Failure of Modern Fly Design

[jor fly 0]

A. It's good to post on here again been a while!

B. While I can't comment as to the variety of new flies, I can comment to the quality: seems like a great many commercially tied flies now a days don't last long before falling apart.

[Will K 0]

 

Sorry but I don't buy this at all. Complex or not, 6 types of material or just pheasant tail and wire, new idea or old pattern....it doesn't matter. The fish are the ultimate deciders. Flies that don't catch fish, don't sell, don't last and are a non entity.

 

To me this just sounds like sounds like someone who doesn't feel like moving forward as things inevitably do. The equivalent of "kids today don't know what good music is".

 

A matter of conflicting style and opinion is all it is.

 

J

Well said.

 

My thought is that the absolute best way to catch fish is a nightcrawler or a wad of dough bait... Why do we morph into "fly" fishers? Because it's interesting and fun to us. Same can be said with fly tying. I have had many a conversation with the "I don't fish with foam" guy, and the "I only tie with natural materials" guy, and the "I don't fish with beadheads" guy. I guess the next guy is "I don't fish with flies developed after 1983" guy.

 

 

I agree with Cheech and Jockey on this. Reading the article, I liked it, but also felt it sort of stung with the "vibe" given off by "nymph fish dont count folks" so to speak. The aim is to enjoy catching fish on the fly. Why is it wrong if one could catch a fish on a Sawyeresque PT nymph, but chooses to do so on a 12 material nymph?

 

I'm not sure sales is the prime motivation. I'd argue it's artistry, and some one solving a "fishing problem" to use the authors words in their way - vs his. Ill admit I dont know the process intimately, but it seems that a tier creates a pattern, finds it successful, others start to use it locally, it gains a following, is pitched to or found by say MFC, Rainy's, Umpqua or whoever, and if they like it it's picked up. if that initial success continues, it stays in the line up. If not, fishermen/women would not continue to buy it and thus the fly would fade away to all but the few who use it.

 

There is a happy balance to be struck between one's own process, and the process they believe others should enjoy. Our bias, does not make us correct.

 

That said, it's certainly got a bunch of us "thinking" and "talking"!

[JSzymczyk 0]

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure sales is the prime motivation. I'd argue it's artistry, and some one solving a "fishing problem" to use the authors words in their way - vs his.

 

 

I somehow doubt the women in the fly tying factories in Africa and Sri Lanka and wherever care much about the "artistry" of the original designer. No doubt they take pride in their work, but do you seriously think they lose sleep over the fishing problems of the first-world leisure class people who buy their flies?

[SilverCreek 0]

As I read Juracek's essay, I believe Juracek is making a value statement - a statement about ethics.

His premise is that the best new flies solve fishing problems. We can agree or disagree with that statement which I think is the basis of his essay.

"Simply put, the best flies evolve to solve problems—fishing problems. But these days, when I cast a critical eye at fly design, a far different methodology comes into view. I see plenty of flies developed to solve problems, alright. Just not fishing problems."

Note that he is addressing flies that are being sold and NOT flies that we amateurs tie or experiment with. The presumption is that these flies are designed to sell. That is the logical outworking of any item that is competing in the market space.

What he is saying is that new flies that are for sale should be judged on function rather than fashion, like any fly fishing tackle item in a fly shop - for example, a new fly rod or a new pair of waders. He is saying that flies are different than the fashion items that are sold like a lot of clothing in fly shops.

If we disagree, then we must put forth an alternative definition for best new fly; or why flies for sale should be judged differently that a new model of fly rod and more like the lastest in color for fishing shirts.

I think his second premise which follows from the first, is that these new flies are "sold" on the premise or promise that they are better, just like a new model of fly rod. Why else would a fly fisher buy a "new" or different fly or fly rod if he already had one in his fly box or rod quiver worked just as well? So the presumption when one buys a fly or a rod is that it will fill a niche (i.e., solve a problem) that other flies or rods will not.

He bookends his first premise with his conclusion, "I think a better route, one that I tried to follow, is to always concentrate on the fishing problems still awaiting solutions. Without question, many of them will be solved by better fly designs. But if the fishing industry remains stuck on creating flies to solve business problems rather than fishing problems, it's a sure bet that those solutions will be a long time coming."

Substitute rod for fly in the sentence above and his logical argument becomes crystal clear. It matters not that the rod is $500 and the fly is $3. The reason that they are for sale is or should be the same. The implication is that fly shops should treat them as tackle rather than fashion.

[mikechell 0]

... these new flies are "sold" on the premise or promise that they are better ...

