FLYMPH FORUM

Soft-hackle wrote:Hi Otter,
My point exactly. The truth is not black and white, yet we portray it as such.

Mark

Could that simply be because we are all eager to pass on our knowledge and experience in the simple belief that it may help others.

Maybe, Otter. It is human nature to do that, and it is also human nature to try to pigeon-hole everything into and orderly, easy to understand fashion. Most humans have trouble dealing with ambiguity. We need definite solutions to ambiguous problems. Just the way it is, I guess.

Mark

Ambiguity appears to be the order of much of what we see.

Suppposing I was an expert and the editor of a publication asked me to write an anrticle on fishing the late june/early july evening caddis hatch on my local river and I wrote such an article - how much use would it be to the reader.

Firstly , it would be based on my experiences of caddis hatches on whatever rivers I fished, and geared to the particular river in question. So unless you fished my river you may gain some knowledge but it may not be terribly accurate for your rivers.

Even if I was 100% correct in what I wrote there is still another major issue. These hatches do not occur in isolation. BWO's will also be very active, there may be some Yelllow Mays about. Water conditions may be different than they usuallly are this time of year. So armed only with the information from my article, a would be angler using that info may find that many of the trout at times are completely ignoring his caddis imitations and could justifiably call my article bullsh.t. And god help him should there be a big fall of BWO spinners, he would probably go home and burn my article and decry me as a nutter.

My point is that , there are many many influences at work at any given time on the river and that it does require an enquiring mind and yes CONJECTURE to assimilalte, digest and react to what is happening in front of us. The more we do this the more valuable will be the experience factor. Experience is not a mere exponential factor of time on the water, it is more about how one uses the time in careful consideration of action and effect of everything that is happening and the mental storing of patterns. Experience will tell every angler what he can expect to happen at any given part of the season, quality experience allied with sensible conjecture will alllow an individual to develop an ability to react to changing circumstances much quicker than an angler that has not applied themselves to question everything.

I do not hold that trout behaviour is particularily complex, or that in general they are particularily clever but I do believe that their environment in which they live and feed is quite complex and how they react when it comes to feeding can also be quite complex, particularily on rivers with good hatches, heavy angling pressure and C&R. The C&R factor is often ignored when we analyse trout behaviour on our particular river, I however believe it to be a vital consideration in one's approach, and why on some rivers it can be vitally important to fish quite specific patterns to hatch stages and to fish them in as natural a way as possible. Should your river be stocked then that changes the whole picture when you enter discussion with someone whose river only holds wild trout.



Black and white..... and grey, blue, pink, green,indigo ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,and orange

Soft-hackle wrote: Roadkill mentioned the Trico hatch. Here's an interesting example where the dun changes so quickly to a spinner, that most of the time, the trout are feeding upon spinners rather than duns.

Are these minute differences in appearance THAT important? If they are, I'm doing something wrong.

And yet, I can usually do better with a size 14 ant during a trico hatch than with a trico imitation. (Although I always force myself to catch a few on tricos one day each year -- then switch to an ant for the rest of hatch.)

I think from that fact, it's possible to conclude that trout aren't so keyed into one species+stage+gender that they won't look at anything else. It's not possible to conclude much else. They may very well have a gender preference IF they're going to take a trico.

It may also be that the black vs. white gender difference is nothing more than a matter of which are easier to see as the sun continues to rise. Or not.

These things only bother me when I'm not catching fish, which, fortunately, seems to happen less frequently than it used to.

lykos33, absolutely a lot of their success comes from confidence and skill....."experience teaches" because, "there is no substitute."
Mark, the truth is not black and white, just as an insect is never just one color.
Otter, don't EVER let 'em call you an expert.....fate worser than death.........worser.
Anybody, where can i get that book by Bob Wyatt?
redietz, seems to me there's something backwards in your last sentence there.....(must just be me.....).....personally i'd consider it "unfortunate" if these things bothered me more when i wasn't catching fish, then when i was. When i'm not catching fish.....it's usually because i'm so wraped up in simply enjoying the location, that "catching" is.......well, something unimportant. And when i am catching fish.....the simple fun of it just takes over and how i did it really......well, doesn't matter.
Success is being there......a fish here and there is just icing on the cake.

willowhead wrote:.....personally i'd consider it "unfortunate" if these things bothered me more when i wasn't catching fish, then when i was. When i'm not catching fish.....it's usually because i'm so wraped up in simply enjoying the location, that "catching" is.......well, something unimportant. And when i am catching fish.....the simple fun of it just takes over and how i did it really......well, doesn't matter.
Success is being there......a fish here and there is just icing on the cake.

That's the way I feel about the second and subsequent fish. I don't care if I catch a lot of fish, in fact often don't even try to set the hook, but I hate to be completely skunked. After that, it's just goofing off in a creative manner.

willowhead wrote:Otter, don't EVER let 'em call you an expert.....fate worser than death.........worser.

Anyone that would call me an expert should immediately seek medical attention

At the end of each season I feel I have learned a little more, but the crazy thing about this pursuit is that the more you learn the more questions you will have.
Its a bit like been stuck in the "Eagles Hotel California", you can check out but you can never leave.

Every single aspect of fly fishing gives me an immense sense of being alive. The fishing , enjoying the natural world, the fly tying, the continual pursuit of feathers and fur, silk and hooks, the comraderie of fellow anglers.
Being able to immerse oneself in conjecture is as noble a pursuit as any of the others. All the better when the conjecture leads to debate with others as individual conjecture is always limited by individual experiences.

Willowhead, the day I stop questioning you can either call me an Expert or more likely say God rest his soul.

I have followed this thread with real interest and there is not too much more that I can add accept that from my experience there are some very simple rules to catching fish.
I have been extremely fortunate to combine passion with work and for the greater part of the past 20 years I have guided in some way - part-titme and full-time. Now that doesn't make me any expert, it just makes me experienced. I am always learning. And you have to when you fish in one year the number of days that an average period may fish in 10 years. Don't get me started on my 'Lombra pattern which is not suited to the format of this forum.
However back to the point. My experience indicates that fish are naturally opportunistic. If it looks like food they will eat it.
So to be successful we have to put our selves into the mind of the fish. Difficult I know and many writers have tried to describe how a fish sees food. I still think we are none the wiser. Colour, size, movement etc can all have a part to play.
So my experience tells me three things:- 1. you don't need a lot of patterns to be successful 2. soft hackles far out fish nymphs and dries over a season 3. size matters and while a large flies triggers a fish to take a fly (opportunistic) small sizes are better.
And it is the latter that is the real killer in this. For example, take fly which you think matches the hatch. Cast it out onto the water and see how it looks. Most times it sticks out like a sore thumb. We tend to over size our selection. A sample from fish killed over a fair period (when I use to catch and not release) indicates that the average size food that trout eat is about 5mm. That is small. Yep, there are large bugs in most autopsies but predominantly it is all small.
A great thread, I am interested to see where this goes. That is why I love this forum and why Mark it will never lose its appeal.

Philip , your idea on small , is a belief that I have slowly come around to in the last few seasons. As I very very rarely kill a fish autopsies were not possible. However last season I did acquire a throat pump, which I used on a small number of occasions and what showed up was very interesting indeed. 70 to 80% 2 - 6 mm stuff in most of the fish. It was hard to ignore this evidence, though the sample was small. I would love to do much further investigation but I have no desire to risk injuring a lot of precious trout so the pump will only be occasionally and carefully used.

Thanks for adding your tuppence worth.