That is quite a lot to deduce from a shiny fly

Where then is the line between those that do it right and those that do it wrong?

Personally I think it has less to do with wanting to "fish gear with a fly rod" and more to do with flyfishers wanting to catch fish for a change.

Is adding fish attracting/catching characteristics to a fly really that frowned upon in the old school? If so, it really isn't about the process or even the end result, but rather more about being in the club I guess.

I continue to think these class and style distinctions are ridiculous anyhow. At the end of the day are we not all using a rod, reel, line and lure and trying to catch a fish?

these ones are only 13k-28k

http://www.bearskin-rugs.com/polar-bear-rugs-c-62.html

but heres one for a mere 2700, that hasnt been walked on either... head looks to be in pretty good shape as well...

http://kingston.kijiji.ca/c-buy-and-sell...QAdIdZ342047891

to go fishing...?

level 5 ascot alert

No deduction required Coley. It was spelled out clearly in the article that the intent was to create a fly that would/could fish like a plug and a spoon and get similar results.

It's never been a line between right and wrong. It's the same ol' line that distinguishes fly fishing from conventional spinning and casting gear which I think has been rehashed more than enough. Whenever someone remarks as you did that "((it has). . . more to do with flyfishers wanting to catch fish for a change." it causes me to think that your either haven't fly fished very long or at least not long enough to learn how effective it is, or that your need to catch a fish exceeds any desire to catch one under the self-imposed constraints of traditional fly fishing. If I never caught fish by fly fishing I'm sure I would have moved on to something else long before now. Mind you, knowing what I know now, I probably wouldn't begin fly fishing for steelhead today because it's easier to learn when there are enough fish and conditions are suitable for providing positive and negative feedback while learning technique.

Adding fish catching characteristics to flies is part of the tradition. The tradition becomes gray in steelhead and Atlantic salmon fishing because we're not trying to imitate or simulate a food source like with trout and most other fly fishing. A few friends of mine went through a phase of tying flies with only natural materials - hair, fur, feathers, wool, silk, but no mylar tinsel or any of the commonly used cheniles. The old school doesn't frown on inovation. I think what the old school frown on is taking the easy way out. Modifying materials and methods to attain conventional gear catch results with a fly rod is considered taking the easy way. That's why you won't see old schoolers nymphing for steelhead with a bobber and split shot or trying to make a plug or spoon out of a fly.

I must know a half dozen guys who when they go steelheading in BC in the summer and fall use floating lines only. No sink tips allowed in camp. And no weighted flies. It's not that there's anything "wrong" about using sink tips, but limiting oneself to the floating line is probably the best way to expand one's knowledge of just how effective one can be with it. Of course it's easier to go down this path after having already caught a lot of fish and a few 20# steelhead to the resume don't hurt either. It can get crazier. Three friends of mine were on the Hoh a few seasons ago, and in an alcohol induce epiphany decided to swear off using graphite rods and pitched a stack of perfectly good Sage rods (I saw the photograph, and it's real) into the campfire. They fish only bamboo now. That's farther than I'm willing to go, but it must be right for them.

Whether the distinctions are rediculous is a personal perspective. They aren't rediculous to me. How I catch fish matters to me because the "how" affects the satisfaction I get from the experience. I value a steelhead taken on a floating line more than one I catch using a sink tip line. If I just wanted to catch a fish I should value a steelhead taken in a gillnet or with blasting caps just as much as one taken on a dry fly, but I don't. I think methods matter to most fishermen. Each person simply draws the line where they find their best personal fit.

Sure, at the end of the day we're all trying to catch a fish, and for some catching the fish is all that matters, and for others there is more that matters.

Redhook,

Good find! Unfortunately it's not legal to bring those polar bear rugs into the U.S. I guess that's why polar bear has become so expensive. The only legal supply is pre-1972 (I wrongly stated 1973 above), and it's becoming scarcer.

Sg

Didn't want to disappoint Stam!

Stam has a horse hair rug at his house, Enumclaw domtchaknow, reminds him of the good old days before the farm got shut down. By now its probably stained from use by him...no good for tying.

I think you have a good enough understanding of my motivations to know that I am in it a lot more for the experience, adventure, and process than numbers of fish caught. That having been said, I really enjoy catching fish and that is a significant part of it for me.

I can understand casting method and tool preferences and how those affect one's enjoyment of the process. I don't understand how, all other factors equal, a fly made from natural materials vs. one made from synthetics enhances the fishing process. The tying/creation process sure and maybe it satisfies some ethical need or preference. The enjoyment I get out of catching a fish on a fly I tied is the same regardless of what it is made out of. As long as it casts and fishes well, I could give a flying poo what it is made out of. I kind of always thought that the main reason to put something on the end of your line was to get a fish to bite it If the latter (fly) doesn't have much of an impact on the former (method/tool), why not use something that is more like to be eaten?

