Regarding "Some Thoughts on Salmon Fly Tying" (October 1992), I was not offended in the least by this letter. When I finished reading it I was in a wild-eyed raging fury! Hot under the collar! Ready to bust a few b~s! We're talking "someone is going to be toasted"!! Actually, I found the letter quite interesting. In fact, I could even have seen it addressed at myself in particular!

There are several salmon fly tiers who regularly ask me to critique their work. The purpose of these critiques is to help people become better tiers and to give them a different perspective on the rendition of the pattern that I am looking at. Someone overhearing one of these critiques could certainly misconstrue my intentions and purpose. Perhaps, for example, I find that the tinsel is not evenly spaced as it advances up the body. I would probably say "the tinsel is terrible". I am appalled by the lack of skill used in tying the tinsel onto the fly. The beginning is not clean, the wraps are not even and it does not finish beneath the hook. I can also see the start of the tinsel from the far side of the fly. Next time, get out the ruler and measure your spacing of the tinsel! Does my critique suggest that the tinsel has been tied incorrectly? Do I disagree with the methods employed (actually, the results obtained) by the tier? Because my tinsel has been measured and is accurately spaced, are my flies better that the other tier's?

Most any artist (and that is basically what salmon fly tiers are) looks for criticism of their work. Without any disagreement regarding the finished concept, there is no room to grow and learn. Without someone to guide a tier to the next level of expertise, even if it is through criticism and encouragement, how can they expect to advance? I readily admit to criticizing other people's work. (He admits it! What a snob! Hang 'im high, that's what I say!!) On the other hand, if I like it I say so as well.

It is certainly possible for someone listening to my critiques to come to the conclusion that what I would have done is the only right and proper way. But that's not the point. The point is that an exchange of ideas has taken place. If the tier agrees with me, then perhaps they will learn something. If they disagree with me, so be it. They like what they have done, I do not, time goes on. (He thinks he's high and mighty doesn't he?)

The author of the letter continues on to suggest that there is no "right or wrong" way to tie a salmon fly. I disagree. If I decide to attach my tail to the point of the hook and leave bare thread advancing around to the head, have I tied a salmon fly correctly'? Of course not. There is a framework within which all salmon fly tiers work. While this framework is undefined (and these days it is constantly being stretched) it can be defined rather simply. If you look at a fly and your brain says "that’s a salmon fly" then you have worked within the boundaries of what is acceptable as a salmon fly. To use an analogy, let's take a house. Is there one correct way to build a house? Of course not. On the other hand, one would not consider a skyscraper a house although it is a building. But there are certainly conventions used in house building.

Particular architects have a style of house design that is noticeable. This does not necessarily make one architect's house design better than another's, unless the second architect is attempting to design in the style of the first. Enough about real estate. (About time too! I thought this was about fly tying!)

There is a further distinction between "right and wrong" in tying flies. This is the question of "presentation flies". Any fly tied as a presentation fly should basically be flawless in execution. One of the things I find most enjoyable about tying salmon flies is the difficulty in executing numerous steps while attempting to make each one perfect. (I've seen it before - masochistic tendencies!) I have never done it. If you carefully look through your fly box for an Elk Hair Caddis, how many would you consider suitable for framing? Every one? If not, why not? Your answer to that question will tell you whether there is a right or wrong way to tie a fly. (In reality what it will tell you is what you like and dislike. Only too often has this been equated with right and wrong.) In salmon flies, the question of right or wrong may not be tapered or untapered bodies, but having made the selection how well has it been executed? (HEAR! HEAR! - Ed.)

As to the question of authentic versus substitute materials, I concur with the author's sentiments. Birds raised in a captive environment by breeders should be a viable source for the rarer feathers. Otherwise, substitutes should be the rule. (What a heretic! Burn him at the stake!!) My way of thinking suggests that substitute materials are more than adequate, provided that the substitutes compliment the fly in the same manner that the original materials do. A substitute that does not do justice to the material it is replacing is not a substitute.

As I once heard someone say: "The only real Jock Scott that was ever tied was the first one. After that they have all been replicas." To insist that one is tying an authentic fly simply because rare materials have been used is in my estimation a grave oversight. What is a real Jock Scott? If the numerous authors of salmon fly books cannot agree on the same dressing for this fly, how can one insist that one has tied an authentic fly, or even a better fly for that matter, simply because Chatterer has been used for the cheeks? Does the fact that a rare feather has been incorporated into the dressing somehow make this fly right?

I've put my two cents worth into this discussion. It is time to hear from other tiers. I will make no apologies for ruffling a few hackles. If you disagree with the opinions set forth in this essay, then write back with a response that says I've sniffed too much head cement!