When I first started tying soft hackle flies, the conventional wisdom was that you should make the body as slender as possible. I practiced a lot to achieve perfectly smooth, anorexic bodies that were literally no more than a few silk strands thicker in diameter than the hook shank. They definitely worked great and were beautiful ties. But something seemed amiss. If “thinner was better”, why did more robust flies like the Hare’s Ear Nymph produce so well?
Imagine a typical soft hackle with a very thin body. It’s got the hackle sweeping back over the body to the bend of the hook. Now when this fly is underwater, the hackle collapses a little, forming a football-shaped silhouette. There is negative space in between the hackle fibers where there is no material (“holes” if you will), but I believe an illusion takes place that betrays its slender physique. The brain “fills in” the negative space between the hackle fibers making the fly look more robust than it really is. There have been studies on this phenomenon of filling in empty space on humans, and while I’m not an expert on ichthyological vision, I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that it applies to trout as well.
Especially when you consider that trout in a rushing stream only have a couple of seconds to determine if something is food or not. They only have the luxury of forming an overall crude impression of the things incessantly floating by them before they decide to strike it or not. I think this urgency forces their brains to make a rush decision and “fill in the blanks” as fast as possible. So, a dainty-bodied soft hackle with a few hackle fibers running back actually looks like one robust mass rather than individual, sparse parts.
Try this: pull a soft hackle through the water and squint your eyes. I think you’ll see what I’m talking about.
Now, years later, I’ve heard the same benefits of thin-bodied flies echoed by pundits in the tenkara chapter of fishing career–specifically, to make thread-bodied sakasa kebari as slender as possible. I started off tying my kebari this way and they worked too. But recently, I’ve been calling the theory into question. So, the last dozen or so times I’ve been out, I experimented. I replaced my thin-bodied flies with plus-size models. Rather than slim thread-bodied flies, I opted for patterns with much thicker, tapered bodies made of dubbing or yarn. And the results were interesting.
Overall, my catch rate did improve significantly–especially on dead-drift presentations. I feel that when moving a sakasa kebari with a downstream swing or pulse, the body is probably irrelevant as the motion of the opening and closing hackle is probably what gets the trout’s attention. But on the dead drift, the thicker bodied flies seem to produce much better than the thin, thread-bodied flies.
So here’s my theory of why “fat” flies are better. But beware…it’s completely unscientific and based on empirical evidence, conjecture, and possibly too much beer…
Why Fat Flies are Phat
1. Better Visibility. Trout vision isn’t as good as we think it is. To compound that, they have lots of flotsam constantly jetting past them and only a split second to identify what’s food and what isn’t. A stouter silhouette is going to be easier to spot at a further distance as they look upstream and an easier target to hit as it approaches their lie. As a predator, an easy target is more desirable than one you have to scrutinize or anticipate. And this is especially true in fast, high, or stained water.
2. Buggier looking. With the exception of midges and some species of caddis larvae or mayfly nymphs, many of the the aquatic insects in a trout’s daily buffet have a fat profile. Most mayfly nymphs are flat and broad, caddis pupae are plump & juicy, and they occasionally get served up the underwater equivalent of a 17 oz. porterhouse steak (a big, juicy stonefly nymph). While tenkara tends to shun the whole “match the hatch” philosophy, it doesn’t hurt if your flies at least resemble familiar menu items.
3. Higher in protein. Unless they’re in a lush tailwater or spring creek, many trout live in a poverty mentality. Especially at high altitudes, insect life is scarce and competition is fierce. Larger, fatter flies are simply going to mean more protein for less energy expenditure. Why do you think they attack grasshoppers so voraciously? One hopper is equivalent to probably 100 midges but with a lot less effort. Look at the first picture in this post. If you were a hungry trout, which would you rather eat? The 3 flies on the left or the 3 flies on the right?
4. Mmmmm…chewy! Chris Hendricks of Tenkara Norway recently posed this question to Facebook:
“I have a theory and would like to know what our experience is about it. Chubby flies from dubbing are soft and feel more bug-like when taken by the fish and are therefore less likely to be spit out by the trout. I have the feeling that slick tight flies from synthetics or just thread are more likely to feel like a stick in the mouth of the trout and will be spit out more quickly then a chubby flies. What is Your experience?”
I’ll confess I don’t know the answer to this but it seems to make sense. I remember some experiments my old fishing buddy George and I did years ago to try to address this topic. We felt that fish were being turned off by feeling the rigid hook shanks of our flies so we decided to make them bulky and “squishy” (the way a real insect might feel being crushed by the jaws of a trout).
