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;
(http://wildfisher.co.uk/uploads/usd1iq3.jpg)
(http://wildfisher.co.uk/uploads/usd2ny9.jpg)
This is how the fly lands and sits EVERY TIME!
(http://wildfisher.co.uk/uploads/usd3gr7.jpg)
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.
(http://wildfisher.co.uk/uploads/usd5yq1.jpg)
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 ?
(http://wildfisher.co.uk/uploads/desk1ss0.jpg)
TL
MC
Radical design there Traditionalist. I'll be giving that one a go in a howling downstreamer I think. Is it your own idea?
alex
Quote from: haresear on January 27, 2007, 10:47:18 PM
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
Spot on Mike. Keep it simple.That's also the philosophy behind most of our fishing for our mainly modest trout.
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.
Quote from: crocach on January 28, 2007, 01:17:37 PM
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
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
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
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?
Quote from: admin on January 28, 2007, 08:23:43 PM
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.
(http://wildfisher.co.uk/uploads/fur1ns1.jpg)
(http://wildfisher.co.uk/uploads/fur2sn8.jpg)
TL
MC
We are in danger of these excellent tips being fragmented all over the site.
Fred is there any way of keeping the info given by Mike in the same place for
easy reference.
Excellent Mike, thank you very much
Davie
My pleasure. I would rather keep things on the site, but one or two of my fans collect my stuff! You can find quite a bit of it here;
http://outdoorsbest.zeroforum.com/zerothread?id=513303
http://flytyingworld.proboards62.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1144157533 but there is a lot more spread all over the place!
Also, if anybody is interested, and Fred can host them, I have a fair number of PDF files on various things.
After Fred and John Gray very kindly invited me to the forum, and everybody here is very welcoming, I feel quite at home here, and hope to stay for quite a while.
TL
MC
Mike, I can easily host the pdfs' This site is hosted on my own leased web server which is in a secure data centre in Gloucester, so there are no restrictions on what I can do (provided I can continue to afford pay the lease of course!) You are most welcome here Mike and we are all very glad to have you on board. Unlike most other forums there is no hassle here. That is not say there is never cross word or a disagreement, but it is rare and we are all civilised, never resorting to personal insults or to the kind of stuff all too often witnessed elsewhere. We do swear a bit sometimes though!
OK, here is an effort on a size 14 with rabbit fur. The bigger 12's I did were better but I am wondering about the proportions on these smaller sizes as I will use them more. Are the wings dense enough? I am having a bit of difficulty splitting the wing nicely but that I hope will come with practice
Sorry about the crap photos
[attachimg=1]
[attachimg=2]
It is remarkable how buggy these look from below
I would just like to echo others thoughts here. Your ideas are very innovative Mike and you are a breath of fresh air on the tying front.
I don't follow "patterns" at all, but tie using my own ideas and try to look at my dry flies from a trout's perspective, rather than in profile, which I think is irrelevant.
I'm really looking forward to your posts. I generally don't follow fly tying threads on this forum (with a few exceptions), but will make a point of checking yours out. I hereby award you a gold star :)
Alex
Those flies will do fine Fred. You will see when you use them. Doubtless you will be pleasantly surprised. They really are extremely effective.
I will e-mail you some stuff. Up to you where you host it, link it etc. You can use it for Fish Wild or on here, or for any other non-commercial use.
TL
MC
Quote from: haresear on January 28, 2007, 10:10:52 PM
I would just like to echo others thoughts here. Your ideas are very innovative Mike and you are a breath of fresh air on the tying front.
I don't follow "patterns" at all, but tie using my own ideas and try to look at my dry flies from a trout's perspective, rather than in profile, which I think is irrelevant.
I'm really looking forward to your posts. I generally don't follow fly tying threads on this forum (with a few exceptions), but will make a point of checking yours out. I hereby award you a gold star :)
Alex
Very kind of you , thanks!
TL
MC
Mike how long should the wings be – let’s say in relation to the body length – which is in effect the hook shank length? I have never used USD flies of any kind before and so am unaware of effects like leader twist – anyway I thought it too much faffing around but these are so easy and quick to tie they will be my top priority trial flies this season. Just tied another few 14's and they are getting better. What is the smallest sizes you manage to tie? Sorry about all these questions, that's just me, I'm a nosy bugger! :D
Quote from: admin on January 28, 2007, 10:24:56 PM
Mike how long should the wings be ? let?s say in relation to the body length ? which is in effect the hook shank length? I have never used USD flies of any kind before and so am unaware of effects like leader twist ? anyway I thought it too much faffing around but these are so easy and quick to tie they will be my top priority trial flies this season. Just tied another few 14's and they are getting better. What is the smallest sizes you manage to tie? Sorry about all these questions, that's just me, I'm a nosy bugger! :D
I aim to have the wings about the same length as the hook shank. These soft hair wings will not cause leader twist. You can easily try this, just tie them to a tippet and drag them around a bit. They don?t "helicopter" like many other wing types. The "V" wing only has to be enough to cause the hook to fall the right way ( like a dart flight), and give an impression of a wing of course.
