Coley,

I don't pretend to understand how all these values figure into the equation. As your questions dig deeper I find myself resorting to "I only know what feels comfortable to me." I think the natural materials fly pattern kick is just that, a phase some guys wanted to try and see if they could have a selection of flies that are effective within this self-created constraint, harkening back to the historical origins of fly fishing in Dame Juliana's day. I don't feel any different swinging a Royal Coachman bucktail than one of marabou and silver tinsel with mylar flashabou streamers I used a couple weeks ago. I do like flies that are aesthetically pleasing, but the funny thing is, the steelhead don't care (trout, however, do). So as long as aesthetic flies catch fish roughly as well as unaesthetic ones, I keep trying to tie the former.

Traditional fly fishing is easy to define. It means fishing only with rods made of split cane, silk lines, reels made in England, gut leaders, and flies dressed only of natural materials. Any departure from that and you're just a bait-slinging whore monger. Can't be simpler than that. As for how many sects and camps I think it does depend on what campfire you hang around.

Regarding the sincere question, if I find a particular fly, technique, gimmick, etc., that just absolutely works so much better than whatever else I tried, I stay with the sure-fire whatever for just a while. After I've caught some fish with it, I switch to see what else will work, even if not as well. I value the unpredictable over the predictable. Which is why I gave up bait and drift fishing for steelhead fly fishing. If I could catch winter steelhead on flies at the rate I can catch them drift fishing bait, then I would switch to fishing dry flies for winter run, upstream, dead drift, not skated. It's like the pole vault and high jump in track and field. When I can consistently nail one height, reasonable challenge is all about raising the bar, not leaving it the same, or lowering it.

I do this. When trout fishing I fish to find what pattern they are eating above all else, and then I switch and see what else they might take. One time I hit a favorite steelhead stream under perfect conditions and rose 15 steelhead to the floating line and wet fly. The next day I decided not to fish any spot that I fished the day before or any spot that I had ever previously hooked fish in. Obviously there were a lot of fresh fish in the river, and they were well distributed. It was the best possible circumstance to discover what new places I'd never caught fish in might hold a fish under these conditions. It wasn't even all that tempting to go back and see if I could hook more fish than the day before, maybe 20, even 30. I got more satisfaction exploring for new holding water, but only hooked 6 or 7 the second day, and was entirely satisfied with that. The alternative would have been to just fish dry flies all day, but I think that would have worked too well under those conditions.

If there is a reason why there needs to be a line between fly fishing and conventional gear, I think it's because they are inherently incompatible. Take the old Fortson Hole on the NF Stilly for instance. In days gone by you could easily have 7 fishermen fishing through in rotation without issue. Throw in one spin fishermen drift fishing in there and it all goes to hell. Same if there were 10 drift fishermen in there in the winter season. One fly guy entering that lineup and the system comes to a halt. Now I guess that happens within the gear fishing ranks where drift fishing and jig and bobber fishing the same hole are not compatible, or so I read on the internet.

". . . I feel pretty confident in saying that more traditional fly methods (however you choose to define those) will never rival catch rates on hardware, bait or a number of other methods. Of course there is not a thing wrong with that, but instead of making a value judgement on other methods or those that choose to use them, I think the good attitude to have is one that says "this is how I like to fish" and not "my way is better than your because..."" I agree almost completely. I do make value judgements according to ease or relative effectiveness of method, which is different than making value judgements about people.

Around my campfire it goes like this in descending order of high falutin' preference which should help define "the easy way out":

1. upstream dead drift dry fly
2. skated dry
3. damp wet fly swing
4. deep wet fly swing
5. nymphing, no split shot, no bobber/indicator
6. nymphing with split shot and or indicator
7. jig and bobber with spinning/casting rod
8. drift fishing spinners and spoons
9. drift fishing bait
10. pulling plugs

Although I think bait is the absolute most effective day in, day out, year round, I put plugs at the bottom because only the boatman is fishing. The dudes in the front seat are really no more than ballast. I don't compete with other fishermen either. After all, I fly fish. If it was about competition I go straight for blasting caps and gillnets. I think I have a good understanding of gear effectiveness.

Always interested in interesting discussions, and yours are right up with the best. I'm not sure I understand all my biases. It's never occurred to me to take a spinning or casting rod to Alaska or the Caribbean for instance. I go there specifically to fly fish. If there were no fly fishing there, I'd just go sight seeing. And I guess that's what earns me one of Stam's ascots.

Which leads me back to the topic of this thread you began. Is a Skunk Intruder an "engineered" fly? I've talked with Ed about his and Jerry's experience in developing it, and the approach was decidedly different than anything I'd heard about steelhead flies previously. I think this concept is becoming more common, and that the salt water guys are the ones on the cutting edge, trying to simulate bait or squid with something castable and manageable as a fly.

Sg