FOREST AND STREAM 
7o:j 
RTF 
TROUT FLIES 
Natural and Artificial 
Copyright, 1915, Chas. Bradford 
A Composite Appraisement by 
OK. HENRY VAN DYKE 
DR. JAMES A. HENSHALL 
DR. EDWARD BRECK 
CHARLES HALLOCK 
CHARLES ZIBEON SOUTHARD 
ROBERT PAGE LINCOLN 
LOUIS RHEAD 
CHARLES BRADFORD 
Prepared Especially For FOREST AND STREAM 
I mean therefore to put on a gayer fly 
than any we have used hitherto.”—REV. HENRY NEWLANI), 
“The wide range of difference between the wet 
ly and the dry fly lies in the fact that the wet 
•y is an imitation of no special thing active and 
living, while the dry fly purports to he an imi¬ 
tation of the natural fly. It is generally a well- 
known fact that any of our well-known American 
wet flies can be converted into exceptionally good 
dry flies by giving them an ablution of oil.” 
—Robert Page Lincoln. 
Then the wet fly resembles the dry fly, and 
therefore the wet fly is an imitation of the living 
fly. Of course it is. Is not the artificial black 
gnat imitative of the live black gnat? And is not 
the white miller artificial fly patterned after the 
living white miller fly? Certainly. Mary Orvis 
Marbury, author of “Favorite Flies,” and daugh¬ 
ter of Charles F. Orvis, one of America’s 
greatest flymakers, says so. So says William C. 
Harris, Seth Green, Frank Forester, Louis 
Rhead, A. Nelson Cheney, Frederick Mather, Dr. 
Henshall, Charles Hallock, Dean Sage, William 
C. Prime, Charles Z. Southard, Dr. Van Dyke, 
Edward Breck, et al. All angling writers in dis¬ 
coursing upon artificial flies use the expressions 
“in season,” “seasonable flies,” etc. Now, could 
this or that artificial fly be in season if it were 
not copied from the living fly? Of course, there 
are some artificial flies that are not copied from 
nature, but, the artificial fly in general is a dupli¬ 
cate of the living thing. “When a fly is said to 
be in season.” says Alfred Ronalds, “it does not 
follow that it is abroad on every day of its ex¬ 
istence.” But, Robert, our opinions must not be 
harshly expressed—rather set forth “in pleasant 
discourse,” as Walton says—for. as Pritt tells us, 
“one of the charms of angling is that it presents 
an endless field for argument, speculation, and 
experiment.” Charles Bradford: 
New York Press. 
After the foregoing matter appeared I wrote 
several of the authorities mentioned, asking their 
views on the subject, and following will be found 
their replies.—C. B. 
Henry van Dyke, author of “Little Rivers,” 
“Days Off.” “Fisherman’s Luck,” etc.: 
For flies as “wet,” or flies as “dry,” 
1 do not care a whit—not I! 
The natural fly is dry, no doubt, 
While through the air he flits about; 
But, lighting on the stream, you bet 
He very oftens gets quite wet. 
This fact is known to all the fish; 
They take their flies just as they wish, 
Upon the surface or below. 
Precisely why we do not know. 
The honest angler should not be 
A man of rigid theory. 
But use the most alluring fly, 
And sometimes “wet.” and sometimes “dry.” 
Louis Rhead. author of “The Book of Fish 
and Fishing,” etc.: After thirty-two years active 
fishing for trout, beginning with a worm as a 
bait, I have developed through various stages to 
now fish with nothing but my own nature flies. 
I have made careful color pictures of all the most 
abundant insects and produced flies tied to ex¬ 
actly imitate them. Many insects do not and can¬ 
not float, yet an imitation can be made of them 
to fish wet. The English dry fly is not of neces¬ 
sity a copy of the natural insect. Halford has 
many fancy dry flies that are not copies of insects. 
Nearly all American commercial trout flies are 
fancy flies, do not imitate insects. To be exact, 
in fishing with a floating fly it is only right is use 
copies of insects that will float, mostly drakes. 
