TROUT FLIES, ARTIFICIAL AND NATURAL
"The wide range of difference between the wet fly and the dry fly lies
in the fact that the wet fly is an imitation of no special thing
active and living, while the dry fly purports to be an imitation of
the natural fly. It is generally a well-known fact that any of our
well-known American wet flies can be converted into exceptionally good
dry flies by giving them an ablution of oil."--Robert Page Lincoln,
_Outdoor Life_. September, 1915.
Then the wet fly resembles the dry fly, and therefore the wet fly is
an imitation of the living fly. Of course it is. Is not the artificial
black gnat imitative of the live black gnat? And is not the white
miller artificial fly patterned after the living white miller fly?
Certainly. Mary Orvis Marbury, author of _Favorite Flies_, and
daughter of Charles F. Orvis, one of America's greatest fly-makers,
says so. So says William C. Harris, Seth Green, Frank Forester, Louis
Rhead, A. Nelson Cheney, Frederick Mather, Dr. Henshall, Charles
Hallock, Dean Sage, William C. Prime, Charles Z. Southard, Dr. van
Dyke, Edward Breck, _et al._
All angling writers in discoursing upon artificial flies use the
expressions "in season," "seasonable flies," etc. Now, how could this
or that artificial fly be in season if it were not copied from the
living fly? Of course, there are some artificial flies that are not
copied from nature, but the artificial fly in general is a duplicate
of the living thing. "When a fly is said to be in season," says Alfred
Ronalds, "it does not follow that it is abroad on every day of its
existence." But, our opinions must not be harshly expressed--rather
set forth "in pleasant discourse," as Walton says--for, as Pritt tells
us, "one of the charms of angling is that it presents an endless field
for argument, speculation, and experiment."
After the foregoing excerpt and my comment upon it appeared in the New
York _Press_ (Sept. 11, 1915). I wrote several of the authorities
mentioned, asking their views on the subject, and following will be
found their replies.
Henry van Dyke, author of _Little Rivers_, _Days Off_, _Fisherman's
Luck_, etc.:
For flies as "wet," or flies as "dry."
I do not care a whit--not I!
The natural fly is dry, no doubt.
While through the air he flits about;
But, lighting on the stream, you bet
He very often gets quite wet.
This fact is known to all the fish;
They take their flies just as they wish.
Upon the surface or below.
Precisely _why_ we do not know.
The honest Angler should not be
A man of rigid theory.
But use the most alluring fly.
And sometimes "wet," and sometimes "dry."
Louis Rhead, author of _The Book of Fish and Fishing_: "After
thirty-two years' active fishing for trout, beginning with a worm as a
bait, I have developed through various stages to know fish with
nothing but my own nature flies. I have made careful color pictures of
all the most abundant insects and produced flies tied to exactly
imitate them. Many insects do not and cannot float, yet an imitation
can be made of them to fish wet. The English dry fly is not of
necessity a copy of the natural insect. Halford has many fancy dry
flies that are not copies of insects. Nearly all American commercial
trout flies are fancy flies, and do not imitate insects. To be exact,
in fishing with a floating fly it is only right to use copies of
insects that will float, mostly drakes. The average Angler has been
sadly fooled by this so-called dry-fly fishing, and books have been
written (mostly culled from British sources), making Anglers more
bewildered than ever."
Charles Zibeon Southard, author of _Trout Fly-Fishing in America_: "In
reply to your question about trout flies, 'Am I right?' I would say
that unquestionably you are. From the earliest days of trout
fly-fishing it has been the intention of Anglers to have their flies
resemble as far as possible the natural ones found upon their trout
waters. One has only to read dear old Izaak Walton and the many noted
fly-fishing authorities that have followed to the present day to be
convinced of your view. Of course the art of fly-tying has advanced
with mighty strides during the past fifteen years and more especially
during the past ten years, and to the makers of 'dry' flies for the
wonderful development of the artificial fly too much credit, in my
judgment, cannot be given. That wet flies are not such remarkable
imitations of the natural flies as are the dry flies goes almost
without saying. As a matter of fact it is not the question which fly
is the better imitation, but that both the wet fly and the dry fly are
patterned, in most cases, after the natural flies. From the time of
Walton and before that, wet flies have been patterned after natural
flies. In many instances nowadays wet flies are not designed to
represent natural flies, but such flies are freaks, are short-lived,
and are seldom used by real trout fly-fishermen. There is no doubt in
my mind that taken as a whole wet flies have been intended to
represent natural flies, but quite often in the past and in the
present day have not been and are not good imitations. As the art of
fly-tying has advanced, more nearly do the artificial represent the
natural flies, and this advancement is due, in a great measure, to the
makers of dry flies. Speaking from a practical standpoint, the
so-called dry flies are the very best wet flies obtainable, and on
most American trout waters more trout will be caught on them when
fished wet than when fished dry, especially the _fontinalis_."