I have dressed these flies down to a 32 for demos, ( people always want to see silly things like that at demos) but under normal circumstances, and for the majority of my fishing I rarely go below a sixteen. These flies work extremely well in these sizes, 12 14 16, so why bother making things difficult?
You will discover that they work better than other flies. Fish are simply less suspicious. One hardly ever gets a refusal. Ninety per cent of the time I don?t even bother trying to "match the hatch" I just fling a hare fur fly at them, it nearly always works.
No bother with questions. I welcome the chance to discuss fishing and dressing in my mother tongue for a change!
TL
MC
Will definetly have to tie up a couple. These articles are brilliant, a gold mine of knowledge. Three cheers for traditionalist!
Mike- this really is great stuff. I only tie flies occasionally and only easy patterns. I've just rattled off a few USD flies and it takes a really good simple fly to get me to the vice. Lang may yer lum reek.
Quote from: Pearly Invicta on January 30, 2007, 11:25:27 AM
Mike- this really is great stuff. I only tie flies occasionally and only easy patterns. I've just rattled off a few USD flies and it takes a really good simple fly to get me to the vice. Lang may yer lum reek.
Glad you like it! Rule number one, keep it simple! If it takes longer than three minutes for a beginner to dress it, then it?s no bloody good! :) These flies are in any case far easier to dress, far more effective and far more durable than many complex dressings.
TL
MC
My wee mate John gave me half a hare pelt yesterday and I have just tied my
first upside down fly with it. Bloody WOW.
I do not need any smart arse coming up now and bursting the bubble. Just
give me time to catch my first hundred trout with it and a couple of salmon for
good measure before throwing in any negatives.
What an easy material to use compared with deer hair. It certainly looks like
it will be replacing my DHE.
Very many thanks again Mike.
Davie
Spare a thought for us poor wee souls that have never tied a flee in our lives :D I suppose we'll have to wait for Fulling Mill to catch up :shock: :D :D
Mike, the USD's look immense. Although I haven't a clue about tying flies, I'm finding the threads thoroughly enjoyable. Many thanks.
Daibhidh
Quote from: ChildOfTheMist on January 30, 2007, 12:35:15 PM
Spare a thought for us poor wee souls that have never tied a flee in our lives :D I suppose we'll have to wait for Fulling Mill to catch up :shock: :D :D
Mike, the USD's look immense. Although I haven't a clue about tying flies, I'm finding the threads thoroughly enjoyable. Many thanks.
Daibhidh
My pleasure!
As good a time as any to start dressing then! :) It really is quite easy to produce excellent flies easily and cheaply. You just have to ignore the glossy magazines, and indeed anybody else who tries to tell you different! You don?t need anything exotic or expensive. Just using a hare skin, and a few bits and bobs, you can dress hundreds of excellent flies that are very good fish catchers. If you get a squirrel skin and a few coloured wools, you can dress thousands! You can make most tools yourself quite easily.
TL
MC
Quote from: The General on January 30, 2007, 12:28:51 PM
My wee mate John gave me half a hare pelt yesterday and I have just tied my
first upside down fly with it. Bloody WOW.
I do not need any smart arse coming up now and bursting the bubble. Just
give me time to catch my first hundred trout with it and a couple of salmon for
good measure before throwing in any negatives.
What an easy material to use compared with deer hair. It certainly looks like
it will be replacing my DHE.
Very many thanks again Mike.
Davie
I missed this post, and only just saw it now. One of my other strict criteria before I show people flies, is that they must have caught at least one hundred fish. The flies I have shown you here exceeded this marker many years ago! :)
There are a number of people who use my patterns, and also have contributed to various improvements. One dresser of note who has only been dressing for three years is Thomas Zuellich, ;
http://www.danica.com/flytier/tzuellich/tzuellich.htm
but there are many others.These people also actually fish with the flies, and don?t just sit winding bits of flashy plastic around ever more complex hook patterns! :) These flies are also designed for wily wild fish, and not for "pellet pigs".
If I show you any of my "new" ideas, I will tell you that it is new and unproven. There is absolutely no point in showing people "duff" flies. When they try them, and they don?t work, they just think you are a bloody idiot!
Although I have been dressing flies for a very long time, and am indeed quite well known in some circles, I am not interested in publicising things generally, or selling anything. On a number of occasions I have been asked to submit flies and patterns to lots of places, but I am simply not interested in doing so. I get more pleasure out of seeing and hearing about people having success with them. Dressing and fishing!
Apart from which, I have hundreds of patterns, for all sorts of applications. It gives me immense pleasure to design and use such flies myself. I won?t entertain rubbish, or superfluous nonsense.
