The "Humpy" is, perhaps, one of the top five, at least top 10, most popular dry fly attractor patterns. I could caveat that by saying "in the Western U.S." and save myself some discussion, but won't. While it is a "Western" pattern, it is one of those flies that just seems to attract fish wherever it is used. And, like any good attractor pattern, it is "buggy" looking without being exactly imitative of anything in particular.

Depending on the color chosen, it can represent a caddis, green drake, stonefly, "hoppers," beetles, and, in small sizes, blue-winged olives or even midges. As it is currently and commercially tied, it floats high, is comparatively easy to see, and makes an excellent indicator fly when fished with a nymph dropper. It has been called "arguably, the greatest surface fly ever devised" (Randall Kaufmann, Tying Dry Flies, Revised Edition [1995], p. 114), "Humpy, the Wonder Fly" (Charles Brooks, Larger Trout for the Western Fly Fisherman [1983], p. 124), "a pattern that most local fly fishermen would never be without" (Craig Mathews and John Juracek, Fly Patterns of Yellowstone [1987], p. 59), "the number one choice of some of our better fly fishermen" (Terry Hellekson, Popular Fly Patterns [1979], p. 31), and "a standard bearer...[whose] versatility has taken it around the world" (Pat Barnes, "Goofus Bug Evolution" in American Angler & Fly Tyer, Spring 1990, p. 56).

..... Semantics and Proper Attribution .....

Both Randall Kaufmann in his book Tying Dry Flies, Revised Edition (1995) and Charles Brooks in his work Larger Trout for the Western Fly Fisherman (1983) use the same basic phrase - "Its origin is cloudy" & "whose origin is somewhat cloudy" - to describe the Humpy's beginning. That is the "politically correct" or gentle way of indicating that there is a certain controversy regarding proper attribution as to creator and place of origin. It is a controversy I was introduced to the first time I went to purchase tying materials for the fly and one that many flyfishing authors tend to either steer clear of or tiptoe around.

However, as time has passed (and given that I'm not exactly known for my tact), it has become apparent that many are more than willing to cut through the "cloudiness." This has to do with a recognition that the "controversy" is really an argument over "semantics" of both name and specific tying style rather than a misrepresentation of who created the pattern and where it originated. In other words, there is a difference between giving proper attribution to the creator of the pattern and who was primarily responsible for its promotion and, eventually, the name it is best recognized by.

Huh? Well, let's start with the name, since this is a significant part of what creates the "cloudiness." The basic pattern has been, and to some degree still is, referred to by three different names depending on your geographic location and your time frame. If you're in Montana, you will tend to hear this fly referred to as the "Goofus Bug." In California, you might still hear reference to the original version - i.e., the Horner Deer Hair. It is in Wyoming that the name "Humpy" got its start; this, according to Pat Barnes (more on him in a minute), supposedly by well-known tyer Jack Dennis who is credited with creation of the "Royal" version of the Humpy. (The Royal Humpy combines the basic Humpy tail, body, and hackle, with the white, calf tail wings of the Royal Wulff; which is yet another name the fly is known by - "the poor man's Wulff.")

When I first entered a small fly shop in Northern California many years ago and asked for materials to tie the Yellow Humpy, I was given the story of the fly's true name and originator by a man who knew and admired Jack Horner. At the time, I didn't know there was a 'controversy' based on regionalism. Neither did I know how much 'heated' discussion the topic could engender. Yet, these days, especially since the fly is almost universally recognized by the name "Humpy" and given that most authors/experts are now (uh, there was a time guys, you can admit it) willing to at least mention Jack Horner, the majority of fly anglers are unaware that a "cloudiness" even existed.