Dr. James A. Henshall, author of _The Book of the Black Bass_:
"Regarding the 'Trout Flies' clipping sent me for comment I think the
mention of my name in it is sufficient without adding anything more."
Dr. Edward Breck, author of _The Way of the Woods_, etc.: "I suppose
that I may subscribe to your paragraph in answer to Mr. Lincoln. We
old chaps all know that laying down any hard and fast rules for trout
is a futile undertaking; there are so many exceptions, and _les
extremes se touchent_ so very often. Many wet flies are certainly not
imitations of natural flies nor are they meant to be; as, for example,
the Parmachenee belle, which they say Wells fashioned to imitate the
belly-fin of a trout, always known to be a killing lure.
'Non-university' trout grab anything that looks like food, whether it
has the appearance of an insect or something else. The more educated
fish of the more southern waters may make finer distinctions. It is a
vast subject, and as many authorities may be found for almost any
statement as for the several pronunciations of the word 'Byzantine.'
You remember the scoffing English Angler who dyed his dry flies blue
and red and took a lot of fish with them, to the scandal of the
purists! The charm of the whole thing is precisely that there are no
rules. It is like style in writing English. Every man makes his own.
Whether it is more pleasing in the sight of Saint Izaak to wait for a
fish to begin feeding before casting over him, or for a man to sally
forth, and, by dint of knowledge and patience and skill, actually make
the trout rise to his lure, what arrogant mortal shall judge?"
Robert Page Lincoln: "Perhaps I should have said _some_ wet flies are
an imitation of no special object connected with living things. In the
list of wet flies there are experimentations galore that will serve as
well as any of the standard regulation flies. I can sit down and
construct offhand a fly to be used as wet or submerged that I feel
sure I can use with as much success as with the miller, gnat, or any
other fly that is no doubt much on the order of an imitation of the
natural. Perhaps in writing the article I was thinking too deeply of
the eccentric nondescripts that do not imitate nature. Yet these
nondescripts (flies tied anyway to suit the fancy), yet having hackle
wings, etc., will get the fish; they are drawn in the water gently
back and forth, thus purporting to be some insect drowning; yet I
doubt very much if the fish can tell what sort of a fly, living fly,
it should be. I do not care; it is the motion, the apparent endeavor
of the fly to get out of that watery prison that arouses the fish's
blood. However, Halford says: 'The modern theory is that these
patterns (the wet flies) are taken by the fish for the nymphae or
pupae--these being the scientific names of the immature insects at the
stage immediately preceding the winged form.... Candidly, however, the
presence of the wings in the sunk fly pattern has puzzled me, because
in my experience I have never seen the winged insects submerged by the
action of the stream. Sedges do at times descend to oviposit and so do
certain spinners, but the appearance under this condition, with an air
bubble between their wings, resembles nothing so much as a globe of
mercury--an appearance which bears no resemblance to the ordinary sunk
fly patterns.' I have been strictly a devotee to the wet-fly form, and
always hold that it is the better fly for our swift Western streams;
in the wet form certainly it is the better fly two thirds of the time.
Still, glassy pools, even smooth waters, come few and far between,
but, where they are, there the dry fly is a valuable addition to the
Angler's outfit. You might change my article (in the paragraph in
question) to read thus: 'The wide range of difference between some wet
flies and the dry fly lies in the fact that a good number of wet flies
are an imitation of no special thing active and living, while the
majority of the dry flies purport to be an imitation of natural
flies.' This would exclude the wet flies that make good dry flies,
namely the suggested millers, gnats, etc. It would be interesting to
know the number of captures made with wet flies as they fall lightly
to water and for a moment ride the brim. Captures have been made
wherein two thirds of the time the wet fly has lain on the surface
but a scant moment before it was seized. In my great number of
articles printed in the universal outdoor press I have always
suggested that the fly be cast easily to water, expecting, first, a
rise as it lies on the surface; second, failing at this, then the fly
submerges and is drawn in the water, to assure the opening and closing
of hackles, thus purporting to imitate the drowning, struggling
insect."
