USD Flies *

[Traditionalist]

Tried to post this in a reply, but it kept timing out, so posted it here instead.

f you want an upside down fly which always lands correctly, wont twist leaders, and is also a good hooker, then you might like to try this;





This is how the fly lands and sits EVERY TIME! 



I have dressed this one rather bushy, so that all salient points are obvious, but it works perfectly well when dressed sparsely. The "V" hair wing forces it to land correctly, but will not make it spin, as the air flowing through and across the hair is non directional, as it would be with a solid wing.

The main trick here, is to mount your hook in the vice like this, and tie the wing bunch in as shown.



You can use hare, ( as here), rabbit, squirrel etc etc.  When you have tied the bunch in, and split the wing, put the fly in the vice as normal, and simply finish it off.  Just brush the hare fur out a bit underneath for legs. ( which of course is at the outside of the hook bend!).

Of course you can make these flies look very realistic if you want, but the main aim here is to make them behave realistically.

My apologies for the colour shifts in the photos, but I am merely using my desk lamp for lighting when shooting these flies, and it has the wrong colour temperature for photos.  Just a "quick and dirty" solution.

I would also normally use straight eyed hooks for these flies, but I just used what I have on the bench in front of me.  A couple of people asked me how  I manage to do this so quickly. This is because I dress in front of my computer a lot, here is a photo of that as well!

It?s not pretty of course! And I have on occasion accidentally smoked hare fur dubbing which somehow got into one of my roll-ups ( tastes a bit acrid, but "waste not want not". It?s better than seal fur at least. Maybe squirrel is better ?




TL
MC

[haresear]

Radical design there Traditionalist. I'll be giving that one a go in a howling downstreamer I think. Is it your own idea?

alex

[Traditionalist]

Radical design there Traditionalist. I'll be giving that one a go in a howling downstreamer I think. Is it your own idea?

alex

Yes.  Of course there is nothing really new in fly-dressing. There are only so many ways to attach material to a hook, and whatever one does, somebody will usually have done it before.  My reasons for making these flies in this manner, is that I always found USD flies quite attractive, and the idea of concealing the hook appealed to me, but a lot of them don?t work very well, or are complex and difficult to dress. This is, to a considerable extent, due to the preoccupation many have with feathers, and some other stuff.

Many also seem to be hung up on plastic nowadays, which is of course due to the massive influence of stocked rainbow fishing, and the need for the industry to constantly produce "new" patterns, the vast majority of which are very considerably inferior to the "old" ones. I have nothing at all against synthetic materials, ( as the Vernille in the detached body flies demonstrates) , but it has to be a useful addition, which works, and not just another fad, or which may only be obtained at considerable cost and trouble from a specific supplier. I tend to get very cynical indeed about such miraculous "innovations".

I also have nothing against the use of "genetic" hackles and the like, indeed I use them a lot, but it is absolutely pointless showing a beginner ( or indeed many others!), that he needs to buy feathers for two hundred pounds in order to dress a few flies, especially when he is still hadering with himself as to whether he can afford to pay twenty pounds for a vice, or if he can even justify paying fifty pounds for a fly rod in the first place, much less all the rest of the clobber which people cart around with them nowadays.

I only dress fishing flies, and these have to fulfil my basic criteria, from which I only very rarely stray.  In the meantime I have a massive collection of materials, but I find myself returning ever more often to simple hair and fur constructions. They are usually easier than many other flies to dress, given the right methods, they are robust, reliable, CHEAP! and they catch fish.

When I teach beginners, there is no point in showing them what a marvellous fly-dresser I am. They want to dress good patterns as soon as they possibly can, so that they can go and catch some fish with them.  In my opinion, at least ninety per cent of the flies dressed nowadays are dressed to catch anglers, or to sell specific materials, videos and the like showing "the method", which of course have to be bought from the bloke who "invents" the fly, and not to catch fish, although some may well do so. Of the remaining ten per cent, far too many are complex,expensive, or impossible for a beginner to master with any degree of success.

Most of the flies I use regularly, and show to others, are quick and easy, and the materials are readily available very cheaply. In point of fact, these flies are more successful than most others, when used properly. 

One other major influence on my attitudes to various things connected with fishing, is that I don?t sell anything, and I never have done. I very rarely recommend anything at all, and only then with the greatest possible circumspection, geared to what I know about the person or persons wanting the information, as much as my knowledge on the matter.

It is also absolutely pointless telling a sixteen year old that the "XYZ" vice is the best available, and an absolute  bargain at four hundred quid a throw, when he has ten quid to spend, and just wants to go fishing.

He is much better served with a copy of "The Practical Angler", shown how to dress a few easy cheap flies, warned to avoid "plastic piscatorial playgrounds" and sent on his way up the nearest beck.