Over the years, very many people contributed to my angling education, mostly selflessly and very generously. I hope I can repay them in some small way by passing on what I have learned to other ANGLERS! Not to magazines and commercial websites. I am very pleased to hear you are enjoying yourself dressing them, and I wish you a mighty bagful of fish on them. That is what it is all about!
Incidentally, the USD hare flies are indeed relatively new, ( I dressed the first such flies about six years ago), and my article on this board was the first time the idea has been published anywhere. My intentions were to dress something durable, which floated well, was a good imitation of various upwinged flies, and could be easily dressed. It has proven to be so. I have used hare fur for other fly wings for a long time. Nothing against Bob?s excelellent fly, or indeed others which use deer hair, but I find it a pain to work with, and beginners in my classes never get on well with it.
Of course I also dress a large variety of other "conventional" flies, but there is no point in showing you how to dress a "snipe and purple", or a "Red Quill", there are hundreds of people doing that already! ( Often badly! :) ) And it?s bloody boring anyway!
TL
MC
PS (Perhaps I ought to change my nickname to "Progressive Traditionalist" ?)
QUOTE ADMIN
OK, here is an effort on a size 14 with rabbit fur. The bigger 12's I did were better but I am wondering about the proportions on these smaller sizes as I will use them more. Are the wings dense enough? I am having a bit of difficulty splitting the wing nicely but that I hope will come with practice
UNQUOTE
Just a small point which actually occurred to me when I read the post, but being engaged in something else at the time, I forgot to mention it Fred. Sorry!
You will find that if you use Rabbit, it will be an improvement to make the thorax a little darker than the abdomen. This is a feature on very many flies. If necessary, just add a little mole or dark rabbit underfur etc, to the last turn or so of dubbing. This also makes the fleis look "buggier".
TL
MC
Traditionalist,
I agree that your USD hare is easier to tie than Bob Wyatt's pattern. To me however what sets it apart, apart from hiding the hook (remember I haven't fished with it yet) is that it is more aerodynamic.
My local river has the prevailing gale howling downstream, so Bob's pattern with its forward facing wing catches the wind. This is why I am excited about your pattern. The wing faces downwind when casting into the wind until the leader turns over. Just like an F fly, but USD too.
I can't wait for the Ides of March.
Julius.
Quote from: haresear on January 30, 2007, 09:13:43 PM
Traditionalist,
I agree that your USD hare is easier to tie than Bob Wyatt's pattern. To me however what sets it apart, apart from hiding the hook (remember I haven't fished with it yet) is that it is more aerodynamic.
My local river has the prevailing gale howling downstream, so Bob's pattern with its forward facing wing catches the wind. This is why I am excited about your pattern. The wing faces downwind when casting into the wind until the leader turns over. Just like an F fly, but USD too.
I can't wait for the Ides of March.
Julius.
We will need photos of the fish! :)
TL
MC
QuoteWe will need photos of the fish!
Ah!
Houston, we have a problem :lol:.
Alex
Quote from: haresear on January 30, 2007, 09:13:43 PM
your USD hare is easier to tie than Bob Wyatt's pattern.
I agree. The fly is also far more aerodynamic and the whole "no negative trigger" concept is more logical and easier to relate to than the esoteric positive trigger counter argument. Yes, most fish will take just about anything but for spooky, hard to catch fish not having a hook hanging from the flies arse must surely be a plus. Can't wait to try this out, a really innovative piece of fly design.
Quote from: admin on January 31, 2007, 10:23:52 AM
Quote from: haresear on January 30, 2007, 09:13:43 PM
your USD hare is easier to tie than Bob Wyatt's pattern.
I agree. The fly is also far more aerodynamic and the whole "no negative trigger" concept is more logical and easier to relate to than the esoteric positive trigger counter argument. Yes, most fish will take just about anything but for spooky, hard to catch fish not having a hook hanging from the flies arse must surely be a plus. Can't wait to try this out, a really innovative piece of fly design.
What is actually very interesting indeed, is that not only the hook is a negative trigger, but the hackle itself on many dry flies is a major negative trigger!
How many flies have you seen with a hundred legs radiating from their heads! ? :)
That hackled flies like this work at all is really quite amazing. If one removes the hackle ( which other people have done very successfully with "No-Hackle duns "for extremely wary fish, see "Swisher and Richards et al), and the hook from the fishes view, then one has actually removed TWO major negative triggers!
TL
MC
Mike, Well known angler Paul Proctor and his pals come up here and fish the Aberdeenshire Don each year with great success. A difficult river most days holding monster wild trout that are no mugs. I believe they tend to use no hackle designs – comparadun in particular.
Quote from: col on January 31, 2007, 12:03:51 PM
Hi MC, Does the usd hare lie flat (upside downn off course) on the surface or like a klinkhammer in it?
cheers col
It lies more or less flat ON the surface usually. You can make it ride higher by using NO! underfur in the dubbing, and brushing some out as "legs" it then sits on these legs.
