To me it seems that the true definition of wet fly is fast being lost and there is also a lot of confusion as to what constitutes nymph fishing – so much in fact that it is difficult to write about either method without going to a lot of explanation.  Today on many public waters, a wet fly or nymph can be anything and any size as long as it is cast with a fly rod, or, to be more precise, in the manner adopted for fly casting.  There is no ruling either as to how the line should be fished.  If you wish to let it sink to the bottom or strip it in at the speed of a motor boat, all well and good, providing this is done by hand-lining and not by the cranking of the reel handle.  But where after all, is it leading us?

We have had enough confusion in the past in trying to define wet fly.  This in itself is a misleading term but at least it has its origin in flies.  In many cases the old patterns which were used, and indeed still are, were but sparsely dressed versions of the dry flies which themselves were copies of the natural insects.  You may wish to argue this point and say the wet-fly style of fishing was practised before the dry fly and therefore the dry fly was but a copy of the wet fly.  But I cannot think this is true for I feel positive the fishermen of years ago must have used artificials to float on the surface long before they used them below it.  What indeed led them into the use of wet flies otherwise?

These people were painstaking in their observations and surely must have known there is no such thing as a fly under water of the same shape as those to be seen on or above it.  Yet their dressings of artificials included substantial wings and all the natural colours of the actual fly they aimed to copy.  As we know, and they must have known, the colour of duns and spinners is somewhat different to that of the nymphs.  Alders, sedges and so on, were all tied to look like the hatched fly and not like the nymph or pupa.  This alone should be enough to clear up any doubt, if doubt does indeed exist.

The value of the wet fly, or team of wet flies, was in the way these were fished.  The main attraction to fish was the dancing of the bob fly or dropper at or actually on, the surface.  Many of the smaller wet flies were so sparsely dressed that when being towed through the water, the dressing collapsed to drape the hook and give the streamlined effect of a nymph.  And so in fact the true wet-fly style had a combination of dry fly and nymph.  The bobbing or dipping flies at the surface might well delude fish into thinking they were hatched creatures, while those which draped and dragged deeper were mistaken for nymphs.  The flashers and the fancy wet flies came at a much later date.  No one knew then, or even now, what they represented, or why they were taken.  They were given such names as Invicta, Butcher, Zulu and so on.  But still they were kept at a reasonable size and corresponded roughly with the general size of insect life and other small creatures which were to be found near the surface of the water.  These might well be representations of creatures such as shrimps, corixa, small beetles and maybe, little fish.  They attracted and deceived trout and, what is more, they could be fished in the old wet-fly style.

Later still came the nymphs.  There were evolved to represent the smaller types of the true underwater insects in size, colour, and shape.  In most cases a single artificial served to attract and deceive the trout when they were feeding at or near the surface.  Mostly these were fished with a well-greased line and with the nymph not more than a foot beneath the surface.  Fish took these either as they sank after being cast, or as the artificial was being moved slowly through the water.

Being constructed in a nymph like manner, these artificials needed very little movement and the lightest of tackle could handle them perfectly.  It is true that nymph fishing calls for more concentration by the angler, for few fish hook themselves when taking the slowly-moving artificial.  The nymph is not a wet fly and, indeed, it calls for an entirely separate technique to the wet-fly style of fishing.  A nymph can be defined as being an undeveloped insect of the kind which moves freely through the water, either when swimming here and there for feeding purposes, or when travelling to the surface to change to a fly.  The largest which can come into this category is the nymph of the Mayfly.  A pattern to represent this need not be more than an inch in length.

In which category, then, can we place the big lures and terrors, which are not being used in the pretext of being nymphs of flies, and which, in fact, need a completely different casting technique?  Such fishing cannot be termed wet fly, neither can it be called nymph fishing.  These methods, plus dry fly fishing and dapping, which is a form of dry fly, are named after the creatures the artificials supposedly represent.  Let us search around for clues that may help name the fourth form of fly fishing.

There are nymphs much larger than those of Mayflies – for example, those of the dragon flies, the damsel flies, and the stone flies.  But do fish ever get much chance to see them as they swim in mid-water, or hatch at the surface, I think not.  They are not adapted for swimming and at the time of hatching to a fly, the emergence is made by crawling up banks, rocks, or the stems of the various water plants.  A nymphal representation dragged along near to the bottom might deceive a fish, and perhaps a hatching pattern at the surface could be attractive.  But that is all.

What I have mentioned so far covers anything which can be related to actual nymphs, wet flies, or dry flies.  But many other creatures form the food of trout, including big beetles, minnows, sticklebacks, leeches, loaches, bullheads, and crayfish.  Then there are the fly of perch, roach, rudd and dace, trout fry, small eels, and lampreys.  All are taken freely by feeding fish and a representation of any can be deadly if fished in accordance with the habit of the natural.

There are many representations to choose from, some of a size corresponding with that of the ‘naturals’, which might be three to four inches, or even longer.  It is just as easy to make one of wood, plastic or metal, and often enough the general effect and appearance of the former is much better.  But, just because such materials are used, this creation is called a fly, or perhaps a nymph.

How is it possible to make a distinction and to name the fourth method of fishing when such creations are used, so that in future there need be no confusion?  To me it seems the word fly will have to remain, for it has been with us too long to be altered now, indeed what else can one call it?  And in a way it does help to make a distinction between fly and spinning.  One cannot use the word lure, as in a sense, all types of artificials are lures.  And so I make the suggestion that any fishing carried out with artificials on hooks larger than size 6 should be called ‘deep fly’.  This would be in keeping descriptively and at the same time fall in line with wet fly, dry fly and nymph.  Deep fly could then be a representation of any one of the creatures I have mentioned and others too.  It would be a technique entirely separate and one which could command the kind of tackle most suited for it.

