Inventors

[Slinger 0]

I suppose this has been kicked around before, but I wasn't in on it. My position is that with a history that covers thousands of years, there is virtually nothing that you can do to a hook that hasn't been done before. There are a few talented and innovative tiers out there that keep coming up with new stuff, but it gets harder every day.

Don't people who claim to have invented a new fly owe it to the generations that preceeded them to investigate whether it has been done before? I'm sure that many of these generally believe that they've got something completely new. Shouldn't they spend as much time as they spent inventing their fly to check to see if it isn't someone elses?

I've been tying for over 40 yrs. and have never yet claimed to have invented a pattern. I tie proven, reliable flies that have been staples so long they're considered classics. Every time I've thought I had come up with something completely new a little research has shown someone else had the same idea first. Whitch brings me to my second question.

Does changing a material entitle a person to claim they invented a new fly? If I tie a Ray's Fly with Fish Hair instead of bucktail does that make me an inventor? If I tie a Lefty's Deceiver with DNA's new Holofusion instead of bucktail does that give me the right to call it Steve's Magic Minnow and rush off a letter to Umpqua? I think not!

You can hardly pick up a magazine or book without seeing someone's new miracle fly, absolutely guaranteed to catch fish if you just send $5.95 per to this PObox. In most cases are they kicking back part of their proceeds to the original tier whom they copied.

Look I tied a silverside with Angel Hair instead of Flashabou! I want to be in a book!!!

Slinger

[Steeldrifter 0]

I agree I dont think there is really anything "new" left to do, could be wrong but I kind'a doubt it. Just useing different materials just makes it a variant IMO not a new fly.

[Guest]

I think it depends on what the new material. Fish Hair vs. Bucktail, I see you point. Take sili skin for example. It is a new material that will allow you to do some amazing things. I do believe some "new" patterns would have to come out of a new material like that.

 

I think everyone is far to wrapped up in the names for flies. I honestly don't care if somebody starts calling a Clouser, Bob's Magic Minnow. People who know better will know this fly is a Clouser and that guy will more than likely be mocked by anyone who sees what he is doing.

[Henry 0]

Hey gang,

 

I think that as long as there are new tying materials coming out...(whether intended for fly tying or not)...there will be newer/better/greater patterns coming out. Supposed "New" patterns have to be introduced carefully so as not to potentially offend/piss-off or whatever, the originator (should there be one). I think there's still plenty of room for innovation. My "Ultimate Shrimp" pattern featured in this months "Fly Fishing in Saltwaters" magazine is proof of that. I introduced the fly on "this" and "other" boards months ago. One reason for doing so was to establish/disprove that the pattern is mine. No better jury exists than the general fishing public..."You!". I was waiting for someone to say "Hey!#@$...that's so and so's fly!!!. I've got other patterns "out-there" and to date...the responses have been that these flies are unique. A good approach to introducing a "New" fly would be..."Hey!, Here's something I've tied up recently...comments?"

 

Don't kid yourselves!...it's "Not" all been done...I don't think it ever will be. Someone will forever be inventing the better mouse-trap!

 

Just my "Canadian" $0.3cents worth...

 

Good fishing,

 

Henry

[Joe Hard 0]

I think that a varriant of a fly using differnt materials is still tied in the same manner as the orriginal. It is up to us as flytyers to come up with new patterns. Someone before us had to do it. We are in the day and age where just about anything can be made, and new materials are hitting the market all the time. I agree that if you are going to claim that you have invented a new fly you should do alot of research. I am always trying to come up with something new, as I would like to have my own patterns for the waters I fish.

[Gary Madore 0]

I'm with Will on this one: I don't care what anybody calls it, nor do I care who's getting rich off the name, as long as I'm catching fish on it.

 

It's a moot point for me, though, as since getting involved in this game I'll be fishing my own flies (and those from fellow tiers/swappers) exclusively.

 

Anybody can tie up a ball of fur 'n' feathers and call it their own: If it's accepted good on 'em. If it's a rip-off, they'll be sued.

 

Me? I just wanna make bugs and catch fish

 

Cheers!

 

Gary (though the "Rottweiler's Arse Hair Emerger" is my design, all MINE!)

[Rob Knisely 0]

To me it's mostly about names. There are types of flies, different styles of flies, and particular patterns.

 

A fly that is similar to another, slightly different, with a different name, separates it from the original without tagging on the original's name, or variant #--.

 

For instance, a Chili Pepper is a Woolly Bugger. But if someone says they'd like a #6 Chili Pepper, I know what particular colors and materials to use.

 

Rarely do you see a respected tier say their pattern has never been done before. It may be new... which is mostly true= new to them, new to many, new to the general public. Unless the pattern was specifically tied to match an older pattern precisely, it's new. Give it a name, and folks know what to call it.

 

Recently a couple magazines had flies in them that were the hot "new" thing. Revolutionary techniques to imitate such-n-such. This fly is called ----. Okay. I have a couple dozen of those in my box that I call ----- that I've been using for years. Is it new? Sure, and it looks just like my pattern. Maybe it's not new to me, but it's new to many.

 

And of course, if you're out to get famous by hording techniques or saying this or that is my creation, you're in the wrong field! Way too many creative people in the fly-tying world for that! I know of one fellow who has successfully trademarked his pattern and scolds anyone that ties it without permission. Is he famous? Sure. Everyone knows he's a (fill in with expletive .