So we tied some flies with open-cell foam as an underbody covered it up with dubbing. They sure felt more realistic in the hand, but back then, we didn’t compile “data” the way we do today. We just fished and talked about our experiences later over a beer or scotch (or both)–meaning I can’t remember if it actually made a difference or not.
It would seem to. I suppose it really depends on the timing between when the fish strikes the fly and when the angler finally realizes it and sets the hook. A more palpable, convincing, squishy feel might give you an extra second or two that could mean the difference between a landed fish and a lost fish.
Conclusion
I won’t deny that there are situations where dainty flies will perform better than beefy ones in certain situations, but if you fish the types of streams I do, I’d say you should challenge the across-the-board wisdom that wet flies and sakasa kebari must have bodies thinner than a bulimic supermodel. Trout want to eat and you want to serve them a meal. So why not give them the best dining experience possible?
I agree. I think fat flies work better for my type of waters.
Cool, appreciate the verification especially coming from you Tom!
i totally agree Jason. bigger fly=better meal. i also think the beefier kebari sink faster
I like ’em chubby too. Nice smooth curves, very hourglass… Oh wait, we’re talking Kebari.
Chubby is good. I don’t remember which group it was just in but the comments were also on texture as well.
I like a touch of SHHAN or Loon finish for Panfish flies too as it gives them a bit of crunch. Seems to work better IME.
Also, a bit anecdotal at the moment, but upholstery thread as the base seems to make a difference in their eyes too.
I’ve fished two nearly identical Sakasa Kebari this year and one is tied with upholstery thread and the other 140 denier UTC. The upholstery thread version gets more hits.
I think it is a great thought. I think we take the whole “one fly” thing to a bit of an extreme. Within that one fly style we can tie a multitude of simple flies. Skinny, fat, peacock hurl, a ton of different hackles. I think there is so much room to experiment with the kebari style of fly. Having a range of them from small, large, fat, skinny and a number of colors is a wise choice. We should experiment and go with those flies that give us confidence. I know a certain T and J that swears by the salt and pepper kebari and I have never caught a damn thing on a fly like that. All that being said I will fish a plumper “buggier” fly any day of the week.
Jesse, please let me know what I owe you back since my S&P has failed you. So sorry. 😉
TJ
As for fat and skinny and all that…. agreed. No bug looks exactly the same. The same general pattern is my one fly but non look the same. Some of mine are fat… some skinny, some with added red, some less hackle…. One fly does not mean one exact fly out of a assembly line. Just means the same general pattern with tweaks.
I do like mine plump.
Must be my age.
TJ
Fat flies are certainly traditional. There are many examples on the different pages on the Fujioka Best Streams website. The Koshu Kuromori area flies are probably the plumpest-looking and most colorful examples.
http://www.hi-ho.ne.jp/amago/b-streams/flytying/tenkara4.html .
Fish aren’t lazy, but I think they are energy conscious and keep account of calories burned vs calories gained in the movement needed to acquire the bug as it drifts by. I’ve tended to believe they’d prefer a fat bug over a smaller snack and might move further to take a fat looking bug, er, kebari.
I agree, and phenomenal catchability of the classic Killer Bugs also proves it. However, fat flies have also the drawbacks. Yarn fibers cling the trout’s teethes and do not allow the hook to pierce properly. This is particularly noticeable when fishing for small trout. Number of runaways off the hook is noticeably larger than when fishing with skinny flies.
Thanks a lot for your post Jason!!
It helps me answer this question / go through this theory much better. I really like the input that oleg gave about chubby flies and smaller trout. A tip when tying fat flies is that everything has to be in proportion. Especially around the hookbend. If you ty everything to fat then there is very litle room between the point of the hook and the shank which makes it more difficult to grab for flesh. And when you fish barbless this becomes even more important. One thing i did not completly understood was what is it what you guys actually mean with fat flies? Do you mean fat flies tied by thread or floss or fat flies tied by dubbing? Because i believe more in soft tyingmaterials such as dubbing or woolthread.
Bonjour a vous tous,
Je peche en France depuis de nombreuses années et depuis cinq ans au Tenkara, je confectione toutes mes mouche et bien sur les kebari et autres, je pense que rien ne marche mieux que l’utilisation de matière naturel est pour les torrents de montagnes jusqu’à 1900 mètres que je peche dans le sud Est des mouches en laine ou en cul de canard et bien sur en poil sont extra. J’ai remarqué que les truites de montagne sont très rapide dans leurs attaques elle engament très vite sans trop réfléchir , en montagne il faut manger dans la belle saison après les repas sont maigre, alors je pense que des mouches un peu grosses sont excellentes pour moi.