Normally, the abdomen won?t sink at all, as it is supported by the tippet. If you want an emerger pattern with a sunk abdomen, then you may be better served with one of these;
(http://wildfisher.co.uk/uploads/qe3no7.jpg)
Although usually, you can fish all day with the USD pattern, ( the same fly as well! ) it works well at all stages of the hatch. It also works very very well as a "general searcher".
Once again, the lack of "negative triggers", seems to make it generally more attractive, and even fish feeding on other stuff will take it readily.
TL
MC
Quote from: Traditionalist on January 31, 2007, 12:15:29 PM
If you want an emerger pattern with a sunk abdomen, then you may be better served with one of these;
Mike,
Is there anyway you could use the material you use for the detached bodies to "hybridise" with the USD dun to produce a sunk abdomen style emerger pattern with no subsurface hook to act as a negative trigger ? Or is that just too complex?
Quote from: admin on January 31, 2007, 11:14:15 AM
Mike, Well known angler Paul Proctor and his pals come up here and fish the Aberdeenshire Don each year with great success. A difficult river most days holding monster wild trout that are no mugs. I believe they tend to use no hackle designs – comparadun in particular.
Comparaduns are a very good fly. Try them with hare fur! :) They are even better! Deer hair floats fairly well as long as it is dry, but it is coarse and heavy, and air resistant! It also waterlogs quite quickly. This makes it less suitable for small flies generally, and it is difficult to handle and use.
In answer to another e-mail: Of course you can use feather hackle fibres if you want to, but it is rather pointless. They will soak up water, and also cause other completely undesirable problems! Just try it, and you will see what I mean.
I have mainly used hare fur here, but there are a whole range of furs you can use if you want different coloured wings. For small flies grey squirrel is first class, and as it is mottled, is an excellent imitation as well. Of course you can also dye it any colour you like. Unlike many feathers, the fur and hair used in these flies takes marker very well, so you only need a ( grey) squirrel pelt, and a set of markers, and you can produce perfect wings of any colour you like;
(http://wildfisher.co.uk/uploads/markpt1.jpg)
What I have tried to show here, is the basic design, and I have used a very successful "generic" pattern to do it. The Hare?s Ear is a very successful fly anyway. Adding the wings in the manner described, simply makes it a very great deal better! As it removes or disguises a number of negative triggers, and also solves some other problems. Of course this "negative trigger" business is merely a theory of mine, a working hypothesis which has proven itself to work. It is not absolute scientific fact, neither is anything else in this regard, but it is easy to understand without getting into esoteric discussions about fish perceptions or abilities, and when practically applied, it simply works! It is NOT!!!!!! anthropomorphising!!! merely the judicious application of Occam?s razor.
For specific patterns, you can experiment and modify to your heart?s content. However, I would strongly advise against using any feathers at all. The best genetic hackle in existence is still vastly inferior to the worst hare fur, ( or many other furs) you can find! So it is absolutely pointless to use it on these flies.
The fact that these flies are cheap and easy to produce does not make them inferior. Also, I don?t use the fur because it is cheaper! I joked around about that a bit. In point of fact, I have several hundred of the finest genetic hackle capes and saddles available, not to mention a conservative estimate of about twenty thousand pounds worth of assorted materials and ancillary equipment, merely for fly dressing, and exclusive of my fishing gear.
Price was never really an issue for me. If I wanted something I simply bought it! If I had discovered how to make these USD fur flies, ( and a lot of other things) many years ago, then I can assure you I would have bought a very great deal less! I have a lot of stuff I hardly use any more. For me, fishing and fly-dressing are not just "hobbies" they are a passion which I have followed all my life. I don?t expect others to go to such extremes.
Also, with regard to the time one spends on these things. It is not at all unusual for me to spend 12 or 14 hours a day fly-dressing. Since I retired, often for a week at a time. When I go fishing for a "day" I am out from before dawn, until after dusk, and often through the night as well! When I am not fishing or dressing, I think about it a lot, read a lot, and discuss it a lot, so it is hardly surprising that I have learned a great deal about it. Most people can simply not even afford the time involved, even were they so inclined.
Here is a picture of my fly-dressing storage room, and I have more stuff elsewhere. I don?t want for materials, I have more than many suppliers!
(http://wildfisher.co.uk/uploads/room1zc6.jpg)
My bench after a one day dressing session;
(http://wildfisher.co.uk/uploads/fly9mybenchafterahardtwjn3.jpg)
Juts a couple of my vices etc Some commercial, some built by myself.
(http://wildfisher.co.uk/uploads/fly9toolsofthetradefs6.jpg)
I also dress in front of my computer and in other places. I am typing this in between dressing various flies! In point of fact I dress and design more flies than many professionals! I just don?t publicise them, or sell them. What is actually more germane is I design them specifically to catch fish, and not to sell them! Professional dressers, and indeed many others involved, are not at all interested in showing people how to do things easily, quickly, and cheaply. It damages their sales!
