The Partridge & Orange: a popular and famous soft hackle 'spider' pattern.
When it comes to flies, genuine innovation is rarer than variation, but it’s still out there. Things like parachute hackles, articulated streamers, Woolly Buggers; and examples closer to home like Muz Wilson’s ‘Fuzzle’ flies, Rick Keam’s Chinese Dragon mudeyes, and Rob Meade’s ‘Gutless’ patterns, are real innovations. They demonstrate advances in tying technique, or materials, or fish-catching fly design – or all three! By extension, there is still massive scope for clever people to develop new patterns and tying techniques. To put it another way, the perfect fly is a possibility, we just haven’t tied it yet!
I watch a lot of fishing and fly-tying videos – like almost every morning while having a coffee. What stands out is the number of videographers who swear ‘their’ pattern is an absolute fish-catcher. Simultaneously, the number of new materials available for fly-tying is enormous. While the upside can be real inventions like those of Keam, Wilson, Meade et al, one downside is having a tier apply a tweak to an existing combination/ variation of fur, feather or synthetic, and calling the result a new fly – with, of course, a suitably sexy name. (JD’s Indispensable anyone?)
As an indication of how this fly expansion is going, to quote AI:
“There is no exact number of trout fly patterns, as new ones are constantly being created, but it is estimated to be in the tens of thousands, possibly even in the billions, with new ones added monthly”.
To say we flyfishers are spoiled for choice is an understatement! But have older-style patterns and techniques, which have stood the test of time, been swamped, or even forgotten among all the new models?
Tenkara
My mate Corey was going to a friendly mate vs mate Tenkara challenge the other day. I really knew nothing about the method apart from it employing a long rod (sometimes telescopic), a fixed length of line, and no reel – and it often uses flies with reversed hackles. So, as you do, over a coffee, I looked it up on the computer.
The standout impression was that Tenkara has a very long history and a rather cool philosophy; a philosophy that is in major contrast to at least some branches of modern flyfishing. For one thing, Tenkara puts more emphasis on technique than on choosing the fly.
What I read was, in Tenkara, the fly doesn’t really seem to matter. In fact, many exponents use only one fly pattern… for all their fishing! And, unlike modern flies, a lot of Tenkara flies don’t even have names. As the method has been used in Japan for around 400 years, it probably has something going for it. So my curiosity was piqued, and I wondered what these flies were all about. To put it another way, how many of our ‘modern’ flies will still be in use in 2400 AD?
When I had a look at these flies, I was a bit surprised. As I touched on above, the emphasis with Tenkara flies is not perfect imitation, but presentation. The patterns themselves tend to be simply hooks with a yarn body and a wound hackle. If traditional Tenkara flies look quite familiar, that’s because they resemble the ‘spider’ flies developed in the north of England. According to AI again, the history of the north country spider flies goes back to at least the 18th century. So, while maybe not as old as Tenkara, the underlying style of these flies with their similarity of form and general simplicity, is in stark contrast to many of our modern-day trout flies.
However, a notable difference between these basic Tenkara flies and the ‘spiders’ of northern England, is the former have the hackle tied in reverse so it slopes out the front of the fly, while the latter have the hackle tied to slope slightly rearward over the body of the fly.
In any case, the point that stuck with me for both simple fly styles, is their longevity. This has to be testament to their effectiveness, aka trout-catching. If they didn’t work reasonably well at the very least, both would surely have become extinct centuries ago.
The soft hackle thing
I’ve not had a go at Tenkara and I’m unlikely to, but my recent look down the Tenkara rabbit hole has reinforced and supported the soft hackle kick I’ve been on for quite a while now. I’ve been vaguely following the north country spider fishing style and tying and using spider-type flies and other soft hackle patterns in my stream fishing. These flies are so versatile, I find I’m using them more and more, and in a lot of different scenarios.
I use them to swing down and across (singly or sometimes in a team), or I hang them short below a dry fly, or off the back of a weighted nymph, and even fished dry (damp?) to rising fish. They just work in a whole range of situations. A bit like a fervent missionary, I keep extolling their virtues to my fishing mates; possibly too much. But I have converted a few.
Anyway, while I’m all for adopting new developments (especially if they get me trout!) at the same time, I’m a little conflicted. My fly boxes and vest pockets are bloated with countless flies, and the vest is getting heavier and more congested as more seem to be added each week.
The irony is, most of the flies I lug around I rarely use. But it’s hard to remove these ‘just in case’ patterns. I really need to declutter, and adopting, and having confidence in, soft hackle flies may offer a way forward.
Is old, is good?
I’m not ready for a full move to using one fly only, but the concept of simple flies and good presentation is one I should seriously consider, as these deceptively basic flies do catch fish. I’ve not tried the Tenkara-style reverse hackle flies yet, but I will tie some and give them a crack. So I will be adding more clutter (sigh).
I’m trying to adopt a commonsense compromise to my angling philosophy by acknowledging presentation is the key, while knowing that the flies do matter – at least sometimes! Using one type or style of fly has appeal: it superficially makes life easier and avoids fly anxiety. But having the ability to react to certain situations and waters dictates that a range of flies still need to be carried. So, while I’m trying to whittle my collection down to a few proven patterns and not get continually sucked in to the newest and latest fly, I’m noticing more and more of my fly boxes contain the centuries-old soft hackle patterns, and my vest keeps getting heavier.
There’s got to be a moral in there somewhere, I’m just not quite sure what it is. Meanwhile, I can at least vouch for the fact that fishing simple soft hackle flies can work really well at times. Seems our fly forefathers from Japan and England were indeed on to something.