Great post Jason. I’m on a chubby fly kick too. My current guru is Bob Wyatt of New Zealand, author of “What Trout Want,” and patterns he recommends are mainly plump hare’s ear bodies. He thinks the visibility is the most important aspect. Whatever the reason, they’ve been working well.
I’m going to disagree on some of this. First, flies have a hard exoskeleton which would not, I imagine, feel soft in the mouth of a trout. Bugs are crunchy. Second, I think the idea that fatter is always better is oversimplifying how trout react to food. If fat flies hooked more fish I would expect to see a “fly bias”. As an example, the spider pattern (march brown) would have proven itself superior and supplanted (in popularity at least) the partridge and yellow style a long time ago. That doesn’t seem to have happened. Dave Hughes, as a matter of fact, considers both to be essential. I guess what your saying could be true but I need more convincing. At any rate, I enjoy your blog Jason.
JED, great counterpoints and I see what you’re saying about the exoskeleton. I guess I was thinking more about trying to avoid them detecting the hook shank immediately. A thin-bodied fly will immediately feel rigid, whereas a soft-bodied fly will feel like it has some give. Nymphs may have a relatively “hard” shell, but it gives easily when crushed–feeling squishy. Of course, I’m not sure trout actually chew their food. If they just swallow it whole, the whole argument on feel is moot and maybe only visibility and profile remain cogent. Would love to have a biologist weigh in on how trout actually consume their food.
…having cleaned the garage, washed the car and fed the dogs, upon sitting down to view your blog I was immediately struck by how hungry I was and how a dozen fat chicken wings followed by a nice dark beer would be perfect… 🙂
I would like to comment to both Jed and Jason on the last comment they made. You do have a good point Jed! I was thinking about that too but i look at insects/bugs/nymphs as fries. They have a litle crispy layer on the outside, but not to crispy so you cant bent it and the inside is always soft. My point of view is that if the the mouth of the fish can not detect all of these points something most be wrong, like Jason mentioned before. I would like my flies to be made of dubbing because we will never be able to lett the hook become soft. So the stifness will always be there. But in my point of view a hook with a body of floss,silk or other hard meterials might be spitt out quicker by a fish. BUT… this is when the fish is not feeling any resistance and has the ability to spit it out very quick without us noticeing. So for example a dry fly and a wet fly/nymph as a dropper. When i fish this way my wet fly is floating with some slack 5 to 10 cm under the surface. A fish can take it and spit it out without me notice it. When fishing for example with a czech nymph rig, there is a lot less slack in the line and often the fish hook them selve. I never fished completely with a rig of three wet flies / spiders in the traditional way but what i have understood is there some tension on the whole rig the whole time and fish hook themselves most of the time. When it comes to my personal fishing situation in Norway, Trysil; We have rapids, rifles slow flowing water and quite often rain. I need to let my dry flies float good and for a long time and i adjust my dubbing according to that. Fluffy synthetic dubbing which is preferably a little spikey in texture as well. My chubby flies float better and are better visible in the riffles and the rapids. But also here fish is very good capable of spitting the dries out often because of the wrong texture that the fly has.At least, that is my theory. But again i have read som good arguments now from people that both agree and disagree. But that is what i like, it is not about agreeing or disagreeing but learning from eachother so our own fishingresults and experience becomes better by it!
This is something Tenkara Guides LLC has been working on since 2012. Read about it here:
http://tenkaraguides.com/e-r-wool-body-flies/
I remember reading a particularly good article written by a famous British fly fisherman and entomologist (his name escapes me I am afraid), who had experimented with different flies all his life and came to the conclusion the he only needed who patters; one green and one black. The thing he believed made the difference was size of fly. Small patterns often worked best in clear waters, larger in coloured.
Every one haves good views. Very good topic Jason. I really wouldn’t over think on this topic. I’m not a big fan of matching the hatch, based on my own evidence. I’m not saying matching the hatch doesn’t work, again on my own evidence cutting a fishes stomach open when I want to eat chubby trout. My veteran fly fishing friend of 30 yrs. matches the hatch. My 15 yrs. of experience I fish attractors. We both fish together, same river, and same time. We catch just as many fish. I always tell him fish don’t discriminate. Lol! Anyways, I like to tie my softies as they were like my wife dd’s. YUMMY! Jason there is scientific evidence that fish don’t chew they’re food. They would choke if they chewed they’re food. I am a big fan of EVIDENCE! Thank you Jason, for putting so much time and effort in your blog. I’ve learned a lot from you.
I recently received John RS Allen’s book, ” Tenkara Ancient and Modern”. On page 68 he has a kebari table similar to Fujiokoa’s table of kebari types.
The 3 columns are Soft Hackle: long or short and Stiff Hackle: short. The two lines are for Normal hackle or Reverse hackle.
The line for normal hackle only list body materials: silk, wool, peacock herl, dubbing, etc. Under all hackle types.
On the line for for Reverse hackle, under the columns for both types of short hackle he list the preferred body type as slim to slender body.
In the box for Reverse Long Soft Hackle he list the preferred body type as Thick body flies. Kind of an interesting conclusion to his study of Japanese kebari.
Not that there aren’t plenty of examples of reverse long soft hackle flies with slim to slender bodies. In my experience fish have their moods. What most attracts one day may not on another day in the same place.
In so far as it is possible, our fly patterns today should exhibit to the fish the same qualities and indicators of life that the food forms the fish feed on present to them. What are some of these life-like indicators?
MOTION: Well, first and foremost is motion. Most things that are alive move. They swim, wiggle, jump, hop, and or crawl and breath beneath the waters they live in. But the most important kind of motion we are talking about here is not the fly’s drift in running water, but the motions of the materials that we or a commercial fly tier affixes to the hook that makes up the fly’s various body parts – the tales, if any, legs, and the breathing gills especially where ever they may be found on the bug, and the body and feeler motions that many or most aquatic insects demonstrate to the fish in carrying on their every day life functions in the water. Materials such as pheasant tail, peacock and ostrich herl, plus wrapped marabou, natural and synthetic dubbing blends and ropes, as well as synthetic and natural yarns, all of which have many movable fibers that will imitate the breathing gill actions of mayfly nymphs, caddis larvae and pupa, stonefly nymphs, scuds, and midge larvae and pupae. Soft hackles, be they game bird or chicken feathers, also fall into this class of motion providing materials, and provide the much needed motion of materials in the water far better than thread bodies and stiff fly tying materials can do. The motion of the fly tying materials on the hook is of much greater importance for stillwater fly fishing than it is for fishing in running waters, where the stream currents usually supply all the movement needed most of the time, requiring that the stiffness of the fly tying materials used be matched to the current speed of the water that is being fished for the best possible results to be had.
TRANSLUCENCE: Another indicator of life is translucence, because the light from the sky and sun passing through the bodies of most aquatic food form’s is diffused but highly visible to the fish and triggers feeding activities by them. Opaque fly tying materials, though effective enough at times, do not provide the translucence needed to give the most effective fish interest possible. Again, most of the materials mentioned above also provide a high degree of translucence effects in flies that are tied with them compared to the thread bodies found on many of the more traditional Kebari style fly patterns. The reflective qualities of metal ribbing materials also provides a translucence effect, reinforcement for relatively frail tying materials, segmentation, and some slight added weight to fly patterns using this kind of ribbing, as well as providing some much needed contrast in many of our fly patterns.
THE ADVANTAGES OF SOFT TEXTURE: Motion, translucence, segmentation and contrast are usually enough to get the desired response from the fish in that they will take our fly patterns into their mouths to test if they are an edible food source, but, this is where the texture of the fly tying materials used can really help seal the deal in that the softer bodied flies are not usually rejected as quickly as the hard bodied fly patterns will be, providing that little extra window of opportunity that can be the difference between not knowing you had a hit and getting a solid hook up because the fish are willing to hold on to a soft bodied fly considerably longer than they will hold on to a hard bodied fly pattern.
CONCLUSION: And so for all of these reasons it comes as no surprise to me that Jason found the rough/fat/soft bodied fly patterns he tied to be considerably more effective than the thin/hard thread bodied Kebari patterns he compared them with in the past and now. If you want to follow Tenkara traditions and tie simple thread bodied fly patterns, that’s all well and good. We know a lot more now about how the fish are programmed to see motion and contrast and how they are hard wired to react to those stimuli than the Japanese T-anglers of 300 years ago did. You can pay attention to the science or ignore it as you like. Either way, I am sure that you will still catch plenty of fish.