With deep fly in mind, tackle makers could then cater specially for this class of fishing and with rods, reels, lines, leaders and artificials.  Writers, when describing the various fishing tactics employed, could have one more descriptive phrase to use.  Such definition could also simplify rules for fishing.  The size of hook could be the deciding factor.  All artificials on sizes larger than size 6 could come into category of deep flies.

The deep-fly method of fishing is not one I like myself when fishing for brown trout or rainbows.  But I use the technique often enough for salmon or sea trout.  The so-called flies one used for these fish have no natural insect counterparts and so the term fly fishing is again a misnomer.  Wet fly and deep fly in the case of salmon and sea-trout fishing is covered adequately by the terms greased line and sunk line.  For these types of fishing one uses tackle constructed accordingly.  The greased-line outfit cannot cast the big flies one uses with the sunk line.  Neither can the ordinary nymph, dry fly or wet fly rod deal successfully with the creations used in deep fly.

When I first started to write about nymph-fishing, soon after the Second World War, I had no idea that the time might arrive when nymphs would become so popular and likely to supersede the conventional wet-flies as a means of taking fish in most of our waters about the country.  Nor do I think G. E. M. Skues had this in mind, for no longer can nymph-fishing be described as “Minor Tactics.”  But it now appears that many fishermen have come to the conclusion that tyings which are made to conform very closely to the natural nymphs on which fish feed have a much greater chance to deceive than those which must rely almost entirely on movement transmitted by stream or rod to make the dressings drape about the hook and so transform them into something quite different from that accomplished by the fly-tyer.

This is what happens with the great majority of patterns that are tied in so-called wet-fly style.  The actual dressing has little or no resemblance to any creature which can swim, or even hang suspended in midwater, and it is not until movement is imparted that the artificial takes on a shape with some conformity to a creature which can move freely beneath the surface and so appear natural to a fish.

There is no such thing as a fly – that is, a fly with wings and legs – which can swim beneath water in a horizontal plane.  Though it is true there are a number of different kinds which can submerge for the purpose of egg laying, none of these can go beneath water unless it has something on which it can crawl downwards.  For the most part these flies cling very tightly to whatever substance on which they have chosen to make the descent, and, should any mischance occur, when the hold is broken and they become free, they are buoyed very quickly to the surface by air in the body and by some trapped beneath their folded wings.  In static water such an ascent is almost vertical, but in a running stream a certain drift might occur before the surface is reached.  Even then these insects need some substance to which to cling and crawl before they can break through the water film and so return to the air.  Only then will the wings unfold again.  The point I wish to make about these is that no attempt is made to swim.  Perhaps, while these egg layers are beneath water, they could be described as wet-flies, but not I think in the sense which was meant when the first artificials were constructed.

I know a lot of fishermen maintain that some of the wet-fly patterns are made so that the wings, and the hackles representing the legs, can open and close as the artificial drags through the water.  Some advocate a sink and draw, or lift and pause, method of retrieve, to allow this to happen and so that the fly can show life as the wings and leg-fibres move. But I have never seen this happen with any of the wet-fly patterns I have constructed, or with any I have used which have been made by others.  My experience is that the soft materials one normally uses in the construction merely become bedraggled as soon as the patterns become soaked, and, when movement through the water is imparted, the water pressure causes all the dressing to stick to the hook or to whatever body material has been used.

If you cast a wet-fly, or team of wet-flies, into static water and just let them hang stationary, few fish are likely to be attracted to them and even less to take.  Fish do not expect to see dead and bedraggled flies floating about in mid-water and become suspicious when they do.  But it is very different when a drag movement causes the dressing to close up and take on a nymphal form.  The dead and bedraggled creature is quickly forgotten.  When casting downstream or across a current in a river, it is far more simple, because then a drag commences and a closing up of the dressing occurs as soon as the line and leader straightens to cause a pressure.

Anyhow, I think I have written more than enough to explain the point I wished to make when I started this article – which simply is to question the need to make artificials with wings and legs and which to us look like flies, when what the fish expect to see are tyings which conform very closely to the form of nymphs.  Why not construct nymphal patterns in the first place and then fish them in an imitation of nymph behaviour?  Though it is true that many fish have been caught with wet-flies, and no doubt many others will be taken in the future, it is not because the actual art of the fly-tyer has deceived them.

Patterns which, to fish, look like nymphs the moment they enter the water are far more likely to attract and deceive than any which have to be transformed, and so a decided advantage is to be gained.  Fish will take a well made nymph pattern even as it sinks or if it should hang stationary in mid-water.  No fast movement through the water is desirable and there is no need for sink and draw, or for lift and pause.  Just a slow and even drag will give all the movement that is required.

Years ago I came to the conclusion that no fibres are necessary to suggest legs on artificial nymphs for, as I explained in my book “Nymphs and the Trout,” when nymphs swim, their legs are held in streamline form, and therefore should not be noticed by fish, or if so, only as part of the body.  Time has proved this to be true for today the “Sawyer” patterns are used throughout the world and many thousands of fish have been deceived by them.

Nymphs tied in true nymphal form are much easier to construct than any patterns of wet-flies, and though perhaps the finished articles are not so spectacular to look at from the human point of view, it is the fish that must act as the judges.