Jack Horner was a California fly fisherman and fly tyer associated with the famous Golden Gate Angling & Casting Club. (Of note is the fact that the club uses the Horner Deer Hair Fly as a significant portion of their logo - see http://ggacc.org/) The club is well-known for its three ponds. In "the day," two ponds were used primarily for teaching people "tournament casting;" e.g., accuracy and distance for score. According to a friend who was active with the club, Jack Horner would take up residence at the third pond and help fly anglers learn "fishing casts;" e.g., getting the fly where it needs to go in less than ideal circumstances and with real flies and/or combinations thereof.

As a fly tyer, Jack Horner was known for his use of and ability with deer hair. Sometime in the "early" 1940's, Horner came up with the Horner Deer Hair Fly (though Pat Barnes repeatedly refers to it as the "Little Jack Horner," it is better known or, at least, more often referred to as the "Horner Deer Hair"). As indicated, today, there is virtually no dispute as to the fact that this is the original version of the Humpy.

Remember, my friend knew and respected (even idolized) Jack Horner and he is the one who provided my first insight into the "issue." I have heard Bob Jacklin (see Jacklin's Favorite: For Spring, Summer, or Whenever), who purchased his shop location from Pat Barnes (we'll get to him), unequivocally give credit to Jack Horner as the originator. Craig Mathews and John Juracek, in their book Fly Patterns of Yellowstone [1987] (p. 59) state that Frank Matarelli (famous for his fly tying tools) told them "that Jack Horner of San Francisco came up with this gem many years ago." And, without going through a litany of other sources, the capstone can be found in two articles by Pat Barnes himself where he definitively states that:

"It was originally tied by Jack Horner, a great fisherman and fly tyer." ("Flies For Float Fishing: Jughead and Goofus Bug" in Fly Tyer, February 1979, p. 12)

"The original version of the fly was tied in the early 1940s by Jack Horner of San Francisco." ("Goofus Bug Evolution" in American Angler & Fly Tyer, Spring 1990, p. 56).

However, such admissions still appear to be grudgingly given with some saying it is "the cousin" of the Humpy. I have personally heard Jack Dennis prevaricate on the topic. Even Pat Barnes, so definitive in the above statements, states that the Little Jack Horner "was, by today's standards, akin to the Model T Ford." ("Goofus Bug Evolution" in American Angler & Fly Tyer, Spring 1990, p. 56). Later, as a sidebar to this same article, Barnes further equivocates, seeks absolution, or proffers an olive branch, depending on your loyalties, by stating"

"In the realm of fly patterns there are few patents or copyrights. Unless your name is incorporated into the fly's name, personal notoriety as the originator of a fly pattern is fleeting at best. Regardless of how the pattern came about, its name can be the subject of friendly, heated debate... [You'll note, with no small amount of irony, that even Barnes has called attention to the fact that the fly did have the originator's name in the fly with his reference to it as the "Little Jack Horner.] The name of this fly pattern is forever relegated to a schizophrenic existence...its name will continue to be a source of confusion for the novice and a rich topic of debate for those who have been with the sport for a number of years..." (p. 57)

In the book Trout Country Flies From Greater Yellowstone Area Masters (Bruce Staples, 2002), Barnes' article is referenced as the "best genesis in print of this fly." (p. 48) (You will note the regionalism present in this citation given that Staples lists the fly as the "Goofus Bug" and points out that the name "Humpy" applies to those coming from Wyoming sources, with no mention of Jack Horner.) The trouble is that, while being an excellent history by an individual directly involved in the development of today's Humpy, it stops just short of admitting that the differences he cites (and alludes to as justifications/rationalizations for the name changes) are literally no more than "splitting hairs." While he notes the alterations in style and who should be credited with these differences, he spends too little time, in my opinion, giving Jack Horner proper approbation.

The two, "major" differences between the Horner Deer Hair Fly and today's Humpy are:

1.) The Horner Deer Hair Fly used only four turns of what would now be considered low-quality hackle. Horner's idea was for the fly to float "on the water and not above it." (see Mathews and Juarcek, p. 60 and Hellekson p. 31) To my memory, the rationale was found in what Horner was trying to emulate and his faith in the floatation properties of the deer hair. (see http://www.danblanton.com/brshrimpsty.html for yet another Horner based pattern, along with some discussion of Horner and the Humpy)

2.) The Horner Deer Hair Fly did not have the "wings" of divided deer hair (made from the tips of the "shell" or "humped back") of the Humpy.

This is why I say that the regionalism involved in claiming credit for the Humpy is, literally, "splitting hairs." Just because today's fly incorporates a variety of thread colors, is more heavily hackled for additional floatation, and divides the deer hair's tips into wings rather than trimming them off, doesn't mean it is a different pattern. It simply means that a different tying style was used to address different needs/situations.

If you were to use elk instead of deer hair, as many do (including myself), when tying the fly, does that make it a different pattern? If, instead of the standard brown or brown and grizzly hackly, you were to substitute dun or olive-dyed grizzly, would that make it a different pattern? If you were to trim the deer hair tips like on the original Horner Deer Hair Fly, then add calf tail for the "wings" (as Jack Dennis did in creating the Royal Humpy), would that consititute a radically new pattern or simply a variation, no matter how successful or innovative, on the original? How about if you were to tie the underbody with polypropolene yarn for even more flotation and greater bulk as they often do in Idaho and Montana? Does that rise to the level of "new?"

While I could cite numerous variations, I think you get my point. It's not that I see the Humpy suddenly reverting in name; if nothing else, it is too iconic as names go and there is the niggling fact there there are minor differences from the original. It's not even that I sense, see, or divine any nefarious and concerted effort to "rob" or deny Jack Horner the credit that is his due. And, finally, it is not a matter of my own regionlism coming to the fore.

..... Why All The History? .....

There are three reasons for going through such an in-depth analysis of the history behind the name. First is the simple fact that I feel credit should be given where credit is due. Second is the fact that you will hear this fly referred to by the above names; not just as the Humpy. Although that is, by far, the most recognized name for the generic pattern, there are still places where you could wind up with something a little different or even, and this occasionally catches even me by surprise, find a place that sells flyfishing tackle that doesn't know it by that name.

Finally, as exemplified even in the early history of this pattern, there exists today a huge number of variations, most of them minor, on the basic pattern. Umpqua Feather Merchants does not hold a proprietary claim to this fly; nor are they the exclusive producers of the pattern. In fact, this is where Pat Barnes becomes a major factor in the history of the fly. (I knew you'd been waiting anxiously for why this gentleman is so prominently situated in our narrative.)

Without going into a lengthy narrative, let's just take Barnes' own recollection:

"...I heard stories of his good catches on a vairety of streams with one of his patterns made of deer hair. I listened to these stories as I do most fishermen, but on repetition listened less intently than did my wife Sig. She got an on-the-spot lesson on tying Jack's deer hair fly and afterwords suggested we stock them. Her suggestion was ignored until later. The later came when I was out on Cliff Lake...with George Fay. George had just purchased a beautiful fly rod from E.C. Powell and asked me to try it. At that time, I was fishing and selling rods built by Lew Stoner and thought that it was sacrilegious to even touch a rod built by anyone else... [The story of the battles between Powell and Stoner bamboo rods at casting competitions is another, legendary story. Suffice to say that Powell Rods is still around, even though it was sold to a corporate entity a number of years ago by Powell's sons, but one of the grandsons still makes custom cane rods. And Lew Stoner? His progeny is the R.L. Winston Rod Company; the name "R.L. Winston" being derived from the initials from the first names and a conjoining of the last names of the two men who started the company - Robert Winther and Lew Stoner.] I took the rod and cast to one of the numerous fish rising near the boat. There was a strike...and the fish broke off. I asked for another tippet, another fly. He handed me a box of flies marked Little Jack Horner...This time when the fish took I treated the fish that rose, a 2 1/2 lber, more gently...I landed the fish and before dropping him back in the lake I removed two identical deer hair flies from the fish's mouth: One I put in the sheep skin band in my hat... The next day while in the shop several people asked about the leader dangling from my hat. I told them the story, showed them the fly. It wasn't long before we were in full production on Little Jack Horners..." ("Flies For Float Fishing: Jughead and Goofus Bug" in Fly Tyer, February 1979, pp. 12 - 13; see also "Goofus Bug Evolution" in American Angler & Fly Tyer, Spring 1990, p. 56).

In other words, Pat Barnes and, more specifically, his wife Sig Barnes, are credited with being the first to offer this fly commercially. Later in his article "Goofus Bug Evolution," Barnes notes that Dan Bailey's began offering variations of the fly in the early 1950s; with Orvis following suit in 1973. Today, there are any number of companies which offer the Humpy as a 'standard' pattern; standard being a relative term given the number of variations. The most common versions commercially available are the Yellow (probably the most popular), Red, and Royal (red being more popular than the yellow in this variation). However, a quick check of several 2006 and 2007 retail catalogs show the following...

Royal Humpy (Red), Humpy (Fire, Flourescent Green, Yellow, Pearl), Drunken Humpy (Black/Yellow, Brown/Orange), Royal Yellow Humpy, Yellow Goofus Bug, Humpy (Green), Royal Green Humpy

Then there's the Double Humpy (two yellow Humpies on a long shank hook) and the large, Orange Humpy tied for Steelhead. There's also the fairly famous Blonde Humpy. Of course, let us not forget the dark Humpies tied with black deer, black elk, or dark moose hair.

So, again, know what you want lest you end up with a variation that isn't what you thought it was going to be. To that end, the 2006 Umpqua Feather Merchants Wholesale Product Catalog (I haven't seen the 2007 edition) lists the following...

..... Available From Umpqua .....

The standard Humpy is listed as being available in Green, Red, Yellow, Royal, and Royal Yellow. The difference between the Royal and Royal Yellow is the underbody or "belly" color; Red for the "Royal" and Yellow for the Royal "Yellow." I think, but have not been able to confirm, so I could be wrong, that Umpqua is the distributor of the "Fire" version for 2007; kind of a fiery orangish/red underbody color.

The sizes, all on standard dry fly hooks, are listed thus -

Green, size 12 - 16
Red, size 10 - 18
Royal, size 12 - 18
Royal Yellow, size 12 - 16
Yellow, size 10 - 18

Prices vary from $1.75 - $1.95 for the Umpqua versions. Again, given the variety of companies which offer this pattern, prices may be substantially lower or moderately higher depending on your retail outlet and their source.

..... Tying Them .....

In Fly Patterns of Yellowstone (1987, p. 60), Mathews and Juracek make the observation that the "Horner Deer Hair Fly is a difficult fly to tie..." Uh, yeah. Got any other obvious little tidbits for us?! I discovered this when I first tried tying a Humpy; which happened to be one of the first patterns I ever tried to tie. (Ah, the foolishness and confidence [not to mention "ignorance"] of youth.) Does such understatement come naturally or have you guys been cultivating that sense of humor?

Okay. Maybe I'm overemphasizing a little; but, not by much. Let me start by saying that I don't know anyone who likes to tie Humpies. Then let me say that I know a lot of tyers who loathe tying Humpies. In fact, even some of the most avid tyers I know actually buy their Humpies. Finally, I'll admit to the slightly embarrassing reality that it took me years before I was able to tie Humpies consistently that I'd actually admit to having tied and were usable on the water.

The first time the process of tying them made sense to me was when I was standing in an Oregon fly shop and they were playing one of the Jack Dennis videos that demonstrated how to tie the pattern. Perhaps the best book in terms of written/illustrated instruction is Randall Kaufmann's Tying Dry Flies. But, it was LeRoy Hyatt who demonstrated the "trick" that allows me to make 'em work at the vise. (Hyatt is an "Idaho tyer" who co-hosts and ties all the flies for the excellent PBS series Fly Tying: The Angler's Art. see http://kwsu.publictelevision.org/stations/kwsu/programs.asp?sid=1001&pid=2)

The "trick" is to appropriately measure the length of the deer hair to be used for the shellback or "hump." I personally think Hyatt's tails come out a little too long (even if they are "traditional" length for dries) and bushy. But, the traditional length on his tails does help consistently measure the correct length for the back. (It looks like he demonstrates how to tie a Humpy in Program 110 of the series - see http://kwsu.publictelevision.org/stations/kwsu/episodes.asp?eid=84&pid=2)

I also find that I like using yearling elk hair on the smaller (size 16 - 20) versions I tie. Elk hair has slightly better durability and flotation than deer hair and the smaller diameter of the yearling elk makes it easier to use in the small sizes. "Natural" deer hair is considered standard. But, the color range can be anywhere from the tannish of natural, to brown, to black. The underbody or "belly" which gives the "color" of the Humpy is typically made from the tying thread. But, it can be made with floss, dubbing, yarn, or other materials.

As for the hackles... Unlike the Horner Deer Hair Fly, today's Humpy is tied with a heavy collar of hackle. It is fairly standard, particularly in size 16 and larger, to tie in two hackles. Unlike the original Horner Deer Hair Fly which called for only four turns of hackle, it is not unusual to have three or four turns from two hackles behind the wing tips and another three or four turns in front of them. The predominant color is brown. But, mixed brown and grizzly is almost as common. Again, the color of the hackle will be determined by the color variation you are attempting based on what you are trying to achieve. Are you wanting to tie a standard Yellow Humpy, a Blonde Humpy, a Royal Humpy, or a "Green" Humpy which might pass for a Green Drake?

Regarding the actual tying steps, I strongly suggest you consult the Hyatt video cited above, one of the Jack Dennis videos which covers the topic such as Tying Western Dry & Trout Flies - With Mike Lawson & Jack Dennis (I believe the DVD runs somewhere between $19.95 and $24.95), and browse through Randall Kaufmann's Tying Dry Flies. After that, I then heartily recommend you seek professional help; both in terms of a competent tyer who can walk you through the steps and a probably a psychiatrist who can get to the bottom of why you insist on being able to tie the fly yourself.

..... Final Thoughts .....

Other than as a general, "I don't know what to put on," can't discern a hatch so "I'll put something on," and/or "I know this works" kind of pattern, the Humpy is most commonly used as a caddis imitation. But, as noted at the beginning, this thing will work for almost any hatch. It's one of those satisfying little exercises to be able to tie on this "buggy" looking thing and hook fish while the "match-the-hatch" types are furiously changing to more 'exact' imitations.

The Humpy truly comes into its own in heavy, riffled water. Between the deer hair and the heavy hackle, this fly is not "unsinkable," but it does tend to float where others can't. It is also fairly visible; this primarily due to its bulk. (The white, calf tail wing of the Royal versions also helps visibility.) All of this helps the novice and the experienced, the eagle-eyed and those of us who have reached the stage where in-sight and experience must sometimes substitute for eye-sight.

Despite these qualities, the Humpy can be cast fairly readily; even with "lighter" tippets. In fact, it is sometimes advantageous to let the fly land with a "thump" rather than in the thistle down preferred with most dries. Again, the flotation properties help in such a delivery. For instance, hoppers tend to land in a splash, caddis dries can "wake," and stoneflies will make some "noise" on the water's surface.

If I were limited to only five dry flies for just about anywhere fish will take floating insects, the Humpy would be one of them. (The others I'll take the Fifth on for now.) Do I call it a Horner Deer Hair Fly? Not usually. Just when I'm in certain company. Have I ever referred to it as a "Goofus Bug?" Not when I wanted a Humpy and/or only in certain areas of Montana.

But, hey. Why split hairs?

© "morilla" 2007

Recommended: Yes