Charles Hallock, author of _The Sportsman's Gazetteer_, _The Salmon
Fisher_, etc.: "I have nothing more to say. I hung up my trout rod
last summer at Chesterfield. Mass., in my eighty-second year. So, my
fly-book is closed. Let younger Anglers do the talking and discuss _ad
infinitum_. Flies are not on my line. Good-bye."
"To frame the little animal
Let nature guide thee."
--GAY.
TROUT TAKING THE FLY
"You will observe when casting the wet fly ... that trout seldom rise
to the fly when it first strikes the water ... after years of
experience I am prepared to state as my opinion that such a thing does
not happen once in thirty casts."--Charles Zibeon Southard, _Trout
Fly-Fishing in America_.
This has not been my experience with _fontinalis_ in the streams and
ponds of Long Island, N. Y., and the mountain brooks of Pennsylvania,
where many of my trout took the fly almost before it touched the
water. I have seen trout catch large live flies in the air a few
inches over the surface. I think large trout in clear, still ponds
easily see the cast fly before it alights. The trout in rapid streams
may not be so alert, but I have certainly caught many a specimen on
the fly the instant the lure touched the water.
Mr. William M. Carey, who is responsible for the frontispiece in this
volume, is positive trout often jump out of the water in taking the
fly. I, too, have seen trout do so. It is not a regular practice of
the species, but I easily recall many instances of the trout leaping
clear of the surface and taking the fly in the descent. Trout of all
sizes will often strike both living and artificial flies with their
tails, this either in play or to disable the insect. A writer in
_Forest and Stream_ (January 9, 1901) says: "In fishing a trout stream
in northern Michigan I was using a cast of a Parmachenee belle and a
brown hackle. I was wading downstream, and I came to a place where a
tree had fallen into the stream, and after several casts I noticed
some small trout following my flies. I cast again, and while my flies
were five or six inches from the water a trout four or five inches
long jumped clear out of the water, grabbed my Parmachenee belle and
immediately dove with it in its mouth. I believe the same trout did
the same thing several times while I was fishing there. These were
brook trout and they were not jumping except when they jumped at my
flies."
The foregoing comments were submitted to Mr. Southard, and he writes
me:
"What you say about catching trout in Long Island waters and the
mountain brooks of Pennsylvania is entirely true. During the early
spring season I have caught, at times, many small trout on such waters
in precisely the same way, and in addition there have been days on
many different waters where occasionally during the whole of the open
season I have caught trout when they rose the moment the fly alighted
upon the water. These experiences of ours alone, however, do not
establish as a fact nor as a general proposition that trout rise to a
fly more often when it first alights upon the water than after the fly
has been fished or played by the Angler; nor that my statement as a
general proposition is not a correct one.
"The statement was perhaps poorly worded and thus misleading, and I
should have said that on _an average_ trout do not rise to a fly once
in thirty casts when it first alights upon the water. My opinion was
based, _first_, upon trout fly-fishing on all kinds of fishable waters
wherever found; _second_, upon all sizes of trout from the minimum of
six inches to the maximum of thirty inches whether or not they were
indigenous or planted fish; _third_, upon my own experience of over
twenty-five years as well as the opinion of many Anglers and guides
with an experience covering a longer period than my own; _fourth_,
upon my knowledge of the habits and habitats of trout under the many
varying conditions which govern their lives and actions.
"Unfortunately most Anglers have given almost no thought to studying
and analyzing 'the art of fly-fishing' to the end that they may become
better and more successful fishermen and thus enjoy to a greater
extent the pleasures of the clean, dignified, and delightful sport of
angling. It is not surprising then that an Angler upon first thought,
even an experienced one, might think that trout rise to flies when
they first alight upon the water more often than once in thirty casts
because he remembers only the rises and his successes, but pays very
little attention to the lack of either. How many Anglers know
approximately the number of casts they make in an hour? How many know
the number of rises they have and when? How many know the number of
trout that rise and strike and are hooked and landed? The answer is
'Few indeed'; and those who hazard a guess are usually far from the
facts.
