Unproven

[Bendix]

Hi All

I just finished reading Martyn Whites front page “Unproven” that he posted today. And I think he’s right on point with what he says!

Even though I’m not on social media of any sorts (besides Sexyloops, if that counts as social media), I still often see unproven fly patterns being posted around the internet. And I don’t like it!

As an avid Salmon fly fisher myself, I particularly don’t like it, when people post brand new Salmon flies outside of the Salmon season, which means they haven’t tried the fly yet. That’s all fine I guess, but the problem is that they give the brand new fly a cool name! And by giving it a name, they simply ignore a centuries old unwritten rule, that says that a Salmon fly has to have caught a Salmon, before you are allowed to give the fly a name! A big disrespect to old traditions!

Another example is a video I saw on YouTube, where the person had decided to use an alternate front hackle on a French Partridge dry fly variation, due to the fact that the original French Partridge feathers are becoming hard to find in stores. Again, this is all fine, since I myself use an alternate front hackle on my own French Partridge variant dry fly, but the problem is, that the person in the video states that his alternate feather is the perfect substitute, although he doesn’t mention that the fly has actually caught a fish! And the video was posted a couple of weeks before the Mayflies begin hatching, which makes it unlikely that he’s had a chance to try the fly in real life… So how does he know that this alternate feather is the “perfect” substitute?

Unfortunately, there are many more examples, as Martyn also points out! And I myself am tired of it! But I guess that’s the curse of social media, and the hunt for likes… It truly is sad…

Anyway, I’m done with my rant… But I’m really curious about what others think of this tendency?

Cheers, Bendix

[Mangrove Cuckoo]

I have an acquaintance who is a tyer of some notoriety. Their creations have graced the cover of more than one magazine, and they have tremendous artistic talent in other areas. They are also an avid fly angler, but I think it was tying that first attracted them to the dark side.

What I often argue with them, and what I think is an underlying problem that Martyn is highlighting, is that their is a tremendous difference in fish-catching quality between what a fly looks like on the vise and how it looks in the water.

[whinging pom]

That reminds me of something I read once.

I seem to remember an article in an early trout and salmon magazine (early for me anyway) where Richard Walker who developed many of the early patterns for the early resevoir scene in the UK in the 60's. He could be a belicose old bugger in print and was berating the habit of people inventing flies and naming them even though they were unproven.
He argued that a pattern needed to catch something (ridiuclous) like 500 fish before it was worthy of a being a proven pattern and worthy of a name.

He apologised that his latest pattern the corktipus had only caught just over 50, but he was keen to make a point.
The fly was the cork filter tip from a Consolate cigerette stuffed on a hook, for those days when resevoir fishermen used to chain smoke and flicked the stubbs in the water and the stocked fish mopped them up like pellets.

I think 50 shows a pattern proven and worthy.
best
WP

[Paul Arden]

I actually think most of it is bollocks. If it’s small and brown and looks crippled the fish will eat it.

[Lasse Karlsson]

Have to lie down now, I agree with Paul

[Mangrove Cuckoo]

I actually think most of it is bollocks. If it’s small and brown and looks crippled the fish will eat it.

Paul,

Be sure to stock up on lots of food before you sail off into the salt!


Gary

[VGB]

He will have to live on seaweed, you can’t catch potatoes in the sea.

I name all my flies even if I haven’t fished them. I’ll call them “pile of shite”, “hope it doesn’t fall to bits” and “needs more glue”.

Regards

Vince

[umm, Steve]

I believe that Paul is correct to an extent, I’ve seen fish rise to some guy’s cigarette butt, but Bendix, and of course Martyn, make a good point.

Regardless, I’d like to add to Bendix’s post to voice my pet peeve; if your fly does not look like the fly the originator tied it isn’t a damn Elk Hair Caddis. We may, or may not based on ones views, have problems in my country, but I don’t understand why the polls don’t show Elk Hair Caddis tiers as a major issue!

Thanks for coming to my TED Talk.

[Lasse Karlsson]

When is a pattern a new pattern? Adding a different colour hacke to a woolly bugger, is that a new pattern?
There's a ton of grey area, and apperantly some very strict rules, where the only penalty is outing on the net...

Gary, if the fly is big and brown and looks crippled, it will probably work for Paul in the salt... actually small and brown a crippled remind me of some bonefish and permit patterns too

Cheers
Lasse

[VGB]

I guess I’ll have to rename my variant to “Elk Hair Sedge made with deer hair”

If you want to raise some froth on a fishing forum, go into the fly tying section and call them man knitters