Dry Fly Wings

I read on the web recently that the color of dry fly wings doesn't really
matter all that much. The article stated that the 'footprint' of the fly
matters to the fish, the wing matters to the fisherman. This makes sense to
me. When I hold up a fly to see its profile I see shape not color. When a
fish sees a fly backlit from the sky it can't see too much color.

Which brings me to the question...does anyone here disregard dry fly
pattern's wing materials and just use a visible white or bold color for
better visibility?

I've been making deer hair types of flies lately, and the bleached hair is
sooo much easier to see than natural or dyed hair.

In fact, I find myself leaning more and more to the idea of flies being
either light colored, dark colored, or in-between grey.

Any thoughts? Suggestions? Flames?

Charlie M wrote:
I read on the web recently that the color of dry fly wings doesn't really
matter all that much. The article stated that the 'footprint' of the fly
matters to the fish, the wing matters to the fisherman. This makes sense to
me. When I hold up a fly to see its profile I see shape not color. When a
fish sees a fly backlit from the sky it can't see too much color.

Which brings me to the question...does anyone here disregard dry fly
pattern's wing materials and just use a visible white or bold color for
better visibility?

I've been making deer hair types of flies lately, and the bleached hair is
sooo much easier to see than natural or dyed hair.

In fact, I find myself leaning more and more to the idea of flies being
either light colored, dark colored, or in-between grey.

Any thoughts? Suggestions? Flames?

This will sound like heresy to some, but I don't think
wings are necessary on a dry fly. I tested this hypothesis
over a two month period one summer in Yellowstone changing
flies, identical except for wings, every ten casts. The dry
flies without wings caught just as many fish as the flies
with wings. The hackle provides enough wing-like profile by
itself so that in most cases tying in a wing is superfluous.

It's at this point that someone always says You ain't never
fished the glass smooth, crystal clear waters of Some Creek
where the trout all have PhDs and eyes like microscopes. I
suppose there may be some circumstances where a dry fly with
a wing will catch fish where one without will not, but I've
quit tying in wings and I still catch fish.

--
Ken Fortenberry

"Ken Fortenberry" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
SNIP
, but I've
quit tying in wings and I still catch fish.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Most of mine are wingless as well. Such flies also last longer. Double
upright split wings are reduced to a messy clump by the first fish that
takes. Of course, wingless flies don´t look quite as nice in the box!

TL
MC

"Ken Fortenberry"

It's at this point that someone always says You ain't never
fished the glass smooth, crystal clear waters of Some Creek
where the trout all have PhDs and eyes like microscopes.


As a traditional user of the "Some Creek argument" let me say,

I don't think wings are that important either, even on Some Creek 99% of the
time. BUT, most of those PHDs on SC don't eat fully emerged duns very
often, either G. When they do, I use winged patterns ... no-hackles and
thorax ties ... in deference to tradition as much as trout

Vince Marinaro was a wing man, the first to insist they were a 'key" but, if
I remember correctly, even he didn't stress color. His point, and it's a
good one, imho, is that a true dun is first visible in the trout's window
via it's wing and thus the wing serves to increase the feeding lane size and
get a trout's attention early, both. His "Modern Dry Fly Code" would be
excellent reading for anyone truly interested in the "wing question"

Generally, even a mayfly species selective fish that will eat a Dun will eat
an emerger of the same species. Emergers don't have the wings fully
upright yet and a wingless tie with poor floatation in the rear half is a
BETTER emerger imitation than a 'high floating, high winged' pattern. Add
the fact that any segment of the fly beneath the film will be visible to the
fish far sooner than parts above the surface and most times it simply
doesn't make sense to fish true dun patterns, period.

MY experience with true DUN patterns has been that a slightly 'cartooned'
wing, oversize for the hook, and darker than natural, can be effective.
However, I recently had a situation on a SC ( Silver ) fishing Tricos that
were clearly taking duns. I couldn't hook one until after I trimmed my
'cartoon' wing to natural size, then hooked several of the same fish that
had refused the same, untrimmed fly.

