Hello All, from the oblivion of �Distant Lurking� please allow me to add my two cents.
My confusion starts with the �wingless� fly. It was said here that the hackle only imitated the bug�s footprint in the meniscus and the fish didn�t see much more, this vision inaccuracy was then corrected. On this point I believe the fish�s excellent vision is only part of the picture: the hackle also imitates the flutter of a bugs wings and gives the motion of life to a �wingless� fly. Variants or American Spiders, for example, are hackle only flying or fluttering imitations. If this is true then we have no truly wingless flies: unless it�s not a dry fly. We have several different types of two winged flies: traditional quill segment winged flies, and No Hackle Duns. Both are used for those fish willing to take the drifting insect. Rolled wings: made from hair, feather, or synthetic materials, with divided or single wings are also an imitation of wings in motion. Perhaps the winging method for those fishes that require the inducement of wing movement to provoke a take. Wingless or winged: is this presentation vs. imitation theory? Each school of thought serves its purpose, to ignore one or advocate one over the other will limit our growth in this sport. By combine the schools into the �Behaviourist�s� school of fly-fishing that Leonard M. Wright, Jr. in �Fishing the Dry Fly as a Living Insect� introduces, we glean the best of it. We don�t argue with fish: wingless and winged flies are both successful. No doubt, they�re fly construction techniques that trigger or induce fish to strike. Like the man said, �We�ve all watched �em come up to the fly, inspect it, and disappear.� What are ya gon�a give �em next, eh? Calm days Wally Lutz Edson AB Lifetime TUC Member http://www.telusplanet.net/public/whlutz/index.html " The wild fish were as the wild air, no mans possession but the free gift of God." Arthur Ransome [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I know I am going to cause a heavy debate with this one so here it goes. I > know when we tie in wings on or dry patterns it makes the fly look better and > in some cases I can see how it would make it float better. Here is the > question I am asking; trout do not see the top of the fly all they see is the > "footprint", so why put wings on them? The Adams has wings but the Flightless > Adams does not and it is just as effective as its older brother and tied the > same way with the same materials. So again I ask why wings? The Mosquito > pattern calls for wings and to be honest I have tied them with and without > wings and have had better luck with the wingless variety, and only use one > hackle in the process too. Hmmmmm, one material fly swap, sounds intresting. > Might have to host that one after the Pet Hair Swap. Folks I would like to > hear your thoughts and comments on this question. > > Thanks, > Bart
