I have hinted on here before my own thoughts on 'historically correct' hackling of Spider flies, that, based my observations of 'period' flies that survive by exponents and founders of the style, that the hackling density they used seems 'heavy'. It would seem perhaps that the 'sparsely' hackled spider is a modern phenomenon ?
Without pontificating on one of my favourite subjects, what you have to remember, First and foremost, is that Spider style flies originated in the north of the country, because they had moors where they went out and shot birds, so whatever the local bird was generally became the local spider hackle. They were flies that had to be simple to tie with whatever materials were available locally. I don't think there are any real founders to the style, only a handful of people who had the wherewithall to write about it.
Hackle density is generally accepted to get sparser the further north you go, as the bodies get shorter, so it could be about proportions or it could be down the increasingly frugal attitudes that stereotypes have us all cracking jokes about
. Mind you clyde style flies tend to incorporate a small slip of a wing as well and that adds to the density, sort of kills the sterotype as well
What i can do, rather than quoting other people interpretations, is quote one of the main writers/exponants of the North country flies, T.E Pritt, whose book of 1885 "North-Country Flies" Does not contain any photos, only plates with drawings.
The drawings have the Spiders with varying lengths of hackle and varying density, some sweep back and some stand proud so you start to wonder if that relates to the specific imitation. Don't fret just read his text, Pritt didn't tie flies he just fished them and his last paragraph in the introduction to his fly book says this.
"It only remains to be said that the illustrations on the following plates have been carefully copied from flies dressed by various Yorkshire makers. The Originals, or others like them, have done service on half the rivers and lakes of England and Scotland, and have never failed to give a satisfactory account of themselves, despite lugubrious warnings of local hands that "they were no use there". You will be told this probably on every new river visited; yet may you safely fish your own flies and laugh to scorn the dismal prophecies of anglers who believe that the trout in their own river differ in their choice of flies from those of any other river in the universe."
So he at once makes the point they are all tied differently to suit whatever the Maker deems proportionally correct, and that it doesn't really matter, its about confidence and suggestion. Theres a nice hint of Angler Exaggeration in there too
If you look further into the text you will find Pritt's own personal preference which he alludes too with this statement
"Within reasonable limits, the flies for Yorkshire rivers, and for most other rivers of equal size,-for as the size of your river increases so, to a small extent, must your flies- cannot well be dressed too sparingly in the matter of the feather. It stands to sense that to a creature with such wonderful vision as the trout it is better to err in offering a deception, rather too small than too large."
So Sparse was the modern way in 1885 if you thought like Mr Pritt and you fish a bigger fly on a bigger water, but a smaller fly is more likely to catch a fish.
Seems like good sense to me. But i'm sure there are plenty people who would find something different to say
I tried to find some earlier quotes from W C Stewart's book, but the gist of his writings were more about using a fine tippet and presentation and he showed a marked derision for fly patterns. He was a commercial angler so whatever worked that was cheap and effective was his way. Still some good hints there for the modern angler, Fine tippets and presentation is the way
I think a lot of the confusion comes from too many different interpretations that are heralded as "Traditional Style".
That style varied between makers as well as Area, but the general idea and purpose was the same, to make effective flies that were cheap and easy to tie using the available feathers, but still be suggestive enough to fool a feeding fish.
Not much changes really
Sandy
