From Conjecture

[Soft-hackle]

I am continuing the discussion into this thread since the original was to be more about conjecture than it was matching insect stage.

So, gentlemen (and ladies who are interested), have we resigned ourselves to the fact that we must not only be hatch matchers, but stage matchers as well? I find this somewhat confusing, especially since nobody has even touched upon the practice of fishing only a small selection of flies(3-5) during the year. I have read of anglers that do so and continuously catch fish. This fact would not only shoot holes in the idea that stage is important, but that matching the hatch might be far less important than we think.

Again, I put to you the fact that transition from nymph/pupa to adult can be measured in seconds, maybe even micro-seconds in some cases, yet we think that flies depicting specific stages during a hatch must be used? 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.

Mark

[hankaye]

Soft-hackle, Howdy;

Mark, interesting thoughts for the first cup of coffee.

I was prompted yesterday to check-out (haven't bought it as yet ... but, it's next), Dave Hughes' book about matching hatches and bug ID.
Amazon gives us a chance to read a few pages (helps set the hook ... sorry couldn't help myself),

Chapter 1 pages 2-3 Mr. Hughes tells a story of bug ID that sounds like it might be me (me being the 'other' fisherman).

The simlpistic way of doing the ID as well as the way #2 matched the hatch I like.

I would surmise that many of us would tend to be to 'exact' with our attempts therefore making work out of a pleasurable past time. Someone on here mentioned to me in a post that I should pay attention to Mayfly, Stonefly and Caddis. The inference was that if I/anyone, were to do so I/they, would/should be able to fish succesfully almost anywhere almost anytime.

I am a firm believer in the K.I.S.S. Rule (Keep It Simple Stupid, not that I am infering that anyone other than myself is stupid). That and Occam's Razor are things that I have found effective for ME. I can not speak for others. perhaps we as a collective are a 'tad' overly anylitical, but that is all part of the FUN (?).

Am I anywhere near where you feel this thread should be going???

help me out here Mark... on my third cup now.
hank

[Roadkill]

.
Again, I put to you the fact that transition from nymph/pupa to adult can be measured in seconds, maybe even micro-seconds in some cases, yet we think that flies depicting specific stages during a hatch must be used? 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.
Mark

Mark that transition can last a long time not just seconds but can extend for minutes ... a half hour... or longer. Mayflies are ephemeral but do you fish mayfly dries? Do you consider size when tying on a fly? That size is generally dictated by the stage (or instar) of development with the adult being the last instar. Cripples dont change in microseconds. Other than a few drowned tricos all my trico patterns are spinners!

Am I wrong that Hidy created the flymph as a stage? I am confused by your current "conjecture" against stages and my interpretation of your "Flymph" quote on your homepage? The flymphs I tie can be very generalist or more specific in size or color for a certain bug at a certain stage. I don't advocate that any flyfisher must use anything.

Nymphs with incomplete metomorphosis don't undergo much of a change but bugs with complete metomorphosis vary considerably from egg, larava, pupa. I don't advocate trying to tie an insect egg fly but stages of fish development (egg, alevin, fry...)are fished very successfully as are flies with egg sacs that have clearly been observed in nature in selective feeding.

One size certainly doesnt fit all. It isn't a matter of being wrong it is merely a matter of preference. I fish regularly with a friend that spends most of his time starting and/or fishing with one #16 Parachute Adams. Another friend's mother spent over 60 years with one fly on one creek and was perfectly happy. The Sanchez Convertible is one fly that can cover a lot of generalist bases but I don't want to spend a year fishing it. Successful one fly fishermen that I know usually are using a pattern that mimics many insects in nature but even they have that fly in many sizes. Flyfishing isn't a one fly contest for me rather a celebration of divesity of flies and methods. There are anglers who fish nothing but dries and catch fish but that doesn't shoot holes in my nymphs and flymphs any more than Halford did to Skues.

[Otter]

So, gentlemen (and ladies who are interested), have we resigned ourselves to the fact that we must not only be hatch matchers, but stage matchers as well? I find this somewhat confusing, especially since nobody has even touched upon the practice of fishing only a small selection of flies(3-5) during the year. I have read of anglers that do so and continuously catch fish. This fact would not only shoot holes in the idea that stage is important, but that matching the hatch might be far less important than we think.
Mark

Mark, if I may I will go back to my view of it being a percentages game. This is my conjecture on what is happening during many hatch situations. Prior to the hatch pe se a percentage of the trout will be semi active , taking some nymphs of various types as they come past them and an occasional one foraying to the surface. As a hatch begins and the nymphs become more active so to will the percentage of trout taking nymphs, some bigger trout will often migrate up to feeding stations on the riffles. As the hatch intensifies so does the trout activity and depending on the type of hatch and the intensity of it, the percenatges that feed at various levels from the bottom to the surface will change.

The flaw in much of what I have read in anlysing situations is that often they treat the trout population as one entity and treat them as robtots that always behave in a certain manner. Whilst certain trends and traits are quite obvious I do not believe that all the trout in front of us are behaving in the same way, feeding in the same manner, indeed at any moment even during a major hatch not all trout will be feeding.

