So I just spent the afternoon looking for open water on my favorite stream in the Northern Berkshires, and I found approximately 30 square feet of bathtub-sized holes in shallow, fishless riffles. Frustrating. The vice beckons. But something's been bugging me.

I grew up tying in the largely pre-synthetic era. For nymphs, received wisdom back then was that dubbings with buggy, spiky, often mottled guard hairs were the best: muskrat, hare, squirrel, etc. Now, it seems like everyone is using synthetic blends with uniform, soft fibers. If anything, pearlescent tinsel (a la ice dub) has replaced guard hairs as the standard x-factor. Some of this stuff is pretty uniform. All flash, no spike. Nymphs have gotten much more translucent and shiny, but also much less spiky and...well...buggy.

I'm guessing that this affects the hydrodynamics of the fly. Spiky bugs move differently. Maybe more.

Because I'm an old fart before my time, I sometimes get annoyed by how streamlined and plasticky-looking nymphs are these days. But because I like to catch fish, I recognize how effective they are. My boxes are full of both.

The question is this: Could you catch just as many fish with 10 hare's masks died in different colors as you could with all this proprietary synthetic stuff? On the one hand, people like Gary LaFontaine made enormous contributions with synthetics. I use just as much plastic as the next guy. On the other hand, the fly fishing industry makes a lot of money steering people away from good, cheap, old fashioned hides....

By way of disclaimer: this is cabin fever talking.

Nick