Bob, I can't help it if your fish are dumb. Seriously, as I told Del, you can get away with no wings. See, you're not disagreeing. A wingless clipped-hackle dry fly is not much different in footprint than a spent-wing fly using fibers for the wings and no hackle at all. But the hackle needs to be dense enough to give the appearance of wings in the footprint. But the strike image of an up-wing fly will , to me, always 'fit the bill' better for dry feeding trout, using the vision cone. JMHO
DonO ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Haering" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 4:43 AM Subject: Re: [VFB] Dry Flies 101-reply > Don I have to disagree on the wings. For my own use I flys #14 & smaller I > omit the wings. I cut the bottom half of the wound hackle flush with the > body. I have to notice any difference in the number of strikes. The drys > that I fish are split or fan tail type. > > Bob H > >
