nymphs a la Schwiebert

[Michael Kessler]

I got a used copy of Ernest Schwiebert's book, "Nymphs" and I've been
working on tying some of the mayflies. But, you know, they all look a
lot alike. I've tied the Gordon Quill, the Hendrickson, and the March
Brown, and begin to wonder whether this is worth the effort. Does
anybody know, with all due respect to Mr. Schwiebert, whether trout
really notice the difference between these things? And, does anybody
else out there bother to put marabou gills on them as I've been doing?


Thanks in advance for your comments.

Mike

[Stephen Welsh]

Michael Kessler > wrote in news:4037B83C.4060404
@netscape.net:

> I got a used copy of Ernest Schwiebert's book, "Nymphs" and I've been
> working on tying some of the mayflies. But, you know, they all look a
> lot alike. I've tied the Gordon Quill, the Hendrickson, and the March
> Brown, and begin to wonder whether this is worth the effort. Does
> anybody know, with all due respect to Mr. Schwiebert, whether trout
> really notice the difference between these things? And, does anybody
> else out there bother to put marabou gills on them as I've been doing?
>

Yes.

Ask yourself: do the places these mayfly nymphs are going to be fished
afford the fish enough time to do a body part inventory on the food item?
One possible answer will be "sometimes" ... _perhaps_ then a more realistic
fly stands a better chance of being tested than a more generic pattern.

Steve

[-- Rob]

>Ask yourself: do the places these mayfly nymphs are going to be fished
>afford the fish enough time to do a body part inventory on the food item?

that's a very good point. it depends on the type of water as well as how
educated the fish are to imitations.

one note about these "inspections", in reading Merwin's New North American
Trout Fishing, he speaks of an amplification of the fly at the edge of the
trout's 'snel window', first time I had read that. So when you see a trout move
up to withing 2-3" of a fly and drift with it, it is actually using the water
properties to magnify the fly to get a better look...all done instinctually of
course. you all around here may know this much better than I do, but it was the
first time I read about it.
-- so much fishing, so little time --
--please remuv the 'NOWAY2it' from my email addy to email me--

[Michael Kessler]

There seem to be multiple approaches to creating a fly pattern. McClane
opted for what he called an impressionistic approach, a mere
suggestion of trout food, let the fish fill in the details. LaFontaine
sort of went with a combination of imitation and suggestion, as soft
hackle flies also to me seem to do. Then there is the exact imitation
type we get from Schwiebert. And all 3 types work at least some of the
time. Or do all work all of the time if properly presented?

Mike

[Lat705]

But does the fish key on the actual parts of the fly or more so on the
reflections, refractions, prismatic effects, halos, umbras, etc. caused by the
fly? And in what combinations? What does a fish actualy see? We can pretty
well tell how the fish eye functions in relation to image processing, but how
does that pea sized brain process that data? LaFontaine flys simulate effects
along with the actual physical fly components and have been successful in
catching fish.

Lou T

>do a body part inventory on the food item?

[JR]

Lat705 wrote:

> But does the fish key on the actual parts of the fly or more so on the
> reflections, refractions, prismatic effects, halos, umbras, etc. caused by the
> fly? And in what combinations? What does a fish actualy see? We can pretty
> well tell how the fish eye functions in relation to image processing, but how
> does that pea sized brain process that data?

We don't and can't know, but that's OK. It promotes speculation
sprinkled with BS, which, done cheerfully and in moderation, is one of
the most enjoyable aspects of FFing and FTing.

JR

[Salmo Bytes]

Michael Kessler > wrote in message >...
> ... and begin to wonder whether this is worth the effort.


Don't forget impractical considerations:

Justifying a fly's design strictly in terms
of fish production is unecessarily restricting requirenent.
I tie lots of flies that are fancier than they need to
be, just because I enjoy making them.

Come to think of it, maybe somebody should write
a book entitled "The Impractical Tier."

