Waterhen Bloa

[Hans Weilenmann]

Mike,

This basis also led me to various theories in regard to "triggers" on flies. That would be going too far and getting off topic here though.

A topic close to my heart - please continue, or start a fresh topic on the matter.

I was/am quite pleased the meager posting on the Waterhen Bloa attempt has sparked such an engaging and interesting discussion. Too good to have it fizzle out just yet.

Cheers,
Hans W

[bbamboo]

The most important aspect of any fly is behaviour.

A lot of flies suffer from the same designed incorrectness.
Most of the time the angler pays more attention to colour than any other feature.
Were in essence trout recognising their food from mobility above anything else.
Perfection is not achievable in any fly design I am sure.
Halford was the a prime example were close copy flies go drastically wrong.
This is clear when we look at the most effective patterns like
Hairs ear,Greenwells, Pheasants tail nymph the list goes on.
None of these patterns are what we would call close copy imitations.
But true general suggestive patterns like these are proven beyond all doubt to be the most effective patterns over the trout season.
So why is it?
The presentation need only to be good BUT
The total design structure of any successful fly has to corresponds with feeding behaviour of the fish, Not the other way around.

Keep it coming Mike

[bbamboo]

Hi Mike
This is turning into a good discussion I wish more people would come in here

I agree
Relating to spiders and their effectiveness is a typeset example were correct fly design works to maximum effect in fast broken water.
The same fly used in different circumstances is far less effective; reasons are behaviour of the fly is paramount to success.
Again history tells us why the old timers never fished still pools and flat water with spider patterns. Unless it was windy that is.

If we take for discussion the standard tied Greenwell glory as a prime example.

Waxed yellow thread body.
To light for a Dark Olive and to dark for a Pale Watery.
But yet it works in these very circumstances.
Logic tells me trout do not see as we see.


I think it is correct to say presentation is directly related behaviour.
If presentation is incorrect it will not allow the fly to fish correctly

Prime examples of the theory would be.
The correct fly used by a poor angler would not catch many fish. But on the other hand the wrong fly used by a good angler would still succeed.
Other things also make up the difference here for example accuracy in dry fly fishing etc .

Its a very intresting topic,There are many point of view on this,each person will have there own points of view.
Correct or incorrect and thats good.
What did Stewart say we only need 3 flies

Email sent

[bbamboo]

Mike you should also mention

The Important point here is Stewart only advocated the other 3 winged patterns for when trout are taking well.
So in reality for the majority of his stream work he used but 3 patterns.

Please dont think I am suggesting you only need three patterns It has added as a bit of fun.

Thanks for the PDFs
Off to read some the downloads

Gary

[bbamboo]

Sorry for anyone reading this if I did not make myself clear as regarding behaviour from a design point of view.

Like I said presentation and trout fly behaviour are directly related to each other and in effect signify the effective use of the artificial fly.
Ok behaviour of a trout fly is its physical behaviour on or under the water.
Research has shown that trout up until its forth year in existence primarily recognise food by its activity.
Meaning trout feeding behaviour is a conditioned reflects.
Correct behaviour of any fly has to be designed into the fly but it also has to fished correctly to achieve any level of success.
The general feeding behaviour of a trout influences success and tactics to use.
If we take for example a pheasants tail nymph which is designed to sink.
The fly requires no unnecessary features simply copper wire and pheasants tail fibres to produce the fly.
Copper wire to provide ballast and herls to provide a suggestion of a nymph.
The angler casts the fly accurately to a fish seen to be feeding on nymphs the fly sinks and is accepted. Typical scenario were fly design was key to the exception by the trout.
This is one situation but similar situations exist with dry flies wets or what ever you intend to fish.
I am not saying this is the only reason for any level of success but it is by far the most important.
If your fly is not in the right place at the correct time, doing what it should do, it is useless.

Gary

[mvendon]

Hi Mike
This is turning into a good discussion I wish more people would come in here

I've been on different forums for more than ten years now and as time goes by, you tend to see the same questions and topics over and over and over. It's a breath of fresh air to me anyway when you can read all types of new information or different perspectives regarding a type of pattern. I can't contribute much, if anything, since I haven't been tying or fishing flymphs or spider patterns for very long. I really enjoy reading updates here AND the pattern pics that everyone posts even though I don't make all that many myself.