If you will allow me to lapse into my native vernacular for a moment, "I want for nowt I?ve got". I build rods, make reels, vices, tools, I collect and prepare roadkill and skins from hunters, I dye fur and feathers, and a host of other stuff. I give ( FREE!) casting and fishing lessons to several hundred pupils per year, and I also even go fishing occasionally! I would not say money is no object, but I spend more on these things, especially time, than very many other anglers.
I use these Hare fur flies because they are SUPERIOR to the others. Price is not a factor for me here. Although it may well be for others. Somebody just starting to dress flies ( FOR FISHING!) will be grateful to learn that he can do so using cheap and easily obtainable materials, and still have very very good flies.
As I already wrote a number of times, it is no skin off my nose what anybody uses. They may use elephant?s testicle hair, fluff from a camel?s hump, or haggis mould, if they want to. I am merely attempting to point out that there are better materials, and easier ways of doing things. I am not FORCING anybody to do anything at all.
I can well imagine that you are miffed if you have just paid 150 pounds for genetic capes, and have now discovered that you can dress better flies with a lump of old fur coat, but that is hardly my fault! ( This is true incidentally! Witness the following photo!);
(http://wildfisher.co.uk/uploads/7oldfurcoatfw9.jpg)
I have already dressed hundreds of flies from this old hare fur coat, as have some of my friends. I bought it at a flea-market for a pound.
Nor am I criticising other people?s work in any manner at all. I did not mention Bob Wyatt?s patterns, others did.
Also, I am not telling you your capes and saddles are useless, you can still use them if you want. If anybody is crying, at having spent a fortune on materials he now barely uses, it should be me! I know I come across to many as a terrible clever-shite. There is nothing to be done about that I fear. If you try what I say, ( of course there is no obligation), you will easily discover that I am not simply talking out of my arse........................
TL
MC
Quote from: admin on January 31, 2007, 01:04:45 PM
Quote from: Traditionalist on January 31, 2007, 12:15:29 PM
If you want an emerger pattern with a sunk abdomen, then you may be better served with one of these;
Mike,
Is there anyway you could use the material you use for the detached bodies to "hybridise" with the USD dun to produce a sunk abdomen style emerger pattern with no subsurface hook to act as a negative trigger ? Or is that just too complex?
I have actually done this, and also made up some "heads" from the same material, but it complicates matters, and I see no real advantages. Also it is quite difficult to sink the stuff! Brings in too many complicated variables I fear. I still mess on a lot with these things. But I have found no really significant improvements on the basic simple design. Just the fur "V" wings and a dubbed body.
I also dressed some USD hare flies with extended bodies, but I have not really tried these properly, so I can?t really comment. They look nice, but I don?t know whether they will work very well.I can post a few pictures if you like so that you and others may experiment.
TL
MC
Hey - - Whats wrong with Haggis mould?
Just took an hour nearly to tie one of those bugger things with a bit out of my wifes
sink plug chain. Will have to try and master this split thread thingy. I'm struggling
with splitting size 6/0, I don't know how you cope with size 14/0.
You have been a breath of fresh air Mike. Thank you.
PS Salmon season starts tomorrow on the River Ness hee hee, will try the bugger thingy.
Davie
Quote from: col on January 31, 2007, 01:56:22 PM
Hi Mike , problems. Having tank tested a usd hare its floating not usd but rwu what am i doing wrong :(
Difficult to say, can you post a picture?
TL
MC
Quote from: The General on January 31, 2007, 01:57:07 PM
Hey - - Whats wrong with Haggis mould?
Just took an hour nearly to tie one of those bugger things with a bit out of my wifes
sink plug chain. Will have to try and master this split thread thingy. I'm struggling
with splitting size 6/0, I don't know how you cope with size 14/0.
You have been a breath of fresh air Mike. Thank you.
PS Salmon season starts tomorrow on the River Ness hee hee, will try the bugger thingy.
Davie
Haggis mould may be the best material available actually! I have never tried it! :) Or even seen it! Although I did once find a very interesting looking growth in my bagpipes......................
Use a sharp needle, and lay the thread over your index finger. To hold the split open, put a piece of wool or similar in it.
My pleasure.
Tight lines for the Ness then!
TL
MC
These are the flies I dressed and photographed for these articles over the last couple of days. They were lying on my bench. Normally I would use watershed, (gink mats the fibres somewhat unless one false casts the flies after application ) but I just ginked these lightly and chucked them in the bowl of water;
(http://wildfisher.co.uk/uploads/usdw1mw3.jpg)
(http://wildfisher.co.uk/uploads/usdw2ew5.jpg)
As you can see though, even with somewhat matted wings, they still float perfectly and correctly. They also do the same if I pick them up and drop them in again. I know they work even better with watershed pre-treatment, but any floatant will work. The two flies on the left of the lower picture are the USD?s , the others are the extended body, and the sunk abdomen flies.