[Dave LaCourse]

Michael Kessler writes:

> And all 3 types work at least some of the
>time. Or do all work all of the time if properly presented?

I find myself using the Pheasant Tail in its many iterations. However, there
have been times when it doesn't work, in which case a Hare's Ear (dark, light,
olive) will work. I rely on those two ties and a couple of home made caddis
worms, and, of course, the different stonefly ties.
Dave

http://hometown.aol.com/davplac/myhomepage/index.html

[Stephen Welsh]

(-- Rob) wrote in
:

> 'snel window'

Rob ... 'snel window' is not a term I'm familiar with.
Care to expand on it a little?

Steve

[Stephen Welsh]

(Dave LaCourse) wrote in
:

> the different stonefly ties

Would there be a "PTN or Hares Ear" of the larger
Stonefly ties ?? Woollys?


Steve (A part from a large Hares Ear of course ;-)

[Willi]

Dave LaCourse wrote:

> Michael Kessler writes:
>
>
>>And all 3 types work at least some of the
>>time. Or do all work all of the time if properly presented?
>
>
> I find myself using the Pheasant Tail in its many iterations. However, there
> have been times when it doesn't work, in which case a Hare's Ear (dark, light,
> olive) will work. I rely on those two ties and a couple of home made caddis
> worms, and, of course, the different stonefly ties.


I use PTs in the smaller sizes and in calmer water and Hare's
Earsish flies in medium sizes and in heavier water. I use alot of soft
hackles and I tie a variety of emerger patterns for specific hatches.
Don't use any caddis worms and my Stonefly pattern is a simple, buggy,
in the round pattern.

Willi

[Dave LaCourse]

Steve writes:


>Would there be a "PTN or Hares Ear" of the larger
>Stonefly ties ?? Woollys?

I don't quite understand what you are saying. I hardly ever use a Wooly
Bugger, however.
Dave

http://hometown.aol.com/davplac/myhomepage/index.html

[Dave LaCourse]

Willi writes:

>I use PTs in the smaller sizes and in calmer water and Hare's
>Earsish flies in medium sizes and in heavier water. I use alot of soft
>hackles and I tie a variety of emerger patterns for specific hatches.
>Don't use any caddis worms and my Stonefly pattern is a simple, buggy,
>in the round pattern.

When Bruiser gave me those small PTs at the first San Juan Clave, they sat in
one of my boxes for a couple of years. On the Rapid one day, I tied one on,
and it was simply the best nymph I have ever used. I swear by the tie but have
changed it to just thread, wire, and a small tuft of antron in size 20 - 24
scud hook. It works just as well and is very easy to tie.

I'm experimenting with a couple of new emergers. One is cdc wrapped body with
cdc wings made from a dubbing loop (14 - 18). Sure looks nice, and is a very
easy tie. The other is a quill body with a tuft of cdc at the eye (16-18) on a
scud hook.

(I guess you can tell I like easy ties.)
Dave

http://hometown.aol.com/davplac/myhomepage/index.html

[Stephen Welsh]

(Dave LaCourse) wrote in
:

> Steve writes:
>
>
>>Would there be a "PTN or Hares Ear" of the larger
>>Stonefly ties ?? Woollys?
>
> I don't quite understand what you are saying. I hardly ever use a Wooly
> Bugger, however.
> Dave
>

Is there a generic stonefly pattern (especially for the larger species)
that would "work anywhere there are trout" just like the PTN and Hares Ear?
(Assuming there is a population of large stoneflys of course)

You've answered the woolly part then. The woolly (worm or bugger)
variations are often cited here as patterns for stone fly nymphs.

Steve

[Dave LaCourse]

Steve writes:

>Is there a generic stonefly pattern (especially for the larger species)
>that would "work anywhere there are trout" just like the PTN and Hares Ear?
>(Assuming there is a population of large stoneflys of course)
>
>You've answered the woolