Fountains of Youth – Classic trout flies that have withstood the test of time … flies that remain “forever young”
by Rusty Dunn
Fly tyers go to great lengths when crafting their imitations of natural insects. Replicating size, shape, and color are always a goal, but some tyers also imitate subtle features such as legs, gills, eyes, and the correct number of tail fibers or segments. Those materials are then wrapped around a bent nail (a.k.a. hook) that is so conspicuous, so horribly unnatural, so out of place, that it should scream “danger” to even the most casual of trout. If a mere shadow on the water spooks trout, why doesn’t the hook make them dash for cover? Only trout know for sure, but understanding why hooks don’t provoke fear requires thinking like a trout.
The great pioneer of trout perception vis-à-vis behavior was Englishman Col. E.W. Harding, who approached fly fishing from the perspective of trout (literally!). His 1931 book The Fly Fisher and the Trout’s Point of View describes what trout see and how they respond to natural insects and artificial flies The book is rich with insights that are not obvious to many fly anglers. It remains to this day one of the best descriptions of how trout perceive their watery world.
Harding thoroughly understood the physics of reflection and refraction of light at the water’s surface. His description of “the window”, the narrow, vertical, 97o cone of vision that is the only portal through which trout can see things above the surface, is outstanding. Trout view the surface everywhere else only as an undulating mirror that reflects underwater surroundings. Although Harding was not the first to describe the window, his account was (and still is) the very best.
Harding demonstrated that hooks do not alarm trout, because their bronzed surface acts as a mirror. Hooks reflect illuminating light, and trout see their curving surfaces as a distorted reflection of the underwater world. Thus, hooks are camouflaged! A thin thread-like core of wire remains visible, but its color tones with and blends into the subsurface background.
Harding’s most significant contribution concerns the light pattern of insects floating at the surface. Cohesive forces between water molecules at an air/water interface are remarkably potent. They cause a thin surface layer to be rubbery, elastic, surprisingly sturdy, and relatively difficult to penetrate. This surface tension underlies the time-honored parlor trick of floating a needle on water, and it is crucial to a trout’s perception of insects floating at the surface. Points of contact between the water and insects (body, legs, wings, etc.) create crescent-shaped surface deformations that admit light underwater and is visible to trout well outside of their overhead window. Each insect species yields a unique light pattern, and this allows trout to identify approaching insects long before they are seen directly in the window. Harding maintained that matching surface light patterns is as important or possibly more important than matching insect size, profile, and color. He described splitting of the nymphal skin, wiggling motions of emerging duns, and the resulting fireworks of pinpoint light visible to trout. Harding’s concept of imitating light imprints of emergers was revolutionary. It is thinking outside the box at its very finest!
The concept of surface light patterns may explain why some very successful flies appear unlike any natural insects. Such flies possibly imitate the light pattern of emergers, rather than the insect itself. For example, North Country wingless wets are shockingly simple flies, but they are very effective when fished at the surface. Harding suggested that they imitate the disheveled light imprints of emerging nymphs and pupae. Harding also suggested that Derbyshire Bumbles imitate the light imprints of many floating insects. Bumbles are a group of patterns originating in Derbyshire in the mid-1800s, reportedly by Mr. G.J. Eaton. Bumbles can be fished either wet or dry and are similar to today’s Elk Hair Caddis, Bivisible, Griffith’s Gnat, or similar flies with bodies of palmered hackle. The great F.M. Halford described Orange Bumbles as being so effective on the River Test that many accomplished anglers termed it the “Priceless Bumble”. Orange Bumbles don’t imitate specific naturals, and Halford described them as ‘fancy flies’, which are attractor flies in today’s jargon.