The average angler has been sadly fooled by this 
so-called dry-fly fishing, and books have been 
written (mostly culled from British sources), 
making anglers more bewildered than ever. 
Charles Zibeon Southard, author of “Trout Fly¬ 
fishing in America”: In reply to your question 
about trout flies, “Am I right?” I would say that 
unquestionably you are. From the earliest days 
of trout fly-fishing it has been the intention of 
anglers to have their flies resemble as far as pos¬ 
sible the natural ones found upon their trout 
waters. One has only to read dear old Izaak 
Walton and the many noted fly-fishing authorities 
that have followed to the present day to be con¬ 
vinced of your view. Of course the art of fly tying 
has advanced with mighty strides during the past 
fifteen years and more especially during the past 
ten years, and to the makers of “dry” flies for the 
wonderful development of the artificial fly too 
much credit, in my judgment, can not be given. 
That wet flies are not such remarkable imitations 
of the natural flies as are the dry flies goes almost 
without saying. As a matter of fact it is not the 
question which fly is the better imitation, but that 
both the wet fly and the dry fly are patterned, in 
most cases, after the natural flies. From the time 
of Walton and before that, wet flies have been 
patterned after natural flies. In many instances 
now-a-days wet flies are not designed to represent 
natural flies, but, such flies are freaks, are short¬ 
lived and are seldom used by real trout fly fisher¬ 
men. There is no doubt in my mind that taken as 
a whole wet flies have been intended to represent 
natural flies, but, quite often in the past and in 
the present day have not been and are not good 
imitations. As the art of fly tying has advanced, 
more nearly do the artificial represent the natural 
flies, and this advancement is due, in a great mea¬ 
sure, to the makers of dry flies. Speaking from a 
practical standpoint, the so-called dry flies are 
the very best wet flies obtainable, and on most 
American trout waters more trout will be caught 
on them when fished wet than when fished dry, 
especially the fontinalis. 
Dr. James A. Henshall, author of “The Book 
of the Blackbass”: Regarding the “Trout Flies” 
clipping sent me for comment I think the mention 
of my name in it is sufficient without adding any¬ 
thing more. 
Robert Page Lincoln: Perhaps I should have 
said some wet flies are an imitation of no special 
object connected with living things. In the list 
of wet flies there are experimentations galore 
that will serve as well as any of the standard 
regulation flies. I can sit down and construct off¬ 
hand a fly to be used as wet or submerged that 
I feel sure I can use with as much success as 
with the miller, gnat or any other fly that is no 
doubt much on the order of an imitation of the 
natural. Perhaps in writing the article I was 
thinking too deeply of the eccentric nondescripts 
that do not imitate nature. Yet these nondescripts 
(flies tied anyway to suit the fancy, yet having 
hackle wings, etc.) will get the fish; they are 
drawn in the water gently back and forth, thus 
purporting to be that of some insect drowning; 
yet I doubt very much if the fish can tell what 
sort of a fly, living fly, it should be. I do not 
care; it is the motion, the apparent endeavor of 
the fly to get out of that watery prison that 
arouses the fish’s blood. However, Halford says: 
“The modern theory is that these patterns (the 
wet flies) are taken by the fish for the nymphs 
or pupae these being the scientific names of the 
immature insects at the stage immediately preced¬ 
ing the winged form. * * * * Candidly, however, the 
presence of the wings in the sunk fly pattern has 
puzzled me, because in my experience I have never 
seen the winged insects submerged by the action 
of the stream. Sedges do at times descend to 
oviposit and so do certain spinners, but, the ap- 
pearence under this condition, with an air bubble 
between their wings resembles nothing so much 
as a globe of mercury—an appearance which bears 
no resemblance to the ordinary sunk fly patterns.” 
I have been strictly a devotee to the wet fly form, 
and always hold that it is the better fly for our 
swift western streams; in the wet form certainly 
. 
