As I walked into the fly shop, a frame located upon the far wall caught my eye. I walked over to view it. As a dresser of salmon flies, I am always interested in seeing flies by other dressers.

I was a little disappointed in what I found. Close examination revealed the fly to be poorly dressed. An attempt had been made to have the tail and topping meet, but had failed miserably. The tag and body, composed of floss, bore a close resemblance to a washboard. The tinsel came close to being precisely wrapped up the body, and the throat hackle was acceptable. The wings looked okay, but I was not real impressed. The head, my gawd, was made of fur, and for a second I thought an entire beaver pelt had been tied on the hook.

Always curious to see at what value other dressers assess their work, I glanced at the price. The tag read in triple figures. I was dazed and confused.

What does the potential purchaser of a salmon fly expect in the way of a product? At $100 or more for a fly, do they expect to find toucan, chatterer, and crow? If the price is $50 do the expectations remain the same? After all, at $50 the price is roughly 30.30303 times the price of an average trout fly. What about a price of $200? More?

Further, exactly how educated will the potential purchaser be as regards salmon flies? Can they tell the difference between a good one and a poor one? What responsibility (if any) lies with the dresser for making certain the product is priced according to the quality of the dressing? If a fly has bustard and seal fur in the dressing, does it automatically qualify for the $150 price range, even if it looks like a buffalo chip? Conversely, if the fly uses turkey and African goat is it automatically consigned to the $1.50 bin?I can answer some of these questions. I believe that the dresser owes the marketplace considerable responsibility concerning the quality of the product. Placing a few toucan feathers over some yellow floss and calling it a Jock Scott just does not cut it. It may be true that many people do not know the characteristics of a well-dressed salmon fly, but that does not absolve the dresser of responsibility. If the price is to be $100, it had better be a fly that has been dressed to perfection, not one that merely utilizes (read wastes) rare materials.

Real materials, in and of themselves, do not make a salmon fly. I do not believe that one out of a thousand buyers of salmon flies can tell chatterer from kingfisher. In fact, I would be surprised if more than 50% of dressers could distinguish chatterer from several of the available substitutes. When I dress a fly, do I use a substitute for chatterer? No way. I use the genuine article: kingfisher. Kingfisher was in vogue long before chatterer became available as a substitute for kingfisher. There are toucan substitutes that can only be told from the real thing by the most expert of experts.

But..., does the use of nonregulation materials condemn the fly to being a lower form of life than a fly tied with regulation materials? I don't think so. A fly tied with turkey, rayon, goat, pheasant, mylar, and chicken, sprinkled with a bit of golden pheasant, can be a salmon fly. In fact, it could hold its head proudly above some of its brethren who, although they may contain some embellishments, clearly resemble a wounded duck.

I could continue, but I elect not to do so. I leave it up to the readers of this publication. You do not even have to dress salmon flies to have an answer to some of these questions. All you need is an opinion.