do you choose one? What do you want to do
with it?

A dozen good functional flies in the hands of even a moderately skilled
angler will outfish anybody with a dozen boxes full, who does not know what
to do with them.

TL
MC

"riverman" wrote in message
...

"Mike Connor" wrote in message
...
There are hundreds more, many with some other trick or variation. They
all
work.

For YOU, maybe! ;-)

--riverman
(thanks for the links, btw)



It does not really matter how you achieve some results. I spent a very great
deal of time learning all sorts of tricks, tips, and wrinkles, however, for
my own flies, I generally use what I find to be the quickest and simplest
method.

Unless a certain method gives a functional advantage, or a specific effect
which is not otherwise achievable, or only with added difficulty, then I
usually choose the easiest. This is also dependent on the availability of
certain materials.

The main functional aspect of the humpy, is that the "shellback" when
properly applied with the correct hair, makes the fly more or less
unsinkable, but it still sits "in" the film like a real half drowned beetle,
even when completely waterlogged. No floatant is required, ( and is actually
probably detrimental in this case).

One may achieve the same results using foam, cork strips, etc etc. instead
of the deer hair for the "shellback".

Although many tie the humpy with longish tails and very dense hackle, in
order to get them to float high on the film, ( when treated with floatant),
I now tie them sparse, and have often tied them without any hackle at all,
or just a few wisps of hen hackle. This was after I noticed that the
"waterlogged" versions, ( only being held up by the buoyancy of the deer
hair "shellback"), caught a lot more fish under most conditions, than those
which were riding high. More of the fish which rose to the waterlogged
version were also hooked. Takes were more confident, and hook-sets easier.

The less superfluous appendages one applies, the less to get waterlogged
anyway. A couple of minimalist versions I use are merely a shell back of
black deer hair, over a purple, red, or brown silk body. These get darker
when wet, and "shine" through. Just like the real thing. One may add a few
wisps of hackle if desired, but I have not noticed any remarkable difference
in the success rate of such flies with hackle, as opposed to those without.
Used as "bombers", ( thrown with a "plop", to get the attention of the
fish), or dead drifted when appropriate beetles are in evidence, "dragged"
to give some action, or even just as a "searching" fly, these are hard to
beat. They are also extremely durable, more or less unsinkable, ( WITHOUT
floatant!), easy and quick to tie, and very very successful.

If one uses this fly as a mayfly ( American sense of "mayfly", meaning
practically any upwinged fly), then a high floating version may be better,
but I would not normally use such a fly as a mayfly imitation, ( although
tied sparse and long with a fullish hackle it is an excellent Mayfly
[E.danica] or "British" mayfly imitation). In such a case, the "shell back"
serves no function, as it never gets near the water, and one might as well
leave it off!

As a beetle pattern, in various colours, it excels. Also as a moth pattern
with white wings etc.

The function of this fly is far more important to me than its appearance.

When "inventing" flies, I usually strive to imitate the desired function
first, and worry about the appearance etc later, ( if at all!) I have
had a great deal more success doing this, than I have had by using any other
method.

It is interesting and fun to learn all the various methods people use, and
in some cases this is the only way to tie certain flies. This also assumes
that one knows what the original inventor was trying to achieve, ( or it was
just a lucky accident!), and why certain materials were used. In other
cases it is merely a monumental waste of time, most especially with various
"fancy" flies, that have no specific function, or any real practical
application. For years I carried a lot of such flies in my boxes, as a
result of recommendations, magazine articles etc etc. I no longer do so.
This makes it a great deal easier to choose a fly, I have a great deal less
to start with, ( although still a fair number), but I now know the function
I require, and what I may expect of it.

There is no point in carrying fifty different torpedo shaped weighted nymphs
in a range of colours. One will invariably suffice. The same goes for
practically everything else. It is of course still fascinating to tie all
these things, and most people I know who tie, do so. I rarely bother much
anymore, and have not done so for quite a while.

If one analyses the function of many flies, then it is a great deal easier
to "invent" better ones, or at least improve one´s own versions. This
reduces clutter, makes fly-choice easier, and invariably results in greater
success, not least because one knows exactly what one is trying to do, and
this gives greater confidence. A secondary advantage is that one finds it
easier to substitute materials, methods etc.

Several hundred ( or even just a dozen!) flies in box, about which one knows
nothing, are equally useless.How do you choose one? What do you want to do
with it?

A dozen good functional flies in the hands of even a moderately skilled
angler will outfish anybody with a dozen boxes full, who does not know what
to do with them.

TL
MC

"Mike Connor" wrote in message
...
There are hundreds more, many with some other trick or variation. They
all
work.

For YOU, maybe! ;-)

--riverman
(thanks for the links, btw)

"riverman" wrote in message
...

"Mike Connor" wrote in message
...

If you want to tie "humpies" with such stuff, then use a hackle bunch or
similar for the tail ( or some other hair, antelope, calf, zebra, etc
etc),
and then tie in a bunch of your flaring hair at the bend with the tips
pointing forwards. Wrap the body, tying down the tips, and then bring
the
hair over, and tie it down.

If I'm reading this right, you're suggesting tying the wing/back hairs
with
the butt ends as the exposed ends? Won't that screw up the wings? I use
the
tips of the hump hairs as the wings, then tie on some hackle.

--rm



Tie in the tail using a bunch of fibres that suit you, tie down and cut off
the waste. Tie in the "shellback" using a bunch of fibres that suit you,
( or just use the ends of the tail fibres), form the body, tie the shellback
down and cut off the waste. Tie in your wings using a bunch of fibres that
suit you. Wind your hackle, and finish.

This saves quite a lot of buggering about, the flies work perfectly well,
and look good too.

This is doubtless the method you are using;
http://www.visi.com/~mpv/FlyFishing/Humpy/Humpy.html


Here is Harry Masons excellent tutorial;
http://www.troutflies.com/tutorials/humpy/01.shtml

Here is another method ( more or less as I described);
http://www.westfly.com/patterns/dry/humpy.shtml

Another; http://www.eflytyer.com/patterns/m_humpy.html

Another; http://www.danica.com/flytier/steps/...iobo_humpy.htm

http://www.virtualflybox.com/swaps/swap.php?id=31

http://www.flyanglersonline.com/flyt...20699fotw.html

http://www.guidebc.com/flypatterns/humpy.asp

There are hundreds more, many with some other trick or variation. They all
work.

TL
MC