Most anglers do hold with the conjecture that most mature trout will seek the easiest meal, so it is reasonable to conjecture that for any given hatch that if you the angler can at the right time present a fly that matches that "easiest" meal in the right way and in the right place that success is likely. The one provisio here is that in really intense hatches your fly may not be as successful as it should be due to the volume of naturals.

I do not hold with the match the hatch theory in the sense that I do not believe that the actual pattern is the most important criteria. Assuming a stealthy approach and careful casting are a foregone conclusion then for me the next most important thing is that your fly is fishing at a level in the water column that is being targetted by the highest percentage of trout, and that you pattern is fishing in a manner that is appropiate to the hatch and the level at which it is being fished. I have little doubt that with a pattern that is appropriate to the hatch and designed for the postion it is being fished, will more often than not outfish a less imitative pattern. Off course there are certain types of water where this is not necessarily the case and the gap between the two will be neglible and in fact a generic pattern fished in specialised ways maybe more successful.

I have no doubt also that in general ,in the hands of the right angler , loosely suggestive patterns would outfish an average angler with a more imitative pattern.

The actuality of this conjecture , or comparing the relative succeses of a very successful angler with 5-8 flies to another successful angler that tries to match the hatch and even its stages is completely un-proveable as are many many things in fly fishing. We are a dogmatic lot, and every theory we each have when read, the reader should preface it with , "In general and based on my experience, for the rivers I fish......

There is no one right method, but there are some basics such as stealth , delicate casting, good knots, appropiate leader setups, knowing where fish are likely to be and the fly life and its behaviour on your river that need to be good. After that there are many ways one can chose to fish.

And if all our conjecture is just that, then all I can say is that its plain good fun whether fooling ourselves or the trout or both.

[Soft-hackle]

Hi Again,
Roadkill,
I'm not saying that fly fishing is a one fly contest, however the success of one-fly fishermen is, to me, an indication that we over complicate things. I'm thinking that in the hierarchy of importance, matching the hatch may not be as important as we think it is. We have carried it to the Nth degree with matching stages of insect progression.

Yes, Hidy was thinking of a stage in insect development, however that stage was transitional and quite broad. It did not exactly duplicate one specific point in the insects metamorphosis, but a broad transitional range.

There is no doubt in my mind that the wingless wet fly cover a broad range of stages of insect development as well as mayflies stone flies and caddis as well. I think this is one feature which contributes to these flies being so successful.

If one examines the wingless wet one quickly realizes that HOW the fly is fished is more important than if it looks like the fly that is currently active. Of course matching that imitation to the natural in color and size doesn't hurt your chances. Fishing it incorrectly does- no matter how close it comes to imitation.

How many of us would fish this fly expecting it to catch fish?



Why would we or why would we not fish the above fly? My reason for not fishing it would be, it's too exact. It lacks the "life" that is required and the impressionistic quality that is needed to imitate a living thing. To me, less is more, and non-exact imitation is probably better than exact.

I fully agree that fishing success depends upon many, many factors, but I often think we overemphasize/stress some things that are not as important as we think they are. One of those I feel is matching exactly to stage of insect. I feel it's better to concentrate on how one fishes. This interpretation, of course, is my own "conjecture". Everyone has their own, and it may be perfectly correct for them.

Mark

[John Dunn]

Mark I think Mr Stewart only fishes one fly, It's a Tenkara style fly and rod. I think he fishes a couple nymphs and that's it.
I myself only tie with size then color in mind, I had a young boy ask me what to use and I handed him my box , he was very surprised to find written on the box--Wets==== Gray- Brown- Black.

Best
John D

[Roadkill]

Hi Again,
How many of us would fish this fly expecting it to catch fish?



Mark

During an OC hatch I'd rather fish your fly than mine.



But we both know with the right method we stand a good chance with either, even if not our first choice.
Tight lines everyone!

[Otter]

Conjecture upon conjecture, Mark you have raised a whopper.

Common cojecture has it that we want our flies to imitate the natural but not close copy.

Bob Wyatt allocated pages in his book discussing prey image's, targettting of the weak etc... and why our imitations need to imitate but not copy. But at the same time when we fish a zebra imitation, should it at least have stripes .

Very interesting questions you are asking Mark and the answers will more than likely reflect each anglers standpoint and not necessarily the truth, even though i suspect the truth aint black and white.

[Soft-hackle]

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

I know Bob's work. His book sit on my self, here, in the studio. Bob, too, I'm sure would agree with me that less is more since he is a professor of art. I am in agreement with his conjecture that trout are predators and they look at the insects as prey. The book is an excellent read.

Mark

[CM_Stewart]

Mark I think Mr Stewart only fishes one fly, It's a Tenkara style fly and rod. I think he fishes a couple nymphs and that's it.
I myself only tie with size then color in mind, I had a young boy ask me what to use and I handed him my box , he was very surprised to find written on the box--Wets==== Gray- Brown- Black.

Best
John D

I do not follow the one fly approach that some tenkara anglers do, but I do fish only a small handful of patterns and about 60% of my fish last year came from just two flies: Frank Sawyer's killer bug and Hans Weilenmann's CDC & Elk. The other flies I fished were mostly patterns I was developing for my website, as I would otherwise be quite happy to fish with just those two. Of course, I fish relatively small streams that do not have blanket hatches or particularly selective trout.