146 THE WAY OF A TROUT WITH A FLY 



unexplained, to compare or contrast it with the wet fly 

 on what, for brevity, we may call dry-fly streams; but he 

 has not a word of deprecation for the wet fly, except on the 

 ground that it does not pay. 



I have searched a number of more recent writers for 

 light and leading on the subject, but in vain. It may be 

 that there are papers in the Field and other journals which 

 may throw more light on the subject, but I do not recall 

 them, and I have not the means at hand of making a 

 search. 



The fact, however, remains that there is or was a body 

 of opinion hostile to any use of the wet fly upon chalk 

 streams, and apt to claim a higher ethical standard than 

 is enough for those who do not object to fish these rivers 

 on suitable occasions with a wet fly; and it would be in- 

 teresting to see how it came into being. I suspect the 

 evolution was much as follows: 



The necessity of casting upstream in all weathers evolved 

 the heavy tapered line, and that again seemed to neces- 

 sitate, and did in fact evolve, the heavy rod and the 

 double-dressed floater. This equipment was quite unsuited 

 to wet-fly fishing, and so employed was quite as likely to 

 result in scaring the fish as in catching them. Then wet- 

 fly fishing, in the sense of casting across or across and down 

 stream a dragging fly, was apt to attract small fish, and to 

 result in their being hooked, or pricked, and scared. This 

 was undoubtedly bad for the water. Ergo, wet-fly fishing 

 is bad for the water, and ought to be barred. 



This opinion became firmly rooted in many minds, and 

 no doubt it was easier to make a rule of no wet fly, 

 especially as the wet fly was not believed to pay, than to 

 make a distinction between wet fly according to knowledge 

 and mere wet fly. It was, no doubt, suggested and believed 

 that even a wet fly cast upstream to bulging fish was apt 



