Prosopium w.

Personally, I steer away from 1x fine wire in long-shanked models (e.g. 1x fine 1x long, 1x fine 2x long, etc). They simply bend too easily for my tastes, a consequence of increased leverage due to shank length. Although in the larger sizes (say 14+) they are ok for dries, but I would not consider them for nymphs. In fact, I prefer stronger wire hooks (1x strong, 2x strong, or 3x strong) for long-shanked nymphs to minimize the risk of bending when bottom-snagged or even while fighting fish. Tying droppers off the bend of fine wire hooks also results in bent hooks.

Nymphs. And maybe BIG dries like stimulators.

I have had a winston 7.5 foot 2wt for over a decade and it handles the flies you are describing just fine. Small indicators (like palsa pinch-ons) are no problem, neither is a little lead and two smallish nymphs. I consistently catch 16-inch trout on it without any trouble, and have got some upwards of 20. My advice is that if you fish for small to medium sized trout on small water a 2wt is great, provided you don't plan on throwing something too outlandishly big (streamer or BIG bushy dries).

I don't mess with tails or antennae. They don't really seem important. I fish a lot of different scud patterns and almost always use curved hooks. My favorite pattern is a "pregnant" scud that incorporates an orange glass bead in the middle of the body. The wapsi sow-scud dubbing is great for making plucked legs, and I usually use a thick ziploc bag for the back, although some of my patterns use swiss straw, prismatic sheeting, and even foam.

I've watched fish refuse naturals on several occasions. Fish often shy away from 'hoppers and salmonflies on pressured waters. And I've seen it during mayfly hatches. But then again, I've watched fish from heavily pressured waters eat little drifting sticks and things too. The whole "lopsided" dun selectivity is the real deal. I use a lot of a similar type pattern on windy days and to selective trout eating BWOs or PMDs. Works great, and the fly doubles as a spinner pattern too.

I don't inventory my materials but I do keep a recipe for lots of my patterns so I can recreate them. I make sure to record hook type and size and material sizes (beads, lead, wire, etc). I also make note of any little tricks i use to tie them so I don't forget. It comes in real handy when I burn through all of a pattern I don't tie often enough to have memorized.

No, but most are probably tied that way. I've never seen the commandment that states Hare's Ears must only be tied with a lead wire underbody either but that one was. Anyway, your point does not accurately reflect the intent of my statement.

Bruce would be a good name for a fly like that.

Those who have nothing to say should probably stay quiet. When the right topic comes along it will be evident.

Mr. and Mrs. Beatty, You might want to look at the bugger again. No lead is included in the recipe or instructions. I am not a pro photographer, far from it in fact. But I did have a stint as a writer for Fly Tyer and American Angler. We both had articles in a couple of the same issues in fact. The pics were the most frustrating part of the whole process and part of the reason I gave up on writing the articles. Thanks for listening!

I hope I don't offend the Beatty's by this comment, but, if the IFFF is going to promote such a program they might want to use well-tied, pretty flies for their step-by-steps. The woolly bugger is not great (and why is it unweighted?), the hare's ear is also pretty ugly, and the soft hackle is atrocious. The other two flies are good. I know from professional experience that good shots of flies are tough to get, and macro photography magnifies every miniscule mistake, and that once a fly is published it can't be unpublished (believe me, there's a couple flies and pics out there I'd like to redo!), but that soft hackle step-by-step is really bad. The head and its excess length shouldn't be used as an archetype for that pattern by anyone and the body is poor. Another critique is that tying in the hackle by the tip is a much better technique in my opinion. This isn't "right" of course (there is no "right" in tying after all), and maybe it isn't traditional (I should but don't know), but it is sure easier and less frustrating. Thanks for listening to my unsolicited two cents.

What if the 70:15:15 is meant to refer to volume, not weight? Seems like an unnecessary exercise in futility to me. Just eyeball it and call it good. Do you really think anyone would notice, let alone a FISH, if you were to mix it 66:14:20?

I have either had or have friends who have had most brands of waders over the years. The Simms G-series is IMO superior to all others (except their gravel guards suck). Cheap Simms waders, however, are no better than the other brands and worse than some in the same price range. If you don't plan on frequently walking through the brush, crossing a fences, or sitting on the ground then you will be fine with most waders, provided they fit properly. But Simms G-series waders are WAY more durable than any other make, and they FIT (which aids in their longevity/durability)! I don't like to be overly cautious with or worry about tearing a hole in my waders, so I bought the best and I have never regretted it. In the past I have had or have seen other brands fail right out of the box or within a couple days of normal use. My friends who have other waders are continuously patching or complaining about leaks while I fish comfortably. I'm going on 5 years with this pair (maybe 4?) and of course have had a couple pinhole leaks, but these were easily repaired. If you like the Redingtons, get them and you will likely be satisfied if they fit and you are careful with them. I agree, it is hard to justify spending $700 dollars for a pair of waders, but it is different than spending $700 for a rod, $500 dollars for a reel, or $90 for a fly line. The waders keep you comfortable and dry, which will make you enjoy fishing all the more.

Pearlescent Sheeting is distributed by Harline...not a lot of shops carry it: http://www.bluequillangler.com/Products/Synthetics/Pearlescent-Sheeting-Material#.U0gCRRwm09k PT/TB The stuff you tagged is not the same as the stuff I referenced. I have both materials and the pearlescent sheet from YFG is the same thickness as swiss straw. The Hareline stuff is MUCH thicker, even thicker than Thin Skin.

The back on the stonefly is a Pearlescent Sheet from Yellowstone Fly Goods (or something very similar). I don't know even know if they are still in business but I have some of that stuff and have used it on scuds for years.