Conjecture?

[Soft-hackle]

I have been doing some thinking, lately regarding how much theory and conjecture play in our fly fishing. We do quite a lot of it, and I often think our ideas regarding flies, insects, and fish determine how we fish and how successful we are. The thing that puzzles me the most is that our ideas, theories and conjecture are just that. Other than scientific study, which can lead us to discover the reasons for some fish behavior, we sometimes don't have a lot of basis for our beliefs other than our own experience. Experience, however, can be wrong and differ from one person to another. This fact, it seems to me, says that what we think we know, we really don't when it comes to fishing flies.

For example: I recently heard a very experienced wet fly angler say he did not believe that trout zero in on one stage of an ongoing hatch. I have a tendency to agree with this because of my experience, but I know that I've spoken to other fly fishermen that would disagree based on their experience. So when it comes to situations such as this who is to say what's really the answer? Is there an answer? Are we making more out of it than it really is? Do we over-think this pastime of ours making it more complicated than it is?

Mark

[michaelgmcgraw]

Trout keying in on specific phases of a hatch: Nor Board pool on W. Branch of the Delaware River. The individual pods
of fish often key in on a certain stage of the hatch. In the top of the pool it might be nymph,next pod down emergers
then below them duns and going up and down the side margins some real Hogs cleaning up the cripples.
Each pod will be apparently eating that particular stage only.

[Soft-hackle]

Michael,
First, since you responded on the example I was using, can you tell me how you know this regarding the trout keying in on specific stages of the hatch? Second, have you tried fishing a wingless wet fly throughout the hatch? I'm not questioning that the trout could key in on a specific stage, however I am questioning about the experience.

Mark

[redietz]

So when it comes to situations such as this who is to say what's really the answer? Is there an answer? Are we making more out of it than it really is? Do we over-think this pastime of ours making it more complicated than it is?

Question 1: Only the trout know the answer for sure, and they're not talking.
Question 2: Not really. There are flies that work in any give situation and flies that don't. As for what the trout take them for, see question 1
Question 3: Yes, although it's hard to convince ourselves of that when the fish are refusing everything we throw at them. "Wrong presentation" is probably the answer more often than "wrong fly". (Although the latter of course has something to do with presentation. I find that no matter how much floatant I put on a beadhead, I still have the devil of a time fishing it dry.)
Question 4: Of course we do. That's what makes it what makes it endlessly interesting.

I used to be an ardent hatch-matcher. Now, I'm an ardent generalist. That's one of the things I like about about soft hackles - I can fish the same fly anywhere in the water column. I can add floatant and fish it as a dry. Or I can add a few pieces of shot and fish it as a nymph. Or, I can do God and T.E. Pritt intended, and fish it just under. I can fish the fly dead drift or I can work it. If I'm still not not catching fish, then I know it was the wrong soft hackle.

The advantage of having some conjecture about what they're feeding on is that it gives us a staring point. If I observe fish feeding on top during a Hendrickson hatch, I'm probably not going to start off fishing a large stonefly nymph on bottom. I will, however, start with a fly as generic as possible that somewhere around a size 14 that I can fish somewhere near the surface. I don't think it needs to be refined any beyond that.

[hankaye]

Soft-Hackle, Howdy;

Mark, glad to see you back on the forum and with a truly philosophical question.

Isn't it normal (?), for us Human beings to make Mountains out of Mole Hills????
What about Occam's razor... The simplest answer usually being the most correct...

I find myself strongly aligning with redietz's #4

hank

[michaelgmcgraw]

My response was from personnel experience. These were large wild fish heavily fished over, many of which have been caught and released before, they shy away from imitations of the large flies because most of the non regulars always fish flies
imitating the largest flies hatching ( usually more than a couple different species hatching at once) these fish most often fed on the more numerous small flies.From my and 2 of the very adept regulars found the fish did "pick out " a certain stage of the desired? hatching insect then switched to the next stage that became more prevalent in their drift.
Presentation plays a major roll in this and a decent imitation helps a lot. This large glass smooth pool has a small army of
regulars who pound it along with many clumsy amateurs. Fish are fish- its not to say you can't throw them an ant or or cricket
during a dedicated BWO or Pale mayfly hatch and not catch some fish, but they are tough.

[michaelgmcgraw]

As a side note, as I've gotten older I do find myself tying in an impressionist style meaning general size and color scheme to
fit common insects on the small streams or 1 or 2 larger waters I fish. So for me now days it is general imitation and a decent
presentation. Don't want work too hard anymore, just easy going fishing now.
OH! sorry Mark, I did catch one 12inch brown at the very head of the pool with a olive hare's ear flymph on a cold rainy
spring day.

[Roadkill]

If you are talking about opportunistic feeding trout then the stages may mean very little. But based on my own experience when fish are feeding selectively the stages can be an important factor to your success.

I fish 2 fly casts about 90% of the time and often compare results in variation of flies. After fishing over Trico hatches a number of times, I can say that I will not only fish the stage but also the sex of insect. Fish can change selection from male spinners to female egg layers in the span of minutes and the pattern that was hot will go dead until a change is made to what the fish are currently feeding on. For those not familiar with Tricos that can mean both a size and color switch. In the middle of trico hatches I have seen fish switch to BWOs and back again.

During my favorite fly(October caddis) hatch period I have spent entire days fishing a 3 fly rig of Pupa, Emerger, and Adult. I have often seen a decided stage preference change over the course of the day and all three of these flies were similar in size and color. I am also a believer in cripples and have had cripples outfish the corresponding dry many times when both are on the water.

