2007 FTOTY Contest - This needs to be said.

[carlp5351 0]

First I what start by saying, Will this is a great site and a great contest you run. I enjoy it alot but I think this needs to be posted.

 

In general fly fisherman and fly tyers are some the most honest people I have met. I have seen this first hand, my fishing partern lost a fly box on the river, he didn't have his name on the box or phone number. The person who found this box turned it in to local shop, my freind got his box back. According to shop it was a fellow fly fisherman that truned the box in.

 

So now to the point.

 

Realistic tyers put your flies in the proper catagory, you have a realistic catagory. This should not be up to Will to police. If I wanted to compete agianst you I would try tying realistics. I have no interest in this relam of tying. Last year winner of trout dry fly was a realistic, even on the tyers web site he called the fly a "fishable realistic" it was not called a dry fly. As tyers we all know what a dry fly is.

 

As voters in the contest we can police this, it should not be up to Will. If some wants to put a realistic into another catagory, let him. We as voters do not have to vote for it. We as voters should be voting for the best tied fly that fits that catagory.

 

Here is an example that I do not see happening. Classic salmon flies are basicly wet flies, you don't see the tyers trying to sneek them into wet fly catagory.

 

 

Realistics are what they are. As a tyer you know what a realistic is put it into to the proper catagory. Like I said earlier if I wanted to compete agianst you I would start tying realistics.

 

This is what nice about forums you can voice your concerns. The other members will tell you if you are all wet.

 

If you feel I'm wrong, tell me. I will drop the subject and leave it alone.

 

Carlp5351

[flykid 0]

s

[day5 0]

Realistic tyers put your flies in the proper catagory, you have a realistic catagory. This should not be up to Will to police. If I wanted to compete agianst you I would try tying realistics. I have no interest in this relam of tying. Last year winner of trout dry fly was a realistic, even on the tyers web site he called the fly a "fishable realistic" it was not called a dry fly. As tyers we all know what a dry fly is.

AMEN!!!!!

 

Ok Here is a example of one of my beefs with flies getting put in to the wrong category. The Fly that one the panfish category last year should have been in the steelhead or trout category. If it had been in the Steelhead slot it would have beating mine hands down but it wasn't a panfish fly. When I think gill fly I think mackie bug, hum bug, damsel etc... Not a fish-able realistic stone nymph. But like I said I got a sweet medal for the steel category because it was in the wrong slot!

[Fly Tyer Guy 0]

Wait, wait, wait, There is nothing wrong with tying realistic flies for other categorys, But they need to be feasible for fishing, There is nothing wrong with tying a stone fly that takes 30 mins. and looks real, As long as you can fish it and are not afraid to, And wire legs they are not good for fishing. Like David Martin his flies are some of the most realistic flies, But he ties them with materials that are acceptable for fishing and they don't take very long.

[flykid 0]

s

[oatka 0]

How realistic is too realistic?

 

Aren't we all trying to tie flies that are at least some level of realistic so the fish eat them?

 

 

I'm not sure, still, how I feel about this.

 

Of course, I have what, 2 business days to post mark flies I haven't tied.....so my crappy, barely realistic piles of feathers on hooks wont be an issue in the contest!

 

[TKontio 0]

I agree to a degree BUT where do you draw the line???

 

It's easy for guys that don't tie realistics. The line is your skill level. But when you can tie them it gets really blurry. For example last years dry fly. I thought it was the best overall fly because it was innovative, beautifully tied and a great mix of realism and traditional techniques. I wouldn't consider a mayfly imitation that has hackle realistic.

 

So what makes fly realistic? Segmented body? Individually tied legs? Eyes?

 

In a competition I think it's ridiculous to say that you shouldn't tie realistics to other than the realistic category. It's like saying that you shouldn't tie married wing flys to the freestyle salmon category because they're harder and more appealing than a hair wing, or because all tyers can't tie them. It's a competition !!!

 

I agree that it would be really nice to win the trout categories with a traditional pattern but in a competition where there's no professional judges it just isn't likely.

 

I'm not tying any "realistic" flies this year to the fore mentioned categories and will vote a fly that is tied the best. I don't care if it's a super realistic nymph or a Pheasant tail if it's tied better than all the rest.

 

Just my 2 cents

 

Timo

[Steeldrifter 0]

I agree to a degree BUT where do you draw the line???

 

 

Timo pretty much nailed it right there. The problem is where do you draw the line? As fly tiers all of us strive to make every fly we tie look as real as we possiably can right? Look at it this way. Say someone is not a real good realistic tier yet he decides to use some sort of realistic legs on his fishable steelhead stonefly nymph, does that automatically deam his fly as having to go into the "realistic" catagory where it has to compete against flies that super talanted realistic tiers like Graham and others have spent 30 hours on tying a fly so real you cant tell if it is the real insect or not?

 

Don't get me wrong Carlp5351 I understand your concerns and I hope guys are realistic(pun intended ) about what catagory their fly fits into for the compitition, but with so many patterns and so many different synthetic materials avaliable to us tiers now it's next to impossiable to classify a fly as a realistic just because maybe no part of the fly uses something alot of us dont use on our fishing patterns.

