imx 0 Report post Posted February 8, 2013 when tying small nymphs how important are legs in the pattern? sometimes when i get down to tying small like #16 and #18 i can't justify the point in tying in legs, a rough thorax that is brushed or dubbed loose seems to make no differance. you folks see a differance. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
joops 0 Report post Posted February 8, 2013 When frank sawyer designed his pheasant tail nymph he didn't think legs were important. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kentuckytroutbum 0 Report post Posted February 8, 2013 I've flung a lot of BHPTs at trout, some with legs, and some without. I have noticed that it didn't seem to make much difference to the success rate of the fly, especially on the small sizes. I think color, size, proportions, and presentation are the important factors. Bill Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
imx 0 Report post Posted February 8, 2013 i've read dave hughes book "hand book of hatches" about 3 times and the dressings are really basic, but as ktb just described with size, color and presentation are far more important. the legs do look good though, i guess the old saying is true that most flies are designed to catch fisherman and not fish.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheBigHenderson 0 Report post Posted February 8, 2013 Yeah I would agree that legs are more for the tyers satisfaction than fish attraction...but I usually just throw them on just in case. You can mess around with materials too...for tiny flies I'll use things like deer hair as nymph legs or antennae. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites