302 
FOREST AND STREAM 
July, 1922 
FORM OR COLOR IN THE DRY-FLY 
CAN IMITATION BE SAFELY LIMITED TO FORM OR SIZE WHILE 
MINOR GRADUATIONS OF COLOR ARE DISREGARDED? 
By A. E. 
W HEN the wet-fly was the only 
type known to our anglers, 
there was no doubt that cer- 
tain patterns were more killing 
than others; or, at least, that certain flies 
were more readily taken on some days 
than on others. Probably we shall 
never know how much of the pref- 
erence of the fish was due to the mo- 
tion of the fly, its size, shape or color, 
but I believe that of the four the one 
of color is the least important. Yet 
color in a wet-lly is vastly more apparent 
to the eye of a fish than it is in the dry- 
fly. The proof of this is rather simple. 
Immerse a fly in a glass of water and 
view it against a dark background with 
a strong light behind you, then float a 
dry-fly of the same general coloration 
upon the surface of the water and view' 
it through the bottom of the glass against 
the bright sky. In the first instance, you 
have somewhat the same view that a 
fish has of a wet-fly fished sunk, which 
he sees from a more 
or less parallel posi- 
tion and against the 
dark background of 
the bank ; in the sec- 
ond instance you are 
observing the dry- 
fly, against a back- 
ground of sky, prac- 
tically with the eyes 
of a trout. Although 
you are only look- 
ing through but a 
few inches of water 
as compared with 
the many feet of 
water through which 
the fish must usually 
discover his prey, 
and although this 
water is clearer than 
that of the average 
stream and is practi- 
cally free from rip- 
ples and reflections, 
you will notice that 
the colors of the 
sunken fly may be 
very plainly de- 
tected, whereas the 
“floater” appears to 
be a semi-opaque ob- 
ject, with no fine 
graduation of color. 
It is true of course, 
that in fishing 
comparatively shallow water with a 
sandy bottom, a certain amount of light 
is reflected against the lower surface of 
the fly and in such cases the more de- 
cided differences of color are readily de- 
tected — but even then we have no proof 
that the fly is taken or refused because 
of the ability of the fish to determine its 
color. It has been argued that a trout 
will often rise to a fly from deep water 
and when about to take it will apparently 
detect the fraud and turn away, but it 
is assuming too much to say that this 
refusal is entirely due to the color of 
the fly. No man can be positive that 
the trout has not detected the fraud be- 
cause of the size or form of the fly, 
because of its unnatural action, or be- 
cause of a sight of the angler, his line 
or his leader. 
F rom the beginning, the users of the 
dry-fly have been loud in their in- 
sistence upon exact imitation; and in 
this I w'ould be presuming indeed to dis- 
pute the wisdom of the many authorities 
who have gone before. I do believe that 
imitation can be safely limited to the 
form and size of the fly, with particular 
attention to its presentation and action, 
and a complete disregard of minor grad- 
uations of color. Of these factors, 
proper presentment — which logically in- 
cludes a natural action of the fly and 
presupposes the invisibility to the fish of 
line, leader and angler — amounts, in my 
opinion, to ninety per cent, of the whole. 
This is borne out, I think, by the exper- 
ience of the majority of anglers. In 
that interesting and instructive book, 
“The Dry-Fly and Fast Water,” by 
George M. LaBranche, the author re- 
lates his experience with a large trout 
to which he cast a Whirling Dun up- 
wards of one hundred times without 
getting a strike ; yet when this same fly 
was detached from the leader and floated 
with barb removed over the fish it was 
taken instantly. I have frequently had 
similar experiences where a rising fish 
repeatedly refused the closest imitation 
in color to the insects upon which he 
was feeding, only to fall a few moments • 
later to an imitation in form and size 
which happened to be properly presented. 
Further, this contention is borne out 
by the writings of the various authori- 
ties uppn the subject, if not directly in 
words, at least by decided implication. 
Mr. F. M. Halford, the greatest English 
authority, writing and angling in the 
home of the dry-fly and from the stand- 
point of the purist had, in 1910* reduced 
the number of patterns from the one 
hundred or so which he regarded as 
necessary in 1889 to something over 
thirty; Mr. A. B. Dewar, another Eng- 
lish authority, had, in 1910, reduced his 
list to eight pat- 
terns; ]\Ir. E. M. 
Gill, in his book 
written in 1912,* 
names ten patterns, 
and Mr. George M. 
LaBranche, whom I 
regard as our high- 
est American au- 
thority on the dry-fly, 
has reduced his list 
to six patterns and 
states* that if neces- 
sary he would be 
content to use but 
one — the Whirling 
Dun. This fly, by 
the way, is also the 
favorite of IMr. E. 
M. Gill. 
A study of the 
lists prepared by 
these experts shows 
no great color dis- 1 
tinctions between i 
their selections, ex- 
cept in the matter 
of “Specials,” which 
will be discussed 
later ; they do show : 
a decided resem- i 
blance in form to 
various types of in- 
sect life found upon 
our streams. This 
judgment is sound, 
particularly in their preference for the f 
Whirling Dun, the duns in their various j 
colorations comprising a high percentage 
of such insect life. 
I N confirmation of the views already j 
set forth, we are fortunate in having ;| 
at hand various “symposiums” of the I 
opinion of anglers compiled in the past, jij 
{Continued on page 321) | 
Loiu'iesy ot JJeuvei' luunst and Fublicity Bureau 
The dry-fly on a Colorado stream 
