Fly tying history
The history of fly tying (and fly design) is inextricably tied to the evolution and history of fly fishing. Although from the mid-19th century to present times, basic fly tying methods have not changed dramatically. Changes have resulted mostly from the introduction and adaptation of new materials, especially synthetics and new hook designs. Images from early literature devoted to fly tying on the fly construction process are not significantly different from the process used today. Tools associated with fly tying today also evolved as technologies evolved. Flies tied in the mid-19th century were done so without the benefit of a hook vise. Instead the hook was held by the fingers while the fly was constructed. Consider this description: The Method of Dressing a Hackled-fly from Rod Fishing in Clear Waters (London 1860):
Your materials being now in a state of readiness, the hook must be first tied on with waxed silk to the finest end of the hair or gut left after cutting off the curled end, in this manner (Plate vii. No. 1) : Take the bend of the hook between your left finger and thumb, the shank projecting; place an end of the waxed silk, which should be about six inches in length, and the end of the gut along the underside of the shank; pass the silk over until you have wrapped it down to the end of the shank, and two or three turns back for the head of the fly ; take the feather or hackle as prepared (Plate vii. No. 2), put the point of the feather from where it is turned back with the outside next the hook, and hold it there with your left finger and thumb until you pass the silk over it, just where you left off, wrapping it twice or thrice on its downward rounds to the bend of the hook ; take your scissors and cut off the root of the feather, and the superfluous gut under the bend of the hook, leaving it not quite so long as the body of the fly has to be made ; take the thick end of your feather in your tweezers or pliers and wrap it over three or four times close together, following the silk wrappings until it is all, or as much as you deem sufficient, twirled on; then take your silk and pass over the end once or twice; cut off the superfluous part of the feather and wrap up the shank with the silk, evenly and regularly, to form the body of the fly, and fasten off by a loop-knot or two; or,if you want a thick-bodied fly or one of flossed silk, turn down again and fasten off at the shoulder ; cut off the silk left, set the feather right with your needle and finger and thumb, and the fly is made or dressed. This is the simplest method.[10]
One of the earliest references to the use of a fly tying vise is in Ogden on Fly Tying (London, 1887). Other fly tying tools—scissors, hackle pliers, bodkins, etc. have remained remarkably similar for the last 120 years.
[edit]Imitation
Tying artificial flies has always been about imitating some form of fish prey with natural and/or synthetic materials bound to a hook. Significant literature exists, especially for trout flies, on the concepts of imitation.A Book of Trout Flies – Jennings (1935), Streamside Guide to Naturals & Their Imitations– Art Flick (1947), Matching the Hatch – Schweibert (1955), Selective Trout-Swisher and Richards (1971), Nymphs-Schweibert (1973), Caddisflies-LaFontaine (1989), Prey-Richards (1995) are but a few 20th century titles that deal extensively with imitating natural prey. However, from the human perspective, many fly patterns do not exactly imitate fish prey found in nature, yet they still are successful patterns. As such, a successful or killing fly pattern, therefore imitates something that the target species preys on. This has resulted in fly tiers and fishers devising additional terms to characterize those flies that obviously don’t imitate anything in particular, yet are successful at catching fish. These additional terms are inconsistently, but commonly associated with trout fly patterns because of the huge variety of patterns, both historical and contemporary. The term Attractor pattern has been applied to flies that resemble nothing in particular, but are successful in attracting strikes from fish (Trout Fishing, Brooks 1972). Dick Stewart in Flies for Trout (1993) characterizes these same patterns as General Purpose. Dave Hughes in Trout Flies-The Tier’s Reference (1999) describes the same flies as Searching flies and characterizes three levels of imitation: Impressionistic, Suggestive and Imitative.
Paul Schullery in American Fly Fishing – A History (1996) and The Rise (2006) explains however that although much has been written about the imitation theories of fly design, all successful fly patterns must imitate something to the fish, and even a perfect imitation attracts strikes from fish. The huge range of fly patterns documented today for all sorts of target species-trout, salmon, bass and panfish, pike, saltwater, tropical exotics, etc. are not easily categorized as merely imitative, attractors,searching, impressionistic or something else.[11]