TL
MC

[Wildfisher]

Spot on Mike. Keep it simple.That's also the philosophy behind most of our fishing  for our mainly modest trout.

[greenwell]

I would agree wholeheartedly with all of that. When I first started to learn to tie flies I got a book called "How to tie flies" by, I think, Kenneth Mansfield and just followed the step by step instructions. It started off with thread bodied hackled dries then went on from there. In no time I was churning out hackled dry Greenwells, black spiders and the like. Wet spiders followed then onto winged flies, wet and dry. But at first those dry Greenwells were all I really needed because I was catching plenty fish on them and for the wet fishing the hackled spiders did the job admirably. Simple, easy to tie and hugely effective, it wasn't till I got Tom Stewarts books "50 Popular Flies" that I started tying flies that I wasn't really likely to use but wanted to have a go at to develop my skills further. I wouldn't like to be a young lad starting out tying now, it must be a nightmare trying to figure out what materials to buy because it seems that almost everything available is a "must have" and if you don't have it you'll be struggling. Sign of the times I suppose since tackle is well and truly on the same road.

                           Greenwell.

[Traditionalist]

That looks great!

Will definitely have a go at that.

Can you explain a bit more about how you get the V.

Certainly.  Tie the bunch in as shown, and then simply divide it into two, ( use your fingers, or a needle to separate one half of the bunch form the other half), and wrap the thread a couple of times between the two bunches. The "V" is automatic.

TL
MC

[haresear]

Mike,

Have you found the USD patterns to be more effective than standard patterns?
I am very interested in your USD patterns because most USD's suffer from leader twist.

My interest in USD patterns stems from the fact that I have long felt that there is little point in tying super-realistic standard dries  when there is a ruddy great hook bend poking through the surface film underwater and in full view. It kind of defeats the purpose.

I feel the fish accept the hook much better in emerger patterns (like Bob Wyatt's DHE) where the shape of the bend is an integral part of the pattern.

Alex

[Traditionalist]

Some of them are, and of course this is heavily dependent on circumstances.  I have done very well indeed  with the pattern, ( and similar designs using various materials, mostly hair and fur) especially on difficult water, where the fish have seen lots of flies.

The more or less inescapable conclusion is that these things work better because the hook is concealed, and also because the "footprint" is far better than with many other fly designs.

I don?t think there is much point in dressing super realistic flies anyway. They are invariably poor fish catchers. These things also depend to a very large extent on how one defines "realistic".  Realistic to you? Or realistic to the fish? For things to be realistic to a fish, they have to behave like real flies. It is not sufficient for them to resemble them in appearance. Behaviour is in many cases of far greater importance than appearance anyway, as the right behaviour makes the flies seems more realistic to the fish, even in cases where the flies don?t look particularly realistic to an angler.

I have had long discussions with Bob and others about this. His DHE and a couple of other similar flies catch better than others for quite specific reasons, as does the Klinkhammer, and the USD flies above.

They are better suited to many things than feather hackle flies tied in the conventional manner.  They are also vastly superior as "searching" patterns.  On occasion I have watched people trying for certain fish in certain positions for ages, trying all sorts of flies.

One cast with the hare fur USD shown above, and "Bang" he?s on!  This frustrates some people rather a lot! 

It is not a result of my superior skill in this matter, ( although of course that is important) it is simply a better fly. I have a range of such patterns also to match certain hatches.  I very rarely use conventional fly patterns or designs at all nowadays, and have not for some time. when fishing very heavily fished waters, as I often have, they just don?t work well enough for me.

Most of these flies are the result of a lot of thought and application. I did not just decide to wind some hare?s ear around a hook in a different way! 

Also, these flies work for everybody.  They are easy and quick to dress, and to modify for specific hatches or purposes. One may dress them sparsely, bushy, with specific body types, wing profiles, etc etc without any real problems. 

I have a quite specific core theory on this matter as well, and it is basically quite simple. Many people go looking for "positive triggers", etc etc , in order to make their flies successful.

I do exactly the opposite!  I try to avoid any "negative triggers" ( Which a bloody great lump of steel hanging from a fly?s arse is!). If the fish does not suspect anything, then it will take the fly confidently.

Here is an extract from an article I wrote a long time ago on some of this;

With regard to the cave fish, and their "loss" of sight, as mentioned in various posts, it is more likely that the development of more efficient mechanisms caused their sensory organs to evolve in some other way. They have not "lost" their eyes, they have replaced them with something more efficient for their environment, perhaps more sensitive lateral lines? The capacity which they previously used to see with, is still used to "see" with, but in a different manner. Also, I remember reading that these fish lose pigmentation control, or even pigmentation itself. Some becoming almost transparent. These phenomena must be linked, as pigmentation/protective colouration in fish is also a visually controlled survival trait, which is of course useless in the dark.