Sincere question, if given the option to fish a waking fly (your ultimate experience?) that fish ate readily or one that they almost never ate, would you choose the latter purely because you had to work more for it thus finding the overall experience more rewarding? I know, I know, the fly matters very little.




I guess I am still looking for a clear definition of that line. More than that, I am curious as why in the minds of many there needs to be one.




Fair in some ways. Although I would consider myself pretty darn new to swinging flies for steelhead, in the end I have spent a lot more time chasing fish with a fly rod in my hand than a gear rod. Mind you that is not a claim to be proficient with either. My method ADD doesn't let me stick with one thing long enough these days to get good at any of them. Good in this instance meaning both technically correct and highly effective in the catching realm.

What is "traditional fly fishing" and to that end, how many sects are there within fly fishing? Traditional, non-traditional, old school, new school, etc. Are they all clearly defined or does it depend on which campfire circle you happen to be sitting around when the topic comes up? Do dirty nymphing bastards even get a mention? What if they nymph with "traditional" nymphs and no indicators. What about indicators but egg patterns made from all natural materials? Are you sure you don't find the idea of all these arguments and how seriously people tend to take them just a little ridiculous?



The easy way out of what? Modifying from what? I don't mean to be facetious, but it seems as though a certain standard is being referenced. What is that standard? I don't think there needs to be a comparison with conventional gear at all. Maybe that is where my perspective deviates from the norm. On the river I really only feel like I am competing with myself, whether I am choosing a highly effective method or choosing another in favor of style or process more than number of fish hooked. I fully understand having a strong preference for tool and/or method over effectiveness. That having been said, I also know that more traditional fly fishing methods can be highly effective, especially when employed by skilled fisherman and women. New to it as I may be, 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..."







Of course and I couldn't agree more. My personal formula still gives a little more weight to the "hows" that catch fish more often over those that catch fish less often, admitting my own inadequacies in the process. As more time goes by, I get more and more enjoyment out of some of the smaller facets of the pursuit like getting fish to eat weird unconventional things or reeling them up on a fly rod I built. Who knows, in a few more years I might have a bonfire of my own.

All in good humor and for the sake of interesting discussion of course.

you're just full of classic Salmogism's today.

heightened ascot alert....

..approaching critical!

Nymphers are lowlifes and inbreds, all said in furthering good discussion of course...

I certainly can't argue that.

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

I see KK is adding value through content sorta' like Abu on the main page. Way to contribute you reprobate! Stam's gonna' revoke your ascot if you can't do better than that.

Avid,

I think you have to be a member of the club and know the secret handshake to get it. Or maybe they had some financial regrets when they woke up the next morning. I've got just enough Scot in me to know I would. Yikes!

Sg

Thank you and I would certainly say the same. Thanks for engaging and for the perspective. Are bait slinging whore mongers and Dame Juliana devotees allowed round the same campfire


Much to ponder for now.

Cheers.

My ascot is dirty, rumpled and smelly, just like I am. I did however fish a dry line only one full year, including 10 days camping on the upper Queets, and all that winter as well. Besides my penchant for tying and fishing traditional stylers and patterns is well known, so Stam62 can take my ascot when he can pry it from my cold, dead hands....

Hah! You're not even a certifiable ascoteer, you lack the nose in the air air, the over dignified self superior sneer, you fish plugs more than you fish flies, you fish bait more than you fish plugs...hell, you make most skok snaggers look ascot eligible.... so, no ..I don't think anybody will be prying any ascots from your cold dead bait crusted fingers...

At least you got the dirty, rumpled and smelly part right, but you forgot the....






gay.

I was trying to work up the nerve to tell a story about the time I was short a plug rod so I strung my 6wt and lashed on a tad polly, but I thought better of it at the last minute.

Heathens.

Side planer and a plug on a 8# on the kispiox & skeena.....I've seen it done and applauded the effort.

[Bleeeeep!] works.

I havent fished at all, just a clam digger now, but I do it traditional style, using a natural stick and bare hands.... ... after reading Tolstoy and sipping Bordeaux on the veranda..... wearing my filthy ascot that smells of sandshrimp.

hey, i fish bait, i dont appreciate that stam...

That Stam, he's a purist.

Coley,

Dame Juliana and the whore mongers are all brothers and sisters of the angle. Not a gillnetter among them, blasting caps having not been invented. The campfire's big enough for all those who revere the fish and the sport.

Redhook,

It's OK. Stam prides himself on his primitiveness. It's a special cult thing.

Sg