Not to argue your point, Silver, but I just had a thought as I read your post. Within driving distance, I have a BPS and a successful fly shop. When I am on the road, I usually find a store or two everywhere I go.

 

Never, in all my years of visiting these shops and big stores, have I ever seen a sign near the flies that says, "New" or "Improved". Never, have I had a salesperson try to sell me a "new" fly. In fact, within the fly fishing sections, and in the fly fishing stores, the fly bins are there, with no signage at all. Anyone who buys flies can pick and choose whatever flies they wish.

 

The last time I was in California, I did buy a couple of flies from the BPS. Both of the salesmen (one old and one young) picked out a couple of regular, tiny nymphs for me to try. No pressure on "new and improved" at all.

 

 

My last word on this topic:

Everyone goes in to buy a fly, lure, rod, reel, cloths, car, whatever. ANYONE who thinks the "seller" is thinking about anything but profit is only fooling themselves. It's a STORE. The purpose of running a STORE is to make MONEY. One doesn't make money catering to the few "Aficionados" who believe all flies for sale must be ... somehow ... designed to solve a particular "problem".

[Cold 0]

Okay I'll bite.

 

 

 

"I think a better route, one that I tried to follow, is to always concentrate on the fishing problems still awaiting solutions. Without question, many of them will be solved by better fly rod designs. But if the fishing industry remains stuck on creating fly rods to solve business problems rather than fishing problems, it's a sure bet that those solutions will be a long time coming."

 

His argument, to me, is still very much one of arrogance (or at the very least a case of curmudgeonly sour grapes). One of "the way I say it should be done is the right way and everyone else is wrong" or "when I did it, I was special...everyone else that does it is just another con man trying to hustle the average joe out of a buck".

 

What the author doesn't seem to account for is that sometimes (one might convincingly argue most times) development of anything, be it flies, fly rods, or barbecue sauce...is evolutionary not revolutionary. A fly tyer doesn't generally encounter a "fishing problem" so unforseen and mystifying that there is no degree of current success with known means, and then they sit down, think, pray, and sacrifice a grizzly neck and pow, a pattern like nobody's ever seen, and it solves the situation.

 

Part of this evolutionary process is a large percentage of approaches that aren't any more successful than the status quo that arrive on the scene, get tried out, and are eventually forgotten. In this light, development is largely a process of throwing ideas out there and seeing what sticks.

 

With flies (and indeed fly rods), things are really close to ideal, and most developments are in terms of specialization and very incremental optimization. We get extra long, fast, lightweight nymphing rods, or short, fast, heavy rods for throwing big flies in tight quarters; we get a new resin that allows us to make very thin walled blanks durable enough for mass market consumption, or lighter, more flexible wire for guides.

 

As Mike pointed out, there's no doubt that this innovation is profit-driven, but that doesn't mean it's not genuine, or productive, or valid.

[Obie 0]

I understand his premise, I just think he's wrong.The first Trudes were tied as a practical joke in the early 20th century and they've been catching fish ever since- they spurred the development of everything from the Picket Pin to the Sofa Pillow to modern stonefly and terrestrial designs. It's still a commercially tied and extremely effective pattern a century later, but using Juracek's rubric it's a failure in fly design because it wasn't created to solve a fishing problem. IMO that doesn't mean the Trude's a bad fly, it means there's some flaw in his metric.

 

When we realize there are perfectly effective, long-lasting patterns never designed to solve a fishing problem, it becomes immediately clear Juracek's underlying premise is false. I'd be more confident fishing a fly designed by Pablo Picasso than a rod designed by Pablo Picasso because you actually can incorporate physics and math into designing a new rod model while there's a hundred thousand variables governing why a fish eats a fly- of which we only understand a fraction. It's the difference between engineering and biology.

 

But my biggest criticism of the article is it simply isn't a failure of modern fly design. The Trude's something like 113 years old, and decades before that dressers were creating patterns to memorialize people as much as to solve angling problems. If modern designs are a failure for this reason, so's the Jock Scott. Orvises' online fly catalog lists 72 mayfly dry patterns, if at least some of those aren't "legitimate" patterns designed to solve angling problems, surely some of the 107 mayfly dries listed in Dette's 1935 catalog are just as suspicious. The Wulff series of flies only really differ from each other in body and hackle color. The original name was changed to incorporate Wulff, one of the most recognized names in fly fishing at the time, in an attempt to brand the flies and sell more product. Modern fly designers are only as guilty as Dan Bailey. We can debate whether it was more or less prevalent now than they were in the past, but the "failures" Juracek's talking about aren't modern, and they don't represent a trend. The things he's trashing are just as much a part of the sport as the things he's advocating.

[cheech 0]

I understand his premise, I just think he's wrong.The first Trudes were tied as a practical joke in the early 20th century and they've been catching fish ever since- they spurred the development of everything from the Picket Pin to the Sofa Pillow to modern stonefly and terrestrial designs. It's still a commercially tied and extremely effective pattern a century later, but using Juracek's rubric it's a failure in fly design because it wasn't created to solve a fishing problem. IMO that doesn't mean the Trude's a bad fly, it means there's some flaw in his metric.

 

When we realize there are perfectly effective, long-lasting patterns never designed to solve a fishing problem, it becomes immediately clear Juracek's underlying premise is false. I'd be more confident fishing a fly designed by Pablo Picasso than a rod designed by Pablo Picasso because you actually can incorporate physics and math into designing a new rod model while there's a hundred thousand variables governing why a fish eats a fly- of which we only understand a fraction. It's the difference between engineering and biology.

 

But my biggest criticism of the article is it simply isn't a failure of modern fly design. The Trude's something like 113 years old, and decades before that dressers were creating patterns to memorialize people as much as to solve angling problems. If modern designs are a failure for this reason, so's the Jock Scott. Orvises' online fly catalog lists 72 mayfly dry patterns, if at least some of those aren't "legitimate" patterns designed to solve angling problems, surely some of the 107 mayfly dries listed in Dette's 1935 catalog are just as suspicious. The Wulff series of flies only really differ from each other in body and hackle color. The original name was changed to incorporate Wulff, one of the most recognized names in fly fishing at the time, in an attempt to brand the flies and sell more product. Modern fly designers are only as guilty as Dan Bailey. We can debate whether it was more or less prevalent now than they were in the past, but the "failures" Juracek's talking about aren't modern, and they don't represent a trend. The things he's trashing are just as much a part of the sport as the things he's advocating.

And just when the nail seems like it can't be struck again, it is hit with violent force square on the head.

[SilverCreek 0]

I disagree again.

The Trude is an attractor as are all the various Wulffs based on the original Royal Wulff.

If I am reading Juracek correctly, I think he is referring to the plethora of imitative patterns. The reason I say this is that he refers to the solving fishing problems with selectively feeding trout:

”Consider a fly like the Sparkle Dun. Craig Mathews and I evolved this pattern out of the need for a fly that would consistently fool selective trout during heavy mayfly hatches. Satisfying that need suggested an emerging dun design. Good floatation and visibility were highly desirable characteristics. So, too, durability. The combination of all those factors resulted in the Sparkle Dun, a proven pattern for over thirty years.”

Further on in his essay, he gives examples of the type of flies he is criticizing and they are imitative rather than attractor patterns. ”It’s how we end up with so many overdressed, look-alike, patently derivative small nymph patterns. Or foam grasshopper patterns. Or midges. Or…whatever. As a fisherman, I’m bothered by this.“

I think that Juracek is very specific in his criticism as shown by his examples.

[Jokey 0]

Or…whatever. As a fisherman, I’m bothered by this. “

 

If this is the kind of thing that Juracek is truly "bothered" by then perhaps it's time he strings up a rod and goes fishing. I would like to write off this comment as just an over-dramatic add on to an article already loaded with more than enough writer's flair. I'd like to send him a list of far better things in the world of fishing to be worried about than this.

 

J

[Obie 0]

And the distinction between attractors and imitators is, again, made by anglers instead of fish. There are anglers who successfully fish Royal Wulffs to selective trout during heavy hatches, there's anglers who forego dogma entirely and throw beetles or ants during blanket hatches and they catch fish consistently, too.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is I understand Juracek's position that the best patterns solve problems. What I and others are saying is there's multiple ways to solve those problems, sometimes those problems don't need to be solved in the first place, and sometimes solving those problems is more important to the angler than it is to the fish. If the goal of fly design is creating patterns which catch fish, then whether John Juracek peers into a fly bin and sees patently derivative small nymphs is entirely irrelevant- he's not a fish.

[cheech 0]

And the distinction between attractors and imitators is, again, made by anglers instead of fish. There are anglers who successfully fish Royal Wulffs to selective trout during heavy hatches, there's anglers who forego dogma entirely and throw beetles or ants during blanket hatches and they catch fish consistently, too.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is I understand Juracek's position that the best patterns solve problems. What I and others are saying is there's multiple ways to solve those problems, sometimes those problems don't need to be solved in the first place, and sometimes solving those problems is more important to the angler than it is to the fish. If the goal of fly design is creating patterns which catch fish, then whether John Juracek peers into a fly bin and sees patently derivative small nymphs is entirely irrelevant- he's not a fish.

