Fishing Flies

When I looked back in my diaries, I read that the first flies in my large Bondal series had already been developed more then twenty years ago. Today, the complete series of the Bondals contain 30 individual patterns. The dressings didn’t change much over the years, but the patterns themselves went through a major modification about four years ago when I also tie them on tubes. My close contact with friends like Jurij Shumakov and Bob Kenley surely had a big influence on that decision. Bob had sent me a few Blair mice, developed by his friend William Blair, to try in the Yukon in 2003. The results were amazing, because with them, I caught my biggest pike and lake trout ever. After I helped Jurij with a whole range of articles for some of his editorial works, he sent me some of his patterns in return for some further editorial work of mine. I got hooked on his wonderful tube flies immediately, and the way Jurij had tied his new generation of tube flies stimulated me enormously to experiment with tube flies again. The last time I had fished with tubes was in the ninteen eighties in the Norwegian rivers Orkla and Gaula, when tubes and Waddington’s went through a little reintroduction process as well.

Let’s look at some history on my Bondal series. The first prototype arose in 1988 at the River Bondal in Norway. I designed the pattern in a cabin close to the banks of the river during one of those days when you were better off staying inside due to the unbelievably bad weather conditions. Until than, I had fished the Bondal River along with a good friend for several years in a row, but sadly without any success at all. In that time we usually just fished the Bondal for one or two days only. Day tickets were hard to obtain, especially for the stretches which we were so eager to fish.. In this particular year I was very lucky because I was able to get a licence as soon as the heavy rain finally stopped. I was really happy because the ticket was for the sea pool, the only “fly only” stretch, and best pool of the entire river. I had been hoping for that chance for so long, and the reward was enormous. I hooked and landed four fish that day. I named the fly after the river and the silver body colour of the fish, and that is how the Bondal Silver came to life.

The Bondal Silver was the first pattern on which I caught a salmon below the surface. Until then, I only had succeed with dries in north and central Scandinavia. After my success with the Bondal Silver, I got more interested in hairwings, and my confidence started to build. Between 1989 and 1991, I did some extensive experiments with the same patterns in central Norway, basing these tests particularly on the length of the wing. My conclusions were striking. In the same period, I also started some other experiments with different beard or throat hackle material. I got the “magic touch” while I was after salmon in the estuaries of the Fosen Peninsula at Norway’s west-coast.

When I had sent a few of my latest patterns to the USA, I started to concentrate even more on hairwings. The greatest motivation for this was the conclusion my American friend Dick Lemmerman was coming to. He was really crazy about one particular pattern of my Bondal series. The Bondal Black was his absolute favourite for the Margaree River in Nova Scotia. Dick renamed the fly “The Dutchman’s Balls”. I have no idea why, but the name had already become so popular that I have to use it myself to prevent confusion. With the advent of the Bondal Black, even more hairwings evolved and the series got larger and larger, and became the inspiration for my Pulsar series as well. Today, the Bondal series includes about 15 difference patterns, which are worthwhile to try for Atlantic Salmon in Europe, Russia and eastern North-America.

The dressings and more backgrounds

Hairwings are an easy tie, but I insist on some differences based on my personal preferences and experience. First for me, the hook must be down eyed, because I fish my flies with a lot of action and just below the surface. I firmly recommended the CS42, or “Bomber” hook from Partridge. The shape is beautiful. I believe that a down-eye hook with a special kind of turtle knot produces a more natural drift during fishing, and a superior-hooking angle. The hook has a fine wire, is very sharp and extremely durable, and the barb is small and easy to remove. Over the years, I have fished many waters in which barbed hooks were not allowed, and I didn’t find any differences whether using a barb or not. The greatest difference with my new generation of hairwings has to do with the beard (or throat) of the fly. Nowadays, I use dyed rabbit fur exclusively for all the beards on my Bondals and Pulsars. I prefer to use the soft and long hairs of a zonkerstrip, and use a considerable bunch of it at that, with very long fibres, sometimes almost reaching the hook point. I tie it in long and for a very good reason. A long beard you can easily make shorter just by pulling off some fibres between the thumb and forefinger. The fly has an unbelievable action, and definitely has a superior attraction for fish. Although many people say that traditional jungle cock eyes sometimes can be deadly, I removed them from all my fishing flies. I find no evidence that they do any good whatsoever. In order to give my flies a personal touch, I tied in a tail of teal fibres and add a few longer fibres of teal as a sheath over the wing as a kind of topping. Finally I use a more powerful technique to secure the wing because I prefer durability above appearance. This technique you will find in the tying instructions. A beautiful small head of the fly surely looks great, but do you think the fish would mind?