"The average fly-fishing Angler casts his fly or flies, _on most
waters_, from five to seven times a minute and the less experienced
Angler from seven to ten times. With the more experienced Angler this
means that he casts from 300 to 420 times in an hour and in five hours
from 1500 to 2100 times. Let us take the lesser number as a basis of
reasoning; in one hour, if once in thirty casts a trout rose, struck,
and was hooked when the fly first alighted upon the water, the
Angler's creel would be richer by ten fish and in five hours by fifty
fish. Then to this number should be added the trout that rise, strike,
and are hooked _after_ the fly has alighted upon the water and has
been fished or played by the Angler. Would it not be a fair
proposition to say that at least as many trout would be caught under
the latter circumstances as the former? To my mind it would. The
Angler then would have creeled one hundred fish in five hours. As some
trout, even with the most expert of Anglers, are bound to be lost let
us be liberal and place the loss at fifty per cent., thus making the
Angler's net catch fifty instead of one hundred fish. Think this over
and think over what your experience has been, day after day and season
after season, and ask yourself if a catch of this size is not very
unusual on the best of trout fishing waters. So far as my own
experience goes it certainly is most unusual, and I fish on many fine
waters each year and for at least one hundred days.
"There are some places, especially in the State of Maine, and notably
'The Meadow Grounds' of 'The Seven Ponds,' Franklin County, where at
times large numbers of small trout, running from five to seven or
eight inches, can be caught in a fishing day of five hours and I have
known of Anglers catching, though not killing, from three hundred to
seven hundred trout and most of them rose to the flies when they first
alighted upon the water. At 'Tim Pond,' Maine, the only place I know
where more trout can be caught on the fly than by bait, one hundred to
two hundred trout have been caught in one day on the fly, but in most
instances these trout take the fly _not_ when it alights upon the
water but _after_ it has been played. Such occurrences as these,
however, take place where countless numbers of small trout are found
in the shallow waters of remarkable and wonderful natural breeding and
propagating sections. Instances of this kind prove nothing because
they are the great exception and the art of fly-fishing is not brought
into play, for one fly is as good as another and the small boy with
his fifty-cent pole can catch just as many trout as the man of
experience with his thirty-dollar rod of split bamboo. Yet in
expressing my opinion about trout rising to a fly when it first
alights upon the water I took into consideration just such instances
as I have cited.
"'For your own satisfaction and education,' to quote from my book,
'when the opportunity offers, keep an account of the number of rises
you get when your fly first strikes the water and the number you get
after you have begun to fish the fly, and so prove for yourself what
the real facts are on this subject.'
"It is unquestionably true that all trout both large and small, when
in clear, still water that is shallow, easily see a cast fly before it
alights upon the surface.
"At times, under certain conditions both on streams and lakes, trout
will leap into the air and take small as well as large flies in the
air. But seldom will large or very large trout rise above the surface
for any kind of fly either real or artificial.
"In order that there may be no misunderstanding I would say that I
classify the size of trout as follows:
"Small trout, 8 inches and under.
"Medium sized trout, 9 to 13 inches.
"Large trout, 14 to 18 inches.
"Very large trout, 19 inches and over.
"Trout found in rapid streams are more alert than trout found
elsewhere; they in most cases represent the perfection of trout life
in all its different phases. Trout in rapid streams are snappy risers
to both the real and artificial fly but owing to the current they
frequently 'fall short' and fail to strike and take the fly. Such
trout when they do take the fly are the easiest to hook because they
often hook or help to hook themselves owing to the current.
"Your experience can hardly be said to differ materially from my own
in the instances you mention, but I cannot help thinking that you have
failed to take into account the many times when you have returned with
an empty or very nearly empty creel or to consider the number of times
you have actually cast your fly on the days when the creel was full to
overflowing.
"If you have cited your usual experience then I heartily congratulate
you upon your skill and upon your good fortune in knowing such
remarkable fishing waters wherein there dwells 'the most beautiful
fish that swims.'"
I fully agree with Mr. Southard, and I, too, should have worded my
comment differently, though I didn't declare, fortunately, that most
of my trout were taken the instant the fly touched the water. I used
the word "many" in both instances where I spoke of the trout taking
the fly. I think I should have considered more deeply Mr. Southard's
line "once in thirty casts"; then we'd have understood each other.
However, no crime has been committed; far from it, for look you,
reader, what you have gained--all this delightful extra practical
reading; and remember ye, "one of the charms of angling," as Pritt
says, "is that it presents an endless field for argument, speculation,
and experiment."