Which is the best fly?

[Traditionalist]

Obviously there is quite a lot of interest in this.  These are my ideas on the matter. They are not indisputable. They work for me.

> so how do you know it's the best fly in that case?

Well, actually you never really do. There is no reliable empirical data on what is the best fly for any particuar situation. What people use is determined by their knowledge and experience and their ideas on what might work.  Other angler's experiences may also be useful, but only if they are reliable and sensible.  If people exaggerate or even lie outright then such information is obviously useless.  Also, the data on which you base any assumptions has to be logical and sensible if you want things to work well. If you choose flies on the basis of them being the best sellers in a fishing shop, or because some magazine does a big piece on some fly or other, then they may or may not work, it depends on why people bought them or why the inventor of the fly made it like that or even if they are the same flies at all!  Large numbers of artificial flies are not very reliable for a whole host of reasons. Virtually all of them will eventually catch a fish in some situation or other, but you have no way of knowing what that situation might be, you want flies that catch consistently and reliably in the situations which you find on your waters if you want to catch a lot of fish.

Fishing for stocked rainbows in still water is not generally reliable experience for fishing for wild fish in rivers or other wild waters although of course there are some similarities and some assumptions are fairly reliable wherever you fish.

If you use a particular fly in a particular situation and it works then that was a good fly. If it works repeatedly in simiar situations then it is a good fly for that situation.  The problem is that some flies work pretty often, some only work sometimes and some very rarely work at all. Also, a very great deal depends on how they are used. Some people maintain that is the only real criterion, but that is an illogical conclusion.

All you can do is try to learn as much as possible about what is happening and choose the fly you think will work best based on whatever criteria are known to you. It doesn't really matter "why" it works, as long as it works, although people are always trying to explain why something works. In many cases there is no way to know why it works. One can of course surmise a great deal, and that surmise may or may not be accurate.

In the final analysis it is the fish that determine whether a fly is good or not. If it catches fish for you then it is a good fly. Of course a fly that only catches one fish under some circumstance or other is less desirable than a fly which has caught a hundred fish in various situations. Simply because such a fly has worked often makes it more likely that it will work again.

People's experience and knowledge varies massively, and the approaches they use also vary.  I have a set of criteria I use when developing or dressing flies, and I have found that these criteria are pretty reliable, but they are not infallible.  Sometimes, quite often in fact, a fly which I have developed does not work very well for the purpose it was designed. Indeed, it is only now and again that one manages to come up with a really good fly.

The matter is further complicated by variations and substitutions, styles of dressing and fishing, the types of water you fish, how many fish are in there and how they behave. Over the years I have found that some flies only work well for me when dressed in a specific manner using specific materials and also fished in a very specific manner. Some only on specific waters in specific circumstances. If I deviate from any of those things the flies invariably work less well or in many cases not at all. The gear you use and how well you can use it also determines to a considerable degree whether some things will work well or not.

Finally, a lot depends on your expectations, enthusiasm, and the amount of time and effort you can put in. There is no substitute for experience. The more you have the better you will be able to fish. There are also no substitutes for logic and common sense.

With regard to "triggers", for over half a century I have read loads of stuff on this. Up to now nobody has been able to demonstrate a single one. My usual,( but not my only), approach is to make my artificials look and behave as much like a natural I am trying to imitate as I possibly can. It obviously works.

Much the same applies to a lot of other ideas and theories which abound.  They are often the result of completely unfounded assumptions, many based on various anthropomorphic attributions to fish which they simply don't have. If they don't make sense, or somebody can not explain or demonstrate them then I simply ignore them. They wont catch me any more fish, not least because even in the unlikely event that some of them might work I have no logical way to use them.

[Fishtales]

I think we covered all of this in the other thread Mike, which is now closed.

The one thing though that does catch me a lot of fish is moving the fly. Doesn't matter what fly whether surface, wet or nymph I very seldom fish them static. I do if the situation seems to justify it but for most of the time I retrieve them. It has to be at the right pace though not too fast or slow and that depends on the conditions. The less surface water movement the slower the retrieve but only up to a certain speed. I know when I reach that maximum speed by instinct or maybe just by having done it for so many years it just becomes instinctive. Too fast and nothing happens, get it right and I start catching. It could be to any fly on the cast; sometimes the dry, or the wet or it might be the nymph. On the right day it could be all three, but always retrieved.

[Traditionalist]

I agree, movement is the only thing that will "trigger" fish to take, but as you say, it has to be the right movement in the right circumstances.

I was not trying to circumvent a closed thread. I got a couple of e-mails on the matter and I thought the subject matter was actually somewhat different but obviously of interest.  If you feel it is inappropriate then just delete it.