SO, from my perspective as one of the SC types, I think the wing can be
important on the rare occasions that duns themselves are important (i.e.
fish are selective to that stage) None of this matters if the fish are
eating whatever comes by .... an 'every ten casts' test ain't a test of
mayfly DUN patterns UNLESS they wouldn't take any caddis or midge or
attractor or even mayfly emergers during the test period ... if fish are
locked into a specific mayfly dun, THEN tests of color and winging start to
matter, but not until that very rare selective feeding occurs .. IMHO.
For dun patterns, I believe that a hackle collar is plenty 'wing' most of
the time ( hackle stacker = one hell of fine pattern ) and more solid
winging material isn't 'really' required. BUT, there IS a certain pleasure
in following fishing tradition and I enjoy fishing/tying no-hackles and
thorax duns for that reason, and wish the fish would give me reason to more
often.

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
...
It's at this point that someone always says You ain't never
fished the glass smooth, crystal clear waters of Some Creek
where the trout all have PhDs and eyes like microscopes. I
suppose there may be some circumstances where a dry fly with
a wing will catch fish where one without will not, but I've
quit tying in wings and I still catch fish.


well, I do fish some springfed Creeks with pretty picky trout, but pretty
much agree with you on this one.....as long as we are talking of mayflies.
Venture into caddis and stones, and wings are very much necessary, and on my
streams, there are plenty of caddis and stoneflies. Once in a great while, I
seem to find wings useful on mayfly imitations for MY purposes, mostly
visibility. Only two hatches in PA seem to dictate trying a realistic wing:
certain sulfurs with darkish wings and some of the darker winged Blue Wing
Olives.
Still, I tie my personal flies sans wings most of the time and the fish
don't care enough to faze me.
Tom

"Mike Connor" wrote in message
...

Most of mine are wingless as well.

But they're not really wingless. They have hackle wings. I don't think a
no-hackle dry fly without wings would do so well.

Vince Marinaro was a wing man, the first to insist they were a 'key"

As I recall, he said wings were the *most* important part of the dry
fly.

But George Harvey, like most of you, says they make no difference.

vince

I prefer fishing caddis patterns when fishing dries, so I tie lots of hair
wings. I haven't fished wingless mayfly patterns but will give it a try.
My main concern is the visibility of the fly. I can't fish it if I can't
see it!

To be honest though, I fish nymphs a lot. No wings there. Only legs!

"jeffc" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
m...

"Mike Connor" wrote in message
...

Most of mine are wingless as well.

But they're not really wingless. They have hackle wings. I don't think a
no-hackle dry fly without wings would do so well.

"Wingless" in the sense of previous posts, no other wings except for hackle.
Having said that, this also applies to mayflies. For Caddis and other things
I use EXTRA wings, over and above any hackle etc.

The point being, that one can skip tying in extra wings on many flies,
without any apparent detriment to their catching ability, and indeed, to
their general robustness.

TL
MC

In article dmcaf.8854$N73.2696@trnddc04, Thomas Littleton
wrote:

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
...
It's at this point that someone always says You ain't never
fished the glass smooth, crystal clear waters of Some Creek
where the trout all have PhDs and eyes like microscopes. I
suppose there may be some circumstances where a dry fly with
a wing will catch fish where one without will not, but I've
quit tying in wings and I still catch fish.


well, I do fish some springfed Creeks with pretty picky trout, but pretty
much agree with you on this one.....as long as we are talking of mayflies.
Venture into caddis and stones, and wings are very much necessary, and on my
streams, there are plenty of caddis and stoneflies. Once in a great while, I
seem to find wings useful on mayfly imitations for MY purposes, mostly
visibility.

I regularly fish the UK equivalent of difficult spring creeks - the
Test, Itchen and Wylie. I totally agree wth this - I don't use wings
for upwing flies (what's called mayflies in the US) but might
occasionally put them in for my own benefit.

IME it is useful to tie patterns on these waters slightly smaller than
the natural.

Lazarus

--
Remover the rock from the email address