With regard to the sensory perceptions of fish, and what they "think" when targeting food. It seems reasonable to assume that the fish would be more likely to select the majority of it?s food instinctively, not consciously. This implies that it would be more likely to avoid
negative stimuli, than to actively seek positive stimuli.

This also seems a reasonable working theory to explain why fish will sometimes take more or less anything, and at other times be more (
apparently) "selective". Regardless of any theories about their intelligence, capacity for learning and so on. These are for the most part imponderables, and therefore basically useless to an angler seeking to catch more fish.

Actually they are no more "selective", in terms of consciously seeking particular items, but their focus on a particular item, after some
conditioning to it, is such that negative stimuli have a greater effect. Or they simply ignore items outside their present target schemata, unless these things have other overriding stimuli which trigger a response. A fleeing wounded bait fish for instance.

Regarding the colour question. Some colours under certain circumstances obviously do have an effect on the fish. If they are actually taking some insect which glows orange under certain light conditions, then an insect which has the same shape and size, but no orange glow, is likely to be rejected.  Not because the fish are "selecting" for it, but simply because it does not fit their present target pattern.

How the fish actually perceive the orange glow, is ( for anglers) basically immaterial, and at the present time un-knowable in any case,
that they obviously can do so is not immaterial.

The Orange Quill which was originally mentioned, is indeed usually only effective under certain light conditions, and in a spinner fall. There are pictures in some book or other, taken from below under such conditions, and it is more or less impossible to see any difference
between the naturals and the artificials. In this case at least, it seems the same applies to the fish, as they take the artificial just as
readily as they take the natural under such circumstances.

Some flies work on different principles to others. In some cases, ( I believe the majority), the lack of negative stimuli is obviously more important than the presence of "positive" stimuli.

TL
MC

[Wildfisher]

These are the most innovative fly tying ideas, bar none,  I has seen in 30 years. I am presently tying up a load of these USD's using rabbit body fur (a material  I would NEVER have used for wings) ) and they look fine. Dead easy to tie compared to Bob Wyatt's DHE.  One question  – on the gink again. Do you bother to gink these or leave  them sink into the film?

[Traditionalist]

These are the most innovative fly tying ideas, bar none,  I has seen in 30 years. I am presently tying up a load of these USD's using rabbit body fur (a material  I would NEVER have used for wings) ) and they look fine. Dead easy to tie compared to Bob Wyatt's DHE.  One question  – on the gink again. Do you bother to gink these or leave  them sink into the film?

Glad you like them!  Plenty more where they came from.  I usually pre-treat my flies with a hydrophobic chemical known as "Watershed".  Tackle shops etc should have it. The flies will float all day, even after several fish. Just rinse them off in the water, and they are good to go again. Of course you can use gink or stuff like that if you wish, but use it very sparsely.  Hair of this type floats very well indeed. Much better than any feather.

If you don?t want to use any chemicals. Use bacon fat. ( Lard). You may also use a piece of solid coconut oil. (Supermarket, frying section). This is pure and has no smell or anything. It works exactly like gink. I would recommend obtaining a piece of amadou for drying.  Should it become necessary. And you can also use a dessicant if you like.  A number of people who now use my flies don?t use any floatant at all.

They sit pretty flat in the film anyway, just like the real thing.  This is one major reason for their success.  You may of course just treat the wing if you want them to sit even lower, or the abdomen to sink. But I would use another pattern for that usually.

Hare guard fur ( which is what we have used for the wing) along with the guard fur from several other animals, sheds water naturally. It has to, or the animal would get waterlogged every time it rained!  It lives in open fields.   The underfur does not shed as well, ( which is what the dubbing is) , and may become wet after a while.  When treated with floatant, practically regardless of which, these things float like corks.

If you want a high floating fly, then don?t use any underfur, use all guard hair. The guard hair is what you have left in your fingers after you pull all the underfur out.  This only applies to the "flax" which is the guard hair on the back and sides of the hare, The belly fur does not shed water and will soak quickly. Curiously enough, the white "bob" form the hare, which dyes up beautifully, unfortunately gets waterlogged immediately! It is also much finer hair, like the belly fur.

When choosing various furs and hairs for flies like this, it is important to know the properties.

By the way, the use of these furs is not new, ( although some of the tricks etc are mine). If you want a good intro to using hair and fur, get a copy of  "All Fur Flies and how to dress Them" by  W.H.Lawrie  1967 . He sticks to more or less conventional patterns, but all the advice is sound.  There are copies to be had for 5 or 6 pounds if you look around.

Here is his intro to chapter one;

He was right then, and he is still right now!  With modern tools and tricks, one can do without feathers entirely, and have much better flies.  Halford, and many since, were a bad influence on fly-dressing! The total preoccupation with trying to obtain better feathers has blinded people to the use of better materials.





TL
MC