During an emergence give me a start with a soft hackle and an emerger or dry and within about 10 fish I have to decide If I can quit fishing long enough to re-rig to only the hot pattern. Some times I let a breakoff be the opportunity to switch. Some days I set a 10 fish limit on a fly and change to see if I can make something else work as well in the middle of a frenzy.

I think experience is a key, the more the better. Many times you can be in the middle of multiple hatches, if you have enough experience in recognizing rise forms, reading the water, recognizing the bugs, and understanding life stages of fish and insects and how to present your fake bait you have half the battle won. Some times it is the passing of a cloud or change in light that also changes the effectiveness of a fly or my choice of a different tinsel rib. Things like binoculars, bug nets, stomach pumps, or autopsies of the fish in the frying pan can do a lot to broaden your knowledge about fly choices. I find nothing better than learning from the experience of others after the feed has ended. You may get that magiclal moment meeting another fisherman and discussing what worked and what didn't and you get to take home new flies and ideas to try.

After fishing my home waters for 50 years it isn't conjecture when I leave the house what hatches I expect to encounter. But I still have to get to the water and make my observation(part of that scientific study ) before I decide what line to use and where to start the adventure. Heraclites said it best that... It is impossible to step into the same river twice for the river has flowed on.

[redietz]

During my favorite fly(October caddis) hatch period I have spent entire days fishing a 3 fly rig of Pupa, Emerger, and Adult. I have often seen a decided stage preference change over the course of the day and all three of these flies were similar in size and color. I am also a believer in cripples and have had cripples outfish the corresponding dry many times when both are on the water.

I think Mark's point here is that all you really know for certain is that the fish prefer one of those flies at moment. That may have nothing to do with whether you consider that fly to be an emerger or an adult. The difference may be that trout are looking for food at a certain point in the water column. We have an October caddis in a few of the streams that I fish at that time of the year (heavily pressured spring creeks), and a larger Partridge & Orange will almost always take fish when it's on the water. BUT -- I may need to add a small piece of shot or I may need to add floatant to the fly for that to happen. It doesn't necessarily follow that adding a piece of shot made it a pupa, or that adding floatant made it an adult -- although that's certainly one explanation. It may equally be true that the trout are comfortable feeding in one part of the column at a given point.

During an emergence give me a start with a soft hackle and an emerger or dry and within about 10 fish I have to decide If I can quit fishing long enough to re-rig to only the hot pattern. Some times I let a breakoff be the opportunity to switch. Some days I set a 10 fish limit on a fly and change to see if I can make something else work as well in the middle of a frenzy.

I do both of those things as well. It fails to surprise me any longer that the substitute fly (after the ten fish) works as well as the original. Something else I do, when fishing a two fly rig (that's all I'm allowed in Maryland), is to swap the positions of the two flies. Often, the fly which previously hadn't been taking will become the hot fly as soon as it's in the new position (usually the point, but some days the dropper is the hot position.)

I can only remember one time in over thirty years of watching trout eat insects that I've been certain that the fish were focusing on a particular stage. It was during a Hendrickson hatch, and I'd already caught twenty or so fish, so I decided to just watch for a while. There were fish actively feeding within fifteen feet of me, so I was able to get a good view. The hatch had turned to spinner fall at this point in the day, and after 15 minutes of observation, there was no doubt that the fish were passing up flies on the surface that had no egg sac for flies on the surface that did. Any of the hundreds of other times that I've ex post facto decided that a certain fly worked because of the stage of the hatch has been just what Mark called it -- conjecture.

None of this is say that we can't, through experience, learn that certain flies are likely to work under certain conditions. We just can't say, with 100% certainty, why they do.

[Soft-hackle]

Hi Again,
I think Bob has gotten the essence of what I was asking about. We most often seem to formulate how we fish based on our experience which is, many times, conjecture. Sure we know when certain insects hatch, we know the different stages of development, etc. This information helps us to put together our "theory", if you will, of how we fish at specific time, during at specific hatch or when specific insects are present, in a particular stream and part of that stream.

Someone else comes along fishing in a different way, perhaps with different flies and is catching fish as well even during a hatch. Both fishermen are fishing based on their "experience" of what they perceive to be happening at any one given point in time or place or condition. Much of it is based on conjecture, hypothesis, etc. yet both are successful.

Regarding the selectivity of stages during a hatch, I do not doubt anyone's perception that this occurs, but again, this perception is often based upon our conjecture. If a fish is refusing a particular fly in which a particular stage of the hatching insect is represented, we theorize that the fish is not taking that stage, so we try another fly, perhaps representing a different stage and it works. A-HA we think, the fish are taking this stage, not that one. Maybe it wasn't that at all, but maybe how the fly was being fished, or it may be we are now fishing with more confidence because our "theory" tells us we have made the right choice in fly.

What about a fisherman that fishes only one pattern all the time and is very successful? What do you think that fisherman's perception is?

Myself, I have a tendency to believe that most of the time, the change from nymph/pupa to adult occurs so quickly, the fish don't have time to really zero in on a stage. When we perceive the fish as taking cripples is it really because they are taking cripples? Could it be more about fly behavior rather than a stage or as Bob has pointed out, where the fly is in the water column? So, you see, what we do IS often based most on our perception of what is happening at a particular time in the experience. Without knowing for SURE one way or the other what we believe to be true is, in fact true, to me is conjecture.

Mark