Also, if the end goal were purely just to catch fish, why wouldn't we throw night crawlers, live crickets, etc. Hell, why not even throw gill nets at them?? Fly fishing is NOT about solving a "problem," rather, it is purely for our entertainment. If tying a metamorphosis of attractors called the Grumpy Frumpy and catching fish on it is fun, then I win. If I submit the Grumpy Frumpy to a fly company, they tie it, they sell it, and the end user catches fish with it? Fun is had. Could that angler have caught that same fish with a plain jane hare's ear? Yep. Would he be able to tell his buddies that he was fishing the "grumpy frumpy" at the bar that evening? Nope.

[Cold 0]

 

 

If the goal of fly design is creating patterns which catch fish, then whether John Juracek peers into a fly bin and sees patently derivative small nymphs is entirely irrelevant- he's not a fish.

Bravo.

 

I'd add to this that often, the rationale behind fly design just simply doesn't fit into his rigid and boolean "fishing problem" rubric except at the most micro and macro scales: at the small end, there's the yes/no of the take, but there's so many variables involved at that level that any attempt at meaningful judgment is impossible...and at the big end, it gets back into the conceptual realm again anyway, as the "fishing problem" is simply that most anglers have a catch rate slightly (or drastically) below their cast rate.

 

Until everyone is out there catching a fish on every single cast, the ultimate "fishing problem" is how to catch more fish. And the methods of addressing that problem are as varied and successful as the history of fishing itself. And in that light, for Juracek to pass judgment on anyone else's method strikes me as incredibly entitled and arrogant.

[SilverCreek 0]

And the distinction between attractors and imitators is, again, made by anglers instead of fish. There are anglers who successfully fish Royal Wulffs to selective trout during heavy hatches, there's anglers who forego dogma entirely and throw beetles or ants during blanket hatches and they catch fish consistently, too.

 

The fact that a fish will take a Royal Wulff or an ant during a hatch actually proves that the fish that was hooked was not selective. For if the fish was selective to the hatch, it would not have taken a Royal Wulff.

The definition of "matching the hatch" according to the Federation of Fly Fishers is:

"Matching the hatch: An attempt by a fly angler to select an artificial fly that imitates the color, size, shape and behavior of natural insects that fish are feeding on at a particular time. Often when a hatch is happening, fish become very selective and refuse insects that are not the most abundant."

http://www.fedflyfishers.org/Resources/EducationalResources/FlyFishingGlossary.aspx

The fact that some fish will take attractors during a hatch is due to population diversity and how selectivity develops in a population of fish. The fact that some fish take Royal Wulffs during a hatch does not mean that all fish will take Royal Wulffs during a hatch. The same is true of ants.

This is the hatch breaker strategy, which is based on finding fish that are not yet highly selective. Even if there is a hatch does not mean that all, some, or any of the fish are selective to the hatch. For selectivity to develop, not only must there be a hatch, it must be repetitive and of a long enough duration in sequential days for selectivity to develop. Selectivity is a form of operant conditioning and behavior modification which takes repetition and time to devleop.

http://www.flytyingforum.com/index.php?showtopic=72113

[Cold 0]

So the piece is saying that attractors should never be designed? Because they're not specifically designed to target selective (by the according to Hoyle definition) trout? Or that a caught trout somehow "doesn't count" unless it was caught on the pattern that...someone...felt it should be taken on?

 

Using this rationale, the woolly bugger is a perfect example of an awful fly, as its a general imitator of no specific creature. There was no selective trout problem that the bugger addressed, therefore it's the product of bad fly design.

 

Ultimately, I think it's possible to defend the piece with respect to one individual criticism at a time, but the argument put forth quickly cracks and crumbles under the combined weight of several valid criticisms...that is: you can make a convincing argument on the "fishing problem" angle by limiting the scope of the argument strictly to selective fish, but if you apply that limitation across the board, the argument falls apart when presented with flies that do not approach catching fish in that one specific manner, yet are still widely regarded as examples of excellent design. Likewise, you can account for these popular attractor patterns by arguing that they sometimes work when nothing else will, but this doesn't account for those all too common days when the fish are keyed in on #17 sulphurs with a slightly orange body and one broken wing...yet your buddy is knocking them sideways with a #8 stimulator in purple.

 

The more I see of the criticism and defense of the piece, the more it strikes me simply as a guy who doesn't want to see his own contribution to the sport minimized or marginalized by the advent of other innovative patterns or lucky experiments, so he's assumed authority and taken it upon himself to tell everyone that new fly design is bad and wrong.