Regards,
Mark

[flyfishwithme]

Some exceptionally good dialogue in this post and it is a pity that it will be lost under the thread name. Your points are very good Mike and by inference you are suggesting that down and across doesn't work for larger fish.
I find it difficult to accept that our forefathers fished primarily upstream. I believe that they used all sorts of methods to attract fish and the popularity of upstream only may have been influenced by the 'Halfordian' culture. There is very little written about technique apart from the common statement of 'fished upstream' in the very early books and those who wrote later may very well have tried to 'standardise' spider fishing just like 'dry fly only' fishing, so I find it difficult to accept only one successful technique. The argument is a bit like saying "I only nymph" or "I only use dry fly" and those anglers miss out on so much of the overall fishing opportunity.
My fishing is dominated by the use of spiders. I have special gear for it (soon to be added to by a 12' 3wt), I have far too many patterns, and most don't get an airing, I catch an enormous amount of fish, and more importantly I make a living out of teaching the techniques.
At times it is difficult to determine which approach is the most effective. Upstream, downstream or dead drift. They all catch fish and they all catch large fish if applied correctly. In fact the largest fish I have caught on a spider pattern came for the technique you would term 'downstream'. It is a matter of conditions - water and weather.
In regard to 'downstream', I use a technique where I have a very long leader and the flies are 'teased' through the currents using line. rod and leader control. I can almost predict where in the so called swing large fish are likely to be interested and I use my left hand (I am right handed) to induce a take. Just like Liesenring and he wasn't afraid to fish down.
So to only promote one aspect is a bit like the "I only nymph" or "I only use a dry fly" example.
There's my penny's worth anyway.
I also know that some of us on this thread use all sorts of tactics and I would probably place them ahead of Oliver Edwards in 'spider fishing' skill.

[tie2fish]

I heartily agree about the high quality of the posts in this thread. There is much to be gleaned from the opinions and theories of the members of this forum as regards fishing techniques, both those contained in the literature and those arising from personal experiences. For my own part, I would like to suggest that the physical makeup of the stream(s) that an angler fishes on a regular basis dictate(s) in large measure what techniques are most successful. What say you to this, folks?

[bbamboo]

One cannot simply dismiss feeding behaviour as a conditioned reflex, although there is little doubt that some behaviour is indeed the result of conditioned reflex. The "induced take" you mention when sight fishing with heavy nymphs takes advantage of this, but that is only one example of feeding behaviour, and is of course "artificial" in nature, although this doubtless also occurs with natural nymphs which make movements like this, as far as they are able to. Very few nymphs, even the rapid swimmers, can move very far very rapidly.Mike I have just returned from fishing
I took a 4lbs plus wild brown trout on a Snipe and Purple fished downstream, moving across the current lane in moderate paced water.
Like Philip Bailey has pointed out all methods work on there day upstream and down stream. There is no one correct way to fish spiders of that I am sure. The well-respected author John Walker Hills speaks with authority on the matter in a history of fly-fishing for trout. Check it out

Regarding Nymph behaviour for the answer you need to look in Frank Sawyers Keeper of the streams.

Frank describes the swimming motion of the beatis nymphs to a liking of small fish minnow like in agility. Quite capable of swimming up rapidly thought the water by it own means and he quotes at length from first hand experience

We all know the story about Frank Sawyer who used to demonstrate the effectiveness of the induced take to devastating effect.
But more so Oliver Kite did the same thing with a bare hook nymph. This proved pattern is irrelevant with any form of induced take. If this is not conditioned reflex action then what is it?

I am discussing one element of fishing, trout fly behaviour namely nymph fishing
Dry fly or spider fishing would not comply or be relevant here

[bbamboo]

Natural or artificial trout flies are also detected by Sonic vibrations
using the primary receptor the lateral line.As well as other things like smell and taste and of course vision.

Unless science invents a talking fish we do not know or understand what a trout takes any fly for we only know what works under different conditions. It could be taken for a nymph or even a small fish moving across the current lane.
So Frank Sawyer was wrong?


For a different approach to fishing wet flies I would like to recommend Davys new DVD



http://www.davywotton.com/dvd.asp