 

Steve

[carlp5351 0]

So where do you draw the line?

 

The ultimate point is the tyers own web site called the fly a "fishable realistic". As long as there is a catagory for realistics, shouldn't they be there? This point is mute if there is no catagory for realistics.

 

Is fair to rest of tyers who tie flies properly to the intent of the catagory? Look at all the flies in last years dry fly catagory, for the most part everyone tied a dry fly, not a realistic.

 

 

Carlp5351

[Steeldrifter 0]

Your missing my point though. Let's say someone ties a stonefly with traditional goose quill wing case, dubbed body, boit tails...but rather than just picking out the dubbing to create legs he uses some Japanese Nymph Legs and blotches the legs with a bit of varnish to make it look more realistic. Would it be fair to call that a realistic?

 

If he calls it a fishable realistic then one could also argue that it's a noraml fly because of the "fishable" in the title the same as one could argue its a realistic because of the "realistic" in the title.

 

I'm not saying I don't see your point, I'm just saying there are some flies out there that may incorperate a type of material that makes them very hard to label as to where they should be placed.

 

Steve

[Fly Tyer Guy 0]

FTG- But if its a realistic its a realistic. I know there are awesome fishing flies that are somewhat realistic but not "realistic" as in the style. These I have no problem with. As for a realistic being fishable, technically any realistic could be fished but it might not perform very well. I guess it all depends on your view of the subject.

 

True any fly can technicaly be fished, But I said "feasible", And 1< Hr. Flies are very not feasible, And true a realistic is a realistic, But you need to look at the fly and say is this feasible?

 

Like all the top three trout nymphs last year, I have no problem with them they have realistic properties, But they all are very fishable.

 

In a competition I think it's ridiculous to say that you shouldn't tie realistics to other than the realistic category. It's like saying that you shouldn't tie married wing flys to the freestyle salmon category because they're harder and more appealing than a hair wing, or because all tyers can't tie them. It's a competition !!!

 

But if you can't tie them you are not ready for that category. It is called free style so you can tie any thing that would be considered an atlantic salmon fly, (And this is an exception where you can tie flies that take 2< Hrs., These are about beauty and elegance, And more for display purposes). I'm not enteing any super realistic flies for the categories in question either, I'm tying in what I think the boundaries are, I'm not spending hours working on one eye so I can show of my realistic in any category except the realistic category

 

 

Like TKontio said a big problem is that realistic flies get more votes because they get more attention, Not many people stop to look at the other flies, They see the realistic and right away they vote for it.

 

And in regards to what steeldrifter said about an unexperienced realistic tier going against the likes of Graham, Instead of a fishable realistic (I never had any problem with fishable realistics) imagine a super realistic fly, That does not really give them the right to take advantage of a unexperienced non-realistic tier, And put his realistic fly in a different category giving him a big upper edge, Does it?

 

 

 

I don't want to ruffle any feathers, Don't be offended by any of this, What i'm trying to say is if you send a fly into a gategory that is based on fishing flies, Please make sure you would be willing to toss it to a fish.

 

 

 

I see both sides of this but I still don't want to see realistics in other categories

[Guest]

I do agree that flies should be entered into an appropriate category but as some have said there is not clear cut distinction between a realistic nymph vs. a nymph you would fish with(for example). An important thing to keep in mind while the categories are broken down into target species, catching fish has nothing to do with these flies. This is a fly tying not a fishing contest.

[carlp5351 0]

, catching fish has nothing to do with these flies. This is a fly tying not a fishing contest.

 

 

Will,

 

I have to desagree with this statement. Think about what you are saying. If I poll this forum, I would bet 95% of the members where fly fisherman first, fly tiers second. Most of took up fly tying as an extenison to this great sport of fly fishing to help us catch more fish. I remeber the first fish I ever caught on a fly that I tied what a great day. I don't think I can remeber the first fish I caught a fly I bought at a store. So in the end I think this is about flies that catch fish, for me. That is why I tie. That is why most of us tie.

 

Now lets talk about the art of fly tying. There is nothing more beautifil then classic salmon flies. Those tyers are artist with hooks and feathers. Some of those flies are amazing.

 

From this web site I have expanded my tying into art of classic streamers. As far as going into realistics, I don't see me going there. This is my own opinion they do not catch fish. I would fish with classic streamers and I bet they still catch fish.

 

 

 

Carlp5351

[flyDology 0]

Realistic tyers put your flies in the proper catagory, you have a realistic catagory. This should not be up to Will to police. If I wanted to compete agianst you I would try tying realistics. I have no interest in this relam of tying. Last year winner of trout dry fly was a realistic, even on the tyers web site he called the fly a "fishable realistic" it was not called a dry fly. As tyers we all know what a dry fly is.

 

this is exactly why I wont enter this contest.

[day5 0]

I have no problem with realistic flies in there proper category. But in panfish! When I think of trout I think of mayflies stones and drys. When I think of bass I think of deerhair and crayfish. But panfish I certainly do not think of a realistic stone. I guess all I can think is this guy entered this fly in to this category because he knew it would be full of mackies and humbugs! An easy win. And I will not vote for a fly that doesnt fit in to my thoughts.