nymphs a la Schwiebert

Dave LaCourse wrote:

Michael Kessler writes:


And all 3 types work at least some of the
time. Or do all work all of the time if properly presented?


I find myself using the Pheasant Tail in its many iterations. However, there
have been times when it doesn't work, in which case a Hare's Ear (dark, light,
olive) will work. I rely on those two ties and a couple of home made caddis
worms, and, of course, the different stonefly ties.


I use PTs in the smaller sizes and in calmer water and Hare's
Earsish flies in medium sizes and in heavier water. I use alot of soft
hackles and I tie a variety of emerger patterns for specific hatches.
Don't use any caddis worms and my Stonefly pattern is a simple, buggy,
in the round pattern.

Willi

Steve writes:


Would there be a "PTN or Hares Ear" of the larger
Stonefly ties ?? Woollys?

I don't quite understand what you are saying. I hardly ever use a Wooly
Bugger, however.
Dave

http://hometown.aol.com/davplac/myhomepage/index.html

Willi writes:

I use PTs in the smaller sizes and in calmer water and Hare's
Earsish flies in medium sizes and in heavier water. I use alot of soft
hackles and I tie a variety of emerger patterns for specific hatches.
Don't use any caddis worms and my Stonefly pattern is a simple, buggy,
in the round pattern.

When Bruiser gave me those small PTs at the first San Juan Clave, they sat in
one of my boxes for a couple of years. On the Rapid one day, I tied one on,
and it was simply the best nymph I have ever used. I swear by the tie but have
changed it to just thread, wire, and a small tuft of antron in size 20 - 24
scud hook. It works just as well and is very easy to tie.

I'm experimenting with a couple of new emergers. One is cdc wrapped body with
cdc wings made from a dubbing loop (14 - 18). Sure looks nice, and is a very
easy tie. The other is a quill body with a tuft of cdc at the eye (16-18) on a
scud hook.

(I guess you can tell I like easy ties.)
Dave

http://hometown.aol.com/davplac/myhomepage/index.html

irate (Dave LaCourse) wrote in
:

Steve writes:


Would there be a "PTN or Hares Ear" of the larger
Stonefly ties ?? Woollys?

I don't quite understand what you are saying. I hardly ever use a Wooly
Bugger, however.
Dave


Is there a generic stonefly pattern (especially for the larger species)
that would "work anywhere there are trout" just like the PTN and Hares Ear?
(Assuming there is a population of large stoneflys of course)

You've answered the woolly part then. The woolly (worm or bugger)
variations are often cited here as patterns for stone fly nymphs.

Steve

Steve writes:

Is there a generic stonefly pattern (especially for the larger species)
that would "work anywhere there are trout" just like the PTN and Hares Ear?
(Assuming there is a population of large stoneflys of course)

You've answered the woolly part then. The woolly (worm or bugger)
variations are often cited here as patterns for stone fly nymphs.

Steve

Not that I use. I have few stones in my repertoire, but I do have a yellow
stone that is my "lucky fly" (or at least it was until I lost it to a snag).
Small (for stones) - size 14 with a black bead tied in on the shank of the
hook, surrounded by yellow dubbing. Tail and antennae were yellow goose biots.
Head was same as body with the hair (dubbing) pulled out. I got this fly from
the jaw of a large (22+) land locked salmon. Over time it began to fall apart,
but rather than fix it (it still worked - why bother?) I continued to use it
and catch fish. It was a scraggly looking thing when last I saw it. d;o)

Dave

http://hometown.aol.com/davplac/myhomepage/index.html

irate (Dave LaCourse) wrote in
:

Not that I use. I have few stones in my repertoire, but I do have a
yellow stone that is my "lucky fly" (or at least it was until I lost
it to a snag). Small (for stones) - size 14 with a black bead tied in
on the shank of the hook, surrounded by yellow dubbing. Tail and
antennae were yellow goose biots.
Head was same as body with the hair (dubbing) pulled out. I got this
fly from
the jaw of a large (22+) land locked salmon. Over time it began to
fall apart, but rather than fix it (it still worked - why bother?) I
continued to use it and catch fish. It was a scraggly looking thing
when last I saw it. d;o)

Dave



That's the sort of thing I mean though. Willi has scraggly,
in the round stones. The goose biots seem to be popular.

Did you shed a tear at the passing of "old yeller" (-;

Steve (how stiff was that salmon?! )

"Salmo Bytes" wrote in message
om...

Come to think of it, maybe somebody should write
a book entitled "The Impractical Tier."

And include all the patterns that with full color prints of all the flies
that have been tied over the years that have been tied to catch fishers more
than fish.

Damn thing would be bigger than a government document on how to tie a shoe
lace.

"Michael Kessler" wrote

.. Does
anybody know, with all due respect to Mr. Schwiebert, whether trout
really notice the difference between these things? And, does anybody
else out there bother to put marabou gills on them as I've been doing?



I'm not enough of a nympher to justfy posting an opinion, but I'm bored on a
Sunday afternoon .... so here it is, anyway




trout don't notice UNLESS you think they do ...then they care a lot about
details

Don't be concerned over losing the "lucky" fly. If it truly was lucky it won't
of lost itself. 8)

Lou T

Mr Schwieberts book is a masterpiece in its own right. The information is
detailed, accurate, in fact quite brilliant, and seldom matched. The book
is also technically excellent, and also seldom matched. However, I rather
doubt that such wide variety and extreme attention to detail, although of
considerable interest, and laudable for its own sake, is worth the bother
time and expense it entails, either when tying flies, or when actually
angling. The book leans far more towards entomology than to practical
angling considerations.

Two or three generic nymphs will catch you a great many fish when presented
properly. It is extremely unlikely that "precise imitation" assuming that
you even get close to this, will catch you any more. Indeed, in my
experience the reverse is actually the case. Much the same applies to most
other flies. Only seldom does one require an "exact" imitation, and often in
such circumstances, one does not have the one presumed or deduced to be
required. Such flies are invaribaly also more difficult, expensive and time
consuming to tie. How many flies are you going to carry? Mr. Schwiebert
covers some three hundred patterns in his book. Many of insects which are
practically indistinguishable from each other.

Even assuming you did carry that many patterns, how are you going to know
when to use the "right" pattern? I submit that such a thing is well nigh
impossible. It is also quite obvious that trout very rarely select their
food as carefully as some think. This must be so, as otherwise none of the
cruder "expressionistic" patterns extant would work at all, but they all do,
and some amazingly effectively.

One may use a Hare´s ear, a Pheasant Tail, and perhaps a caddis pupa, in a
small range of patterns shades and sizes, and one will be succesful in most
places under most conditions.

Many anglers love to carry huge boxes full of flies, and why not? If they
enjoy it. One must nevertheless always remember that there is only one fly
which catches a fish, and that is the one which is either in or on the water
at the end of your line. Having a thousand flies in your box will not catch
you one single fish! Quite apart from which, it can be self defeating. If
you only have a few flies, ( comparatively), then you wont have much trouble
choosing one, or tying up replacements for those sacrificed to tree gods,
various snags, and dropped backcasts! If you have a thousand, it is possible
that you spend more time trying to choose one, than actually fishing with
it.

TL
MC