TL
MC
Quote from: col on January 31, 2007, 02:46:03 PM
Hi Mc , sorted it, i was using rabbit body fur by accident, didnt read the packet, then i used hair body fur and found that they didnt retain water like the rabbit and floated properly also think i was piuting to much material in the tail. What hook type would you reccommend .
Most rabbit fur ( especially domestic rabbit) will not work of course. There are several hundred types of rabbit fur! Although wild rabbit fur usually will. Use hare or squirrel. There are other furs which also work.
You MUST!! remove all underfur from the wing bunches!
And you MUST also brush out some dubbing on the thorax. It is also better not to use any underfur in the dubbing if you want a high floater.
You can use any hook you like, but hooks with a straight ( and round of course) bend and barb are better, ( i.e. Not "reversed" or "kirbed") The offset hooks will still work, but they tend to tilt the fly a little to one side. because of course the weight distribution is different. I have used ordinary Mustad hooks and even some heavy wire hooks with no problems, but light wire dry fly hooks are definitely better of course.
Having said that, I have not tried all that many hooks really, so this is an area where some experiment is required. If somebody finds a hook for this with a bend that they really like, ( wing angle etc ), then please let me know.
Straight eyed hooks are definitely better for these flies!
TL
MC
Quote from: admin on January 31, 2007, 01:04:45 PM
Quote from: Traditionalist on January 31, 2007, 12:15:29 PM
If you want an emerger pattern with a sunk abdomen, then you may be better served with one of these;
Mike,
Is there anyway you could use the material you use for the detached bodies to "hybridise" with the USD dun to produce a sunk abdomen style emerger pattern with no subsurface hook to act as a negative trigger ? Or is that just too complex?
If you want an USD sunk abdomen fly then use quill or very sparse ( touch) dubbing on the body, and dont gink it. You may also tie a hair hackle around the base of the wings, ( and the hook of course), and you have a USD sunk abdomen fly in "Reverse klinkhammer " style. It works exactly like a klinkhammer, but the hook is hidden. Of course you need to fish a sunk tippet with this fly, and this will pull it under more quickly.
Here is an ( EXPERIMENTAL!!!!) fly with an "extended head". I have not tried these, and I don?t think they will be very successful either, but one never knows! I have merely rotated the vice between shots here.
(http://wildfisher.co.uk/uploads/ex1lv2.jpg)
(http://wildfisher.co.uk/uploads/ex2bm1.jpg)
(http://wildfisher.co.uk/uploads/ex3ot4.jpg)
(http://wildfisher.co.uk/uploads/ex4xr7.jpg)
I know it is somewhat annoying that the photos are all different sizes, this is because I adjust focus, zoom etc for the best detail in each shot. This of course results in variously sized photos. Of course this is not professional. That is mainly because I am an amateur! :)
TL
MC
You may of course dress these flies in "comparadun style" if you wish. fan the hair wing so that it forms a semicircle. This works perfectly well. I just prefer the "V" wing, I feel it looks and behaves more naturally, and it works! I have not tried the comparadun style extensively, ( actually, hardly at all) although I dressed a few. If any of you do try them successfully, please let me know.
One advantage of the comparadun style, is that the fibres at the lower extremity of the fan work like outriggers, stabilising the fly even more. No reason not to do this if you wish. It can be a bit fiddly getting the hair to fan exactly as you want it to.
TL
MC
Quote from: col on January 31, 2007, 03:26:13 PM
Hi Mc. Would hare dubbing looped then clipped to shape to form a fly similar to the G&h sedge work. I like the G&H sedge but found it to be a clumbsy hooker i would imagine a softer hair bodied version would solve this. Have you any sedgy type flies which uses hair?
Yes, it works perfectly. I have several such patterns. You can also "stack" hare fur, so you don?t have to pratt about clipping it. I have to go and do some shopping now, but when I get back I will post a few designs and patterns for you.
Here is a size #8 clipped hare fur "hatching sedgewaker" I just knocked up quick;
This will float all day and is more mobile and transparent than deer hair, also it "collapses" when the fish hit it, just like the real thing, so you rarely get "missed" takes, and you get more takes anyway, as the colour is more like a sedge than the deer hair flies;
(http://wildfisher.co.uk/uploads/sedwgq4.jpg)
Of course you can easily clip it to any shape you want. Hare fur is a lot easier to clip and manipulate than deer. This is also the first time this pattern has been published. Is incidentally an absolutely first class "bob" fly for traditional loch fishing. If you don?t clip it, it is a first class dapping fly. It is of course quite indestructible as well. I have one of these flies which has caught over sixty fish, and it does not look any different, except the point and barb are smaller as I have sharpened it a few times.
I have a lot of pattern designs for various things. Sorry, but I don?t have any romantic or exciting names for my flies. I just design them, and I know what they are for, so I don?t bugger about with names at all usually. We can call this one the "Fish Wild Clipped Hare Caddis" if you like! :)
TL
MC
Quote from: The General on January 31, 2007, 01:57:07 PM
Hey - - Whats wrong with Haggis mould?
Just took an hour nearly to tie one of those bugger things with a bit out of my wifes
sink plug chain. Will have to try and master this split thread thingy. I'm struggling
with splitting size 6/0, I don't know how you cope with size 14/0.
You have been a breath of fresh air Mike. Thank you.
PS Salmon season starts tomorrow on the River Ness hee hee, will try the bugger thingy.
Davie
By the way, for tying bugger thingies you should use a loop of thread, not a split thread. The split thread technique is only useful for small flies.
TL
MC
QuoteIf you want an USD sunk abdomen fly then use quill or very sparse ( touch) dubbing on the body, and dont gink it. You may also tie a hair hackle around the base of the wings, ( and the hook of course), and you have a USD sunk abdomen fly in "Reverse klinkhammer " style. It works exactly like a klinkhammer, but the hook is hidden. Of course you need to fish a sunk tippet with this fly, and this will pull it under more quickly.
I spent Sunday tying experimental USD sunk abdomen flies in different styles. The one I found worked best was pretty much as Mike described above.
A single wing (snowshoe hare) tied as in the tail position. (i.e. in line with the shank)
I wound a grizzle hackle wound at the bend, as in the Leckford Professor recommended by Fishtales on another thread. Thrown up in the air, it landed correctly every time and floated arse up. I don?t know how it would behave attached to a leader as yet. I'll check this out and post again.
Alex
Quote from: haresear on January 31, 2007, 05:29:45 PM
QuoteIf you want an USD sunk abdomen fly then use quill or very sparse ( touch) dubbing on the body, and dont gink it. You may also tie a hair hackle around the base of the wings, ( and the hook of course), and you have a USD sunk abdomen fly in "Reverse klinkhammer " style. It works exactly like a klinkhammer, but the hook is hidden. Of course you need to fish a sunk tippet with this fly, and this will pull it under more quickly.
I spent Sunday tying experimental USD sunk abdomen flies in different styles. The one I found worked best was pretty much as Mike described above.
A single wing (snowshoe hare) tied as in the tail position. (i.e. in line with the shank)
I wound a grizzle hackle wound at the bend, as in the Leckford Professor recommended by Fishtales on another thread. Thrown up in the air, it landed correctly every time and floated arse up. I don?t know how it would behave attached to a leader as yet. I'll check this out and post again.
Alex
Nice to hear you are trying things out. The snowshoe hare is great stuff, ( So is seal fur), but it is a bit pricey. I use the ordinary hare fur for experimenting, and when I find something I really like, I will often do the same pattern using snowshoe hare. This usually improves the pattern, as the snowshoe floats even better than the ordinary hare fur, although this is quite adequate.
I have a couple of dozen feet in various colours. Really good for matching wings on duns.
TL
MC
This is the result of ongoing discussions elsewhere, but I would like to keep you abreast of developments, and get your input as well, as the fly was first published here.
My thoughts were primarily on the design of a no hackle dun. and I wanted to conceal the hook as well. I had tried various other designs, and for one reason or another they either did not work very well, or were too fragile etc.
I think it is probably mainly taken for a crippled emerger, or a trapped dun ( body on or in the film). ( This is often the case with many other flies anyway, as most do not float as high on their tails and hackles as people like to imagine! =) ) This gives you at least two shots at a specific hatch though, and precisely those stages most vulnerable to fish, which they are likely to concentrate on.
It certainly works exceedingly well as a generic pattern, when dressed with hare fur, in various sizes, but it is not a "one fly solution" by any means.
I am happy that the basic design works, is easy to dress, is very robust, and up to now has proven very effective for a range of things, but I can not tell you precisely that it imitates some particular stage specifically.
One can alter some aspects to make it do certain things. If one uses a quill or thread body for instance, the abdomen sinks, ( on a degreased tippet),and one has a classic emerger. Normally I would however prefer a klinkhammer or similar for this.
If one uses a well defined guard hair bunch ( dubbed and brushed out) for the thorax, then it sits like a classic dun, except for the "wing forward" attitude, but the fish don?t seem to care much about that. It also seems to offer a better footprint than standard hackled flies. At least I have had very few refusals on it, when casting to rising fish. Very many fewer than with "standard" hackled dry flies.
Varying the wing shape ( and bulk) also affects how the fly behaves. If one fans the fibres more in "Comparadun" style, and uses either a very lightly dubbed or smooth abdomen, the fly sits like a dun with a slightly sunk bum! =) The wings are then more upright,and the fibres at the bottom sides work like "outriggers" to stabilise the fly.
There is obviously still potential for a lot of experimentation here. One can make the basic design do a lot of things, but I have only tried a few up to now, so I can?t really give you any precise information.
