Fly tying- Follow instructions or match the hatch?

Daroxtar

I'm wondering what the general consensus here is among Fly tyers, do you tie flies using the exact materials listed or do you tie using whatever you have at hand? Do you find better results with named/copyrighted flies or do you get just as good results with your own inventions?

I'm asking because in general I seem to catch just as much fish with flies I tie myself following no real "described pattern". If I see little brown flies, or green or duns or big sedges I just try to match the size/colour and usually end up catching some fish.

What are other people's views on this?
Do you have any flies of your own invention that you swear by? Do the described flies actually give better results?

SeaFields

I'd say a rarely tie a pattern exactly to a traditional dressing.

I have a few of my own description that work just as good as anything else.

Firstly, the main problem that I find with tying your own is that you'll never have all the materials for all the dressings - particularly trout wets and dries. You can tie most seatrout and salmon patterns with a handful of materials but trout flies are a different matter and the expense one would gather trying to keep up wouldn't make it worth while in my opinion.

Secondly, trout don't read the same books as us! I'd say Mr. Trout couldnt give a fiddlers in a pattern is completed with silver tinsel instead of gold wire, orange 8-0 thread instead of red 6-0 thread or a brown generic feather instead of bronze mallard. As long as it looks good in the water and swims nicely, I'd say its fair game.


/retreats into the corner and awaits a tongue lashing from coolwings :pac:

coolwings

SeaFields wrote: »

....
/retreats into the corner and awaits a tongue lashing from coolwings :pac:

Not here.
I agree totally.
It is about appearance, not keeping to the secret formula.
They are lures and must first be seen, and second fool the fish that's all.

Specials? I have some, and would be happy to put them up against the big name patterns with confidence that they will be surprisingly good!

If you are going to mess with materials, I think it is important you understand what you're imitating, and how the fish see it and recognise it. Do they look for colour, silhouette, movement, or size? Which components do they lock in on?
For instance a corixa has a characteristic short jerky swimming motion. The movement pattern is more important to the fish than the appearance. So you can tinker away all you like with materials of a corixa because it's down slightly to general fleeting appearance/size but mainly due to how it moves.
On the other hand a spent gnat sits there trapped in the surface film waiting to be eaten, as does a buzzer pupa. The fish gets a great look on the approach, and what do we find with these flies? On a given day, the fish regularly refuse this colour but take that other shade of colour. It makes sense when you figure out what information clues they use to recognise food during a hunt.

I guess I'm saying when it moves fast they see less detail, in the dark they see less colour, and the deeper it is the less they appreciate size inaccuracy. We exploit that. So there is no need to be a fusspot unless you fish daylight in calm water. Then it pays to be fussy. But even then you have choices, you could fish high and exactly imitate, or instead fish deeper, and use more approximate patterns that can imitate several food items rather than only one.
If the fish are hunting opportunistic the pattern that more fish see is the one to be taken most often. So what average food item is easier for trout to spot from a distance, movement or colour or size?

There's nothing better than evolving a truly reliable fly pattern for your own use. It is fishing creativity at it's best and hugely enjoyable. Kingsmill Moore described this journey in his book "A Man May Fish" so well. Non fly tiers miss out on a lot of rewarding fun in my view in this part of fishing.

//end long post :-)