Do we really need wings.

[Wildfisher]

dapping, nothing rising..don't know to be honest, a big sedgehog sometimes brings them up,

So what exactly is the difference between that and any other from of  blind fishing? Under these conditions I often get a fish or two on a Butcher or a Silver Invicta.

[Malcolm]

For sure. when I was out on Loch Lee with Eric (hopper) in August he caught at least 2 fish for every one I caught, perhaps more.  That was not "luck"

It's when you look over for the umpteenth time that day and see the nemesis (you have "Hopper" and I've got my equivalent) bent into yet another fish that you have to acknowledge that there is a lot of know how and skill involved. For whatever reason trout sometimes prefer one fly over another and some of these have wings. I have to conclude that wings can be an important part of a fly.

[Traditionalist]

If we were starting from scratch with no preconcieved ideas what would our wet flies look like? Possibly completely different but they would still work as long as we gave them life (movement) and put them where the fish are.


Andy

Indeed, that's the approach I tend to take. I try to look at what is there and how and when the fish take it and how it behaves and then make something that I think may imitate it.

In many cases almost anything will work, and practically anything will catch a fish now and again, but good imitations of various things that the fish eat invariably work better.

Very many "traditional" patterns are "chuck and chance it" constructions.  A well thought out imitation is a different thing altogether.

[Fishtales]

Very many "traditional" patterns are "chuck and chance it" constructions.  A well thought out imitation is a different thing altogether.

If that is true Mike then why does my confidence in catching a fish on the Iron Blue Dun rise when I see upwings flying about? They don't have to be on or in the water as long as they are about I can more or less guarantee a fish or two on it. The other flies on the cast consistently take fish whether there are flies around or not but the dun takes its share at other times. I can't explain the reason for it but when the dun looses the wing it stops catching until I replace it with one with a wing, and it has to be the same size and shape of wing as the one that was catching

Another anomaly is my HillLoch Nymph, if I have the #12 on the cast and not catching anything I change it for a #14 and it starts catching, if I stop catching on the #14 later and change back to the #12 I start catching again, and vice versa. I also have two different patterns for it, one with the silver rib wound in the same direction as the body so that it sinks into the seal fur and one wound in the opposite direction so that it sits on top, both catch fish but one does when the other doesn't

My DryFly is the same. When it stops bringing fish up it isn't on top properly so needs to be greased. If I change it and the new one doesn't have enough hackles or has a bit less seal fur it doesn't work so I have to change it for one that sits/looks right. I can't explain what I am doing as I just know when it is right.

The wing on the dun is important to me. I have tried a hair wing and as a spider and it just doesn't work. After seeing those shrimp in Moidart I even use an Invicta now and again, with a wing of course

[burnie]

One word somes up my fly choice,confidence.
I do experiment out of desparation if I cannot find a fish,but mostly I use a fly that works on any given day .Sometimes they have wings and sometimes they don't,I remember when "Wingless Wickhams" hit the shops and were hailed as the next best thing on the southern chalk streams I was fishing at the time.I bought some,even cut the wings off the ones in my box.I found them less easy to watch on the surface and no better at deceiving a fish either. Each to their own.

[Traditionalist]

A complete pile of pants...... :roll:

  Whilst I agree that the traditional wet fly design is no longer the blueprint for most modern flies you cannot simply write off hundreds of years of fish  catching pedigree that some of these flies have. When selecting a fly I have to have hit rock bottom before I described my choice as 'chuck it and chance it'

I do not write it off, but I am very careful in what I choose to use.

[Wildfisher]

With all due respect and with no wish or intention to offend,  think much of this wing / no wings stuff is bollox. Technique and thoughtfulness  are far more important than fly design. Not that fly design does not matter of course it does, but other things have more of a bearing on success or failure.

I don't really enjoy blind fishing that much, no matter if I am using a Peter Ross or  DHE. I quickly become bored with  it. I am pretty sure most serous trout fly fishers  rapidly pass through the chuck and pull  stage. 

As I said in my "Peaceful Place"  film narrative this is why when conditions are dead I prefer fishing small stream pocket water than larger open glides or featureless lochs. It is far easier to fish thoughtfully and figure out where unseen fish will, hopefully,  be. Whether or not the fly has wings is a detail.  I do not enjoy chuck it and chance and this is probably  the main reason I could  never be a salmon fisher. 

[Traditionalist]

If that is true Mike then why does my confidence in catching a fish on the Iron Blue Dun rise when I see upwings flying about? They don't have to be on or in the water as long as they are about I can more or less guarantee a fish or two on it. The other flies on the cast consistently take fish whether there are flies around or not but the dun takes its share at other times. I can't explain the reason for it but when the dun looses the wing it stops catching until I replace it with one with a wing, and it has to be the same size and shape of wing as the one that was catching

Another anomaly is my HillLoch Nymph, if I have the #12 on the cast and not catching anything I change it for a #14 and it starts catching, if I stop catching on the #14 later and change back to the #12 I start catching again, and vice versa. I also have two different patterns for it, one with the silver rib wound in the same direction as the body so that it sinks into the seal fur and one wound in the opposite direction so that it sits on top, both catch fish but one does when the other doesn't

My DryFly is the same. When it stops bringing fish up it isn't on top properly so needs to be greased. If I change it and the new one doesn't have enough hackles or has a bit less seal fur it doesn't work so I have to change it for one that sits/looks right. I can't explain what I am doing as I just know when it is right.

The wing on the dun is important to me. I have tried a hair wing and as a spider and it just doesn't work. After seeing those shrimp in Moidart I even use an Invicta now and again, with a wing of course

Obviously it is a good general imitation. Wings are definitely important on some flies but the type and manner of wing construction on many traditional patterns makes them less suitable for a lot of things, and in many cases more or less useless. 

Good general imitations, which those you named obviously are, will always catch better than traditional winged flies chosen at random.

This has always been one of my most successful still water patterns, and it does not work very well at all without the wings;



it is Broughtons point or "Dark Bloa".  There are various dressings but I have invariably used Pritt's;

DARK BLOA. Hook 16 to 12

WINGS.- From the Starling's quill.

BODY.- Dark claret silk.

LEGS.- From the black feather of a black hen's neck

[Part-time]

.........if necessary for the enjoyment of your fishing then yes, and if not, then no.

[burnie]

I'd say that evolution is inevitable and in fly tying as products improve,so will our use of them.I use a cane rod now and again for fun,but making horse hair lines, not something I would be keen on doing(oh all right now I'm thinking maybe I would,curiosity now,damn it).
Methods have changed too, I have used live insects many years ago,don't think I would need to now as even my tyings are good enough to deceive a fish or two.
Fred mentioned Salmon fishing, now there is a branch of the sport that has changed even more than trout where fly tying is concerned.Some of those beautiful old traditionals are still sold,but I don't think any one uses them now.More likely to be framed on a wall or worn as a broach.
As to chuck and chance it,I've been getting away with it for years,just kid myself that I actually know what I'm doing.