My original objectives were to remove negative triggers. Where I think the objective is largely resolved, I have simply put "OK" after it.I can explain why as well if you wish. To whit;
Conceal the hook. OK
Either severely reduce, or remove the hackle entirely. No fly has a hundred legs sticking out of its head, and this has always bugged me. OK
Conceal or make the tippet less conspicuous. OK
Secondary ( but still important!) objectives were;
Must float well. OK
Robust. OK
Easy to dress. OK
Easy to dry!!!! OK
Must not twist leaders. OK
The final objectives were.
Be a good imitation ( Of?) OK but unexplained!
Be adaptable to suit various stages and circumstances. Not yet resolved.
The last two objectives are only partially resolved. The fly catches fish well, but I don?t really know exactly why it does so in any given circumstance. Although I can say that about many other flies as well.
One incidental positive objective which was obtained without it actually being a target ( it only became apparent after using the flies) is the attitude of the fly when casting. The wing is always opposite to the direction of casting. Trailing as it were, and is not subjected to being crumpled or otherwise deformed. It is also very much easier to cast into wind, excepting for the last stage of turnover, when a little extra power is required to turn it, as the wings are then facing into the "wind".
Hmmm.............. I could go on, but I would like some input from others on the matter first. Quite a few people are now either testing or preparing to test variations of the basic design, and we will know more after some have been using it for a while.
To summarise the matter briefly, I think the design is 95% resolved.
Some of the reasons for the effectiveness are not resolved. ( But as long as it IS effective, this is hardly a problem as such. I don?t KNOW why a woolly bugger works either, but I know that it does!).
Various possible adjustments, and specific pattern adaptations are not resolved.
TL
MC
I'm pretty sure you have come up with a winner Mike. Certainly sounds as though it produces plenty of fish for you and that is the only criteria that matters.
Hopefully in a few weeks, we'll be basking in warm April sunshine :? and giving thanks to you for giving us a new weapon in the armoury. Roll on the Dark Olives and the March Browns.
Alex
Ah well, I do hope it is a winner for you, and anybody else who uses it, but people like to know as much as possible about these things.
I certainly achieved the majority of my objectives, and I really am quite pleased with myself on that score, but the fly has to prove itself for others as well.
TL
MC
Answers to various questions;
Up to now I have only used a couple of hooks, Ordinary Mustad round straight bends. As long as the hook has a round bend and is straight ( not kirbed or reversed), I don?t suppose it matters much.
Extra fine wire would certainly make it easier to float the flies, especially "high floating"duns, but I have never used any. I have no difficulty in floating the ones I use.
The smallest I have used is a size 16. This is about the smallest size fly ( hook!) I use anyway.
There is no need to add a shuck, tails, etc. The tippet serves this purpose, and this also conceals the tippet.
I have ONLY fished with flies using hare fur and a couple of other things. I am sure there are quite a few materials which will work, especially in smaller sizes, ( antron etc) for wings. I see no problem in mixing materials as long as they have the right properties. I have quite a few flies which I dressed with various things, and they look good, but I have not tried them yet. They are merely bench tested, bowl of water etc.
You can use it as a searching pattern and it works very well. I have also used it exclusively for rising fish, irrespective of what they were taking, and my take, and hook up rate increased enormously. However, the waters I fish are limited, and there are rarely situations where the fish are fixated on a particular hatch, so this will have to be tried by somebody else. I assume it will work just as well, but I don?t KNOW that of course.
One may also dress more specific imitations using the same design if one wishes, and I have actually dressed a few, but I have only fished with the hare versions up to now.
I fish heavily pressured waters, and some of the fish are hammered. Conventional flies of varying type and provenance just were not working very well any more. I caught fish on them, but not as often as I would like, and I also got very many refusals, even on what many would consider to be "good" imitations.
This hare fly has solved most of my problems. I get very few refusals, and I also get more hook-ups from the increased number of positive takes. The fish are also better hooked! So I am really pleased with the fly.
For me, it has now worked in many situations where other flies simply have not worked in the past.
It is my personal belief that this is primarily due to the removal of negative triggers.
Taken alone, these "negative triggers" may not be all that important. Fish may well tend to "ignore" hooks, or "ignore" bushy hackles", or "ignore" glinting tippet coming off the head of a conventional fly, or "ignore" the over-large hackle footprint. But all these things together add up to a pretty impressive array of "negatives".
The USD hare has none of them, and I think that is the main reason why it works so well, irrespective of any other considerations, which however are also advantageous.
Quite a number of people have now maintained that I should indeed give this fly a name, although this is something I actually very rarely do. I see no reason not to simply call it the USD Hare.
One last point which I kept meaning to mention, as it was in my original design catalogue, but I have consistently forgotten in these discussions. Getting the hook out of the water is not merely to conceal it, although this was one of my primary targets.
The main reason many flies begin sinking prematurely, is because the hook breaks through the surface film, and this allows water to start wicking up it. Eventually, water creeps further and further up the fly, and it sinks.
This does not happen with the USD hare. Which is another major advantage.
TL
MC