Copyright 2019, Rusty Dunn
Orange Bumble
Bumbles can be fished either wet or dry. The Orange Bumble pictured here is a wet fly. Alternating ribbing of peacock herl and flat gold tinsel is intended to imitate the abdominal gills of nymphs.
| Hook: |
Wet or dry fly hook, #12 – #16 |
| Thread: |
Orange silk |
| Body: |
Orange silk floss |
| Ribs (2): |
A strand of peacock herl alternating with flat gold tinsel |
| Hackle: |
Honey dun hen (wet fly) or rooster (dry fly) |
Orange Bumble
Leave a Comment
Last Updated: November 6, 2019 by Drew Kasel
by Rusty Dunn
Fly tyers go to great lengths when crafting their imitations of natural insects. Replicating size, shape, and color are always a goal, but some tyers also imitate subtle features such as legs, gills, eyes, and the correct number of tail fibers or segments. Those materials are then wrapped around a bent nail (a.k.a. hook) that is so conspicuous, so horribly unnatural, so out of place, that it should scream “danger” to even the most casual of trout. If a mere shadow on the water spooks trout, why doesn’t the hook make them dash for cover? Only trout know for sure, but understanding why hooks don’t provoke fear requires thinking like a trout.
The great pioneer of trout perception vis-à-vis behavior was Englishman Col. E.W. Harding, who approached fly fishing from the perspective of trout (literally!). His 1931 book The Fly Fisher and the Trout’s Point of View describes what trout see and how they respond to natural insects and artificial flies The book is rich with insights that are not obvious to many fly anglers. It remains to this day one of the best descriptions of how trout perceive their watery world.
Harding thoroughly understood the physics of reflection and refraction of light at the water’s surface. His description of “the window”, the narrow, vertical, 97o cone of vision that is the only portal through which trout can see things above the surface, is outstanding. Trout view the surface everywhere else only as an undulating mirror that reflects underwater surroundings. Although Harding was not the first to describe the window, his account was (and still is) the very best.
Harding demonstrated that hooks do not alarm trout, because their bronzed surface acts as a mirror. Hooks reflect illuminating light, and trout see their curving surfaces as a distorted reflection of the underwater world. Thus, hooks are camouflaged! A thin thread-like core of wire remains visible, but its color tones with and blends into the subsurface background.
Harding’s most significant contribution concerns the light pattern of insects floating at the surface. Cohesive forces between water molecules at an air/water interface are remarkably potent. They cause a thin surface layer to be rubbery, elastic, surprisingly sturdy, and relatively difficult to penetrate. This surface tension underlies the time-honored parlor trick of floating a needle on water, and it is crucial to a trout’s perception of insects floating at the surface. Points of contact between the water and insects (body, legs, wings, etc.) create crescent-shaped surface deformations that admit light underwater and is visible to trout well outside of their overhead window. Each insect species yields a unique light pattern, and this allows trout to identify approaching insects long before they are seen directly in the window. Harding maintained that matching surface light patterns is as important or possibly more important than matching insect size, profile, and color. He described splitting of the nymphal skin, wiggling motions of emerging duns, and the resulting fireworks of pinpoint light visible to trout. Harding’s concept of imitating light imprints of emergers was revolutionary. It is thinking outside the box at its very finest!
The concept of surface light patterns may explain why some very successful flies appear unlike any natural insects. Such flies possibly imitate the light pattern of emergers, rather than the insect itself. For example, North Country wingless wets are shockingly simple flies, but they are very effective when fished at the surface. Harding suggested that they imitate the disheveled light imprints of emerging nymphs and pupae. Harding also suggested that Derbyshire Bumbles imitate the light imprints of many floating insects. Bumbles are a group of patterns originating in Derbyshire in the mid-1800s, reportedly by Mr. G.J. Eaton. Bumbles can be fished either wet or dry and are similar to today’s Elk Hair Caddis, Bivisible, Griffith’s Gnat, or similar flies with bodies of palmered hackle. The great F.M. Halford described Orange Bumbles as being so effective on the River Test that many accomplished anglers termed it the “Priceless Bumble”. Orange Bumbles don’t imitate specific naturals, and Halford described them as ‘fancy flies’, which are attractor flies in today’s jargon.
Copyright 2019, Rusty Dunn
Orange Bumble
Bumbles can be fished either wet or dry. The Orange Bumble pictured here is a wet fly. Alternating ribbing of peacock herl and flat gold tinsel is intended to imitate the abdominal gills of nymphs.
Share this:
Category: Fly Tying, Rusty Dunn Fountains of Youth
Recent Posts
Categories