 

Those folks that readily present their findings to the general public or family of fly fishers are the most well-respected and loved. And they (the respected ones) don't say they've invented a new fly, rather here is something new, and I don't think they intend to imply they've invented a completely new thing.

 

Now if someone wants a dozen Steve's Magic Minnow, I think I could pretty much tie it. And it would be very different from a Deceiver, with different attributes. I think such a fly should be called Steve's Magic Minnow, rather than a Deceiver Tied With These Materials in Such a Way, the Same as Steve Did It.

 

Sounds like a good fly, too!

 

Then there's the flip side. Tie a classic fly like a Quill Gordon. If you use purple hackle instead of dun, is it really still a Quill Gordon? Not really... you should give a new name like Quill Gordon variant #3567. or Purple Gordon. or the Grape Ape. whatever to distuingish it.

 

Now I'm really getting out there! Anyway that's my .02!

[Robert_S 0]

This is a battle that will never end. There is ALWAYS some body out there that will say you copyed their fly. Take a Royal Coachman and a Royal Wulff I consider them to be different patterns yet some will say they are the same. There are those that will say a quill Gordon is a copy of an Adams they both have wings,they both have hackle they both are tyed on the same hook, they both have tails gee it must be a copy, BUNK. I think for the most part every fly has been built from some thing else in the past but I still think that each fly can be called its own to some degree. Now I don't think using poly for the wing on a Wulff will give you a new pattern. I had a fly in Flyfisherman magazine called Sweet Dreams and a few people wrote in saying it was a copy of their fly, the closest was a fly called the Stalker it had an inverted hook and a parachute on the underside of the hook the same as mine, that was the only things that were similar, my hook was different all the materials were different even the way I tyed it was different yet somebody thought I stole there pattern. I don't think that the person who tyed the fly should go back through 200 yrs of fly fishing history to see if what he tyed is a copy of a past pattern, its imposible and then there would be that person who would say that there great great grand dad tyed the same thing only it was never published anywhere. With the big companys selling flys now and the fame that has come to some people because of the fly they came up with everybody thinks that they are going to loose out on something if somebody tys something similar and they don't speak up. To those people I say get a real job.

[KevinP 0]

Well said plumbob

[appalachian angler (tn.) 0]

I don't think if there are any truely "new" flies out there as all have been developed from basic patterns. Yes, we have built upon the skills that our predecesers have developed, and have added new materials, thereby varying the originals. I believe originality in fly patterns stems more from the employement of new techniques. I have never understood why some are so bent on claiming fame for something as trivial as a fly pattern. How much do they stand to make in $ on a fly? Silly human pride If someone asks me about a fly that is bringing me some success, I gladly show them and say something like"this is how I tye this pattern...here, take a few". This is enough to make me feel proud. Maybe the next time, I'll see him on the stream and he'll say "I tied some of those you gave me up, and substituted this material for that, and it is working great! I just released a 16" brown 5 minutes ago on that pattern!" Thanks enough.

 

A.A.

[fishyfranky 0]

I admire creators of the woolly bugger and the muddler minnow. I am somewhat annoyed at the creators (whoever they may be) of the Clouser, Lefty's Deceiver, and Teeny's Nymph

[Sean Juan 0]

There are really two issues here. First is whether or not something can be truly new or just a copy with a variation in materials. I believe that there are new patterns being developed and there will continue to be...

 

The second is the tougher question of credit. Since fly tying is more art than science its ridiculous to think that every guy who lashes some stuff to a hook should feel the need to have it published and pattened - almost as ridiculous as requiring a guy who publishes to root through everyone's fly boxes to make sure he isn't copying something. Its a shame that some folk may be out actively stealing credit from others but even so thats the "American" way - face facts no one lives on the North Columbian continent for a reason.

 

As for the money aspect - hey I tie hundreds of Clousers and Deceivers and so far unless they are invested in Mustad neither Bob Clouser nor Lefty Kreh nor myself has made a dime off of any of them.

 

Last story - I went to a show with a friend of mine and his two kids. Stopped by a booth where Mark Sedotti took all the time in the world to show us all how to tie a fly he never gave the name of.

 

At another booth we saw a guy - wont give his name because I think it might have been an off day for him - who tied on an E-Z body spreader the nine year old said to me "Like the Buffy" and the guy was irate that he had developed that technique first - he probably had but I'm not a fly fishing historian and neither is my godson so all he learned from that booth that day was that some people are jerky.

[Guest]

It wasn't an off day.

[Bamboo Addict 0]

slinger, I love it you say the same thing as most if us old farts. Now I am into tying the old patterns (wet fly) not changing any names. Was working a run on the upper Rogue, and a young fly fisher saw me catching fish, when I returned to the bank to let the toes warm up, he asked me what the fly I was using. I showed him he wanted to know if I had come up wtih it, because he had never seen one before. We sat there on the bank for an hour on this very thread, that a lot of the new flys are really old patterns with new material. So I have to put my vote in for what Slinger said.

David

[HFT 0]

I think there is plenty to be invented. This is art, just as music, in music there are only so many notes but they keep coming up with new music by putting it togather differently. We build and expand on what our predissors have put togather. Very seldom do I come up with a pattern and find out that someone has already tied my creation.