FOREST 
AND 
STREAM 
347 
i-r 
!« 
“Wets” Versus “Drys”— The Case of The Plaintiff 
The “Gentle” and “Modest” Dry Fly Man Is At It Again ! 
By Charles Zibeon Southard 
H! My brother users of the wet 
fly, of what cheap and ordinary 
clay are we! Perhaps you do 
not realize how ordinary! For 
that reason I would call to 
your attention how graciously 
this “subtle relative” of ours, 
the dry fly man, in a recent 
article' sets us down. At first he is really quite 
decent, fair and truthful, in his statements about 
the wet fly and then he proceeds to condemn and 
relegate it to the level of bait fishing. The fair¬ 
ness, truthfulness and apparent goodfellowship 
that is found in his first remarks about the wet 
fly is almost beyond belief; and one wonders if 
a “change of heart” has taken place, until you 
discover by further reading of the article its 
real sentiments. This is what he first has to say: 
In order to increase the pleasure to be de¬ 
rived from the pastime of angling for trout it 
is wisdom’s verdict, accepted to-day by many 
sportsmen, to use the dry fly whenever condi¬ 
tions will warrant the dry fly’s supremacy. 
That these conditions do not always exist the 
dry fly angler will admit, for there are times 
when the wet fly will catch more trout than will 
the dry fly at that particular time; but, on the 
other hand, there are also other times and condi¬ 
tions when the dry fly will do more effective 
work than will the wet enticer. 
It is therefore again wisdom’s verdict that the 
fly fisherman should use the dry as well as the 
wet fly without any consideration whatever of 
the relative pleasure in fishing with either the 
dry or the wet flv, the verdict being the pos¬ 
sibility of capture by both flies. 
Could anything have been said more fair and 
true about fly fishing than these words express 
and where is to be found an experienced wet fly 
angler who would change a single expression ? 
There can be no difference of opinion in the 
slightest degree as to these statements, for time 
and experience, the two all important factors in 
most things, have proved them true beyond a 
shadow of a doubt. 
Having thus written so fairly, does it not seem 
as if “wisdom’s verdict” should be to leave un¬ 
said such remarks as these? Again I quote: 
Why should a fisherman not derive pleasure 
from the method of capture as well as capture 
alone? The desire immersed entirely in capture 
must result very often in disgust to the wet fly 
fisherman, for often the trout caught is small 
and worthless, and should be put back in the 
water. But is it? Very often not, for the 
grab-all wet fly fisherman’s sole desire is to fill 
the creel, which is done without any considera¬ 
tion of the fact that the bunch of trout caught 
is a worthless mess; while, on the other hand, 
nine times out of ten the trout caught with a 
dry fly is of a fair size and is worth keeping! 
Certainly an angler, all anglers, have a decided 
right to fish with either the wet or the dry fly, 
whichever one they prefer and it is well for any 
angler to learn all he possibly can about both 
methods so that he will be able to use the one 
best suited to the waters it is his good fortune to 
fish. 
But to say that the dry fly angling, per se, 
gives more pleasure to the fisherman of experi¬ 
ence than does the wet fly is to put forth a claim 
and assume a position, as against the real facts, 
which stamps the claimant as being biased and 
arrogant in the extreme. To attribute to the wet 
fly fishermen the motive that they are interested 
‘ entirely in capture” of trout is deliberately un¬ 
fair because it is not true. 
There are just as many high minded, educated, 
refined, and nature-loving anglers that fish with 
the wet fly as are to be found in the ranks of the 
dry fly men and to charge such motives to the 
wet fly anglers shows a lamentable lack of 
knowledge upon the subject of wet fly fishing. 
“One swallow does not make a summer” and 
just because an occasional angler, be he a wet or 
dry fly fisherman, falls from grace and forgets 
the ethics of sport the thousands of well in- 
tentioned angling sportsmen are not to be con¬ 
demned. 
My own experience has been, covering a 
period of many years, on many waters and for 
three months of each year, that fly fishermen in 
the great majority of cases do not deliberately 
and needlessly kill trout. I have too high an 
opinion of fly fishermen as a class to believe for 
one moment that they wantonly kill trout when 
by so doing they are deliberately destroying their 
own sport. 
Wet fly anglers will be interested in the follow¬ 
ing remarks, especially those who fly fish in 
Maine and Canadian waters, year after year, 
and they can best judge the accuracy of the 
statements. 
Most of the trout fishing done on our North¬ 
ern waters and in Canada is done with the wet 
fly, and many large and good trout are caught 
there. But is this large catch solely the result 
of the superiority of the wet fly? Not at all. 
This large catch is the result of these waters be¬ 
ing crowded full of trout, and when a trout is 
surrounded on all sides by his many brothers, 
if he sees an object in the water which he thinks 
Is food he makes an immediate dash for it, so 
that he will get it before some other brother 
does! 
It matters but little what the fly is or how 
well or poorly it is cast in order to capture un¬ 
der these conditions, and a trout thus caught 
with the wet fly does not prove its superiority 
to the dry fly, because when the dry fly is used 
on these same waters, which is now being often 
done, just as many, if not more, are caught. 
It is indeed quite true that the wet fly is 
largely used in Maine and Canada as well as 
in many other states and that many large trout 
are caught with them. The mere catching of 
large trout or trout in great number, without 
knowing the attendant circumstances or condi¬ 
tions, most certainly cannot be laid to the 
superiority of either the wet or the dry fly. 
In the case cited, however, trout are caught 
in these waters and they are caught with the 
wet fly, solely because the trout will rise to the 
wet fly and will seldom rise to the dry fly, there¬ 
fore in such cases the wet fly must necessarily be 
called superior to the dry fly. As to such a 
thing as a postive superiority between the wet 
Wet or Dry? Take Your Choice. 