[13Fisher1]

I always find this to be very effective when all else fails!

[attachimg=1]

Fly made from parts of broken IPhone!

Sorry Mike,  :lol:

[Traditionalist]

I prefer this;

http://www.rasmushansen.com/index.php?l=uk&t=pdv&s=2&p=pdv

but I don't suppose it matters much.............

Does it have to be an iPhone, or might one use bits from a Nexus instead?

[13Fisher1]

Nice one, but not sure it would work in really cold water!

Never tied or tried  a Nexus, but the IPhone CDC is a real trigger!

[Traditionalist]

depends when you fish it surely, if i had to fish one fly for ever more it would be either a dhe or a smallish elk hair caddis.

Regardless of what you use, how successful it is is always going to depend on when, where, and how you fish it.  If you only use one fly then you will probably catch fewer fish because there will be occasions when it doesn't work. There are one or two people who are fairly successful who only use a couple of flies, and I have known two who only used one.  Nothing wrong with that it if suits you but part of the experience for me is trying to find a fly that suits the conditions, matches the prey at the time, and works well. There are some flies which work a great deal better than the "run of the mill standards".  I also use other approaches on occasion, but that is my basic "bread and butter" approach.  I just find it more interesting in general.  I do only normally use a few dry flies, but that has as much to do with the waters I mostly fish as much as anything else. There are more than a few occasions when two or three dry flies will suffice for a large proportion of the fish.  In some places you need more, but even there you will likely catch most of your fish on just a few patterns.

I don't like to limit myself, but at the same time I don't want to carry huge numbers of flies to suit every possible occasion so I choose my flies with very great care. I still try other stuff now and again but my core selection is always what I depend on.  Also, although I like to use different gear and different methods there are some methods I don't use much. I don't much like deep nymphing for instance, as although it is very successful I usually find it a bit boring after a fairly short time. I don't use bead heads at all. Sometimes I will have a day or part of a day streamer fishing, and often a day of upstream wet fly. Depends on my whim at the time mostly, although sometimes of course conditions dictate or preclude some methods.  If I was limited to only one fly or method I would probably pack it in altogether.

This was the fly one gent used. He was in his sixties when I knew him in Yorkshire many years ago. He only used this fly and he caught a lot of fish both trout and grayling. He usually just retrieved it slowly along the bottom. He fished two rivers and used the same method on both;

"The "creeper" was the name used for large stoneflies, which were often used as bait. I knew a couple of people who used very rough imitations of these flies, and caught a lot of fish on them. Indeed, I think this may have been the forerunner of the woolly bugger! The flies are quite simple, a long shank hook ( Size 8 LS Hook shown here ) about an inch long is wound with lead, and then overwound with wool of the appropriate colour, and then ribbed with tinsel or wire. Often dark green was used, but I have also seen brown and black variations. These flies were also used in various sizes as "sheet anchors" on various working rigs.



This is a well used example from one of my boxes. As you can see, it looks very much like a very simple Woolly bugger! When I dress these things now, I brush the wool ( it is mohair wool) out well, after dressing the fly. These flies are quite deadly on grayling. But will of course also take trout. I knew one old guy who used nothing else, and he caught a huge number of fish! On reflection, I recollect that this is why I made the Green Tailed Woolly Bugger!

The other "one fly man" only used hare's ears, but he did have them in various types and sizes and he did use different methods. He also caught a lot of fish.

[Fishtales]

Reading through that and various other threads where it has been discussed it all comes down to ..

a) the angler

b) the style or technique used

c) whether the fish are feeding or not

The fly would appear to be well down the list of being successful.

Matching the hatch may catch fish, or it may not as has also been stated in previous threads, if the angler isn't up to it; he is using the wrong technique; or is matching the wrong part of the hatch, he still wont succeed as often as someone using all his knowledge and technique while using a non-descript fly.

[Otter Spotter]

The best fly, is without a doubt, the one that catches you a fish!

[Moggie]

Do you not think that the angler has a lot do do with it? Some have the "touch" and can feel the slightest touch of the fly when a fish "samples" it before spitting it out and can therefore strike in time and catches his fish while others don't. I can remember my dad telling me to keep in touch with your flies. An old pal of mine who is now no longer with us was a very keen and very good fisher winning the club championship on more than one occasion and he was blind!! He obviously required assistance with his tackle and various other things but he did the fishing. So perhaps our flies really only require the fish to be curious enough to taste them. When you look at fish in an aquarium they suck stuff in and if they don't fancy it they spit it out again all within a split second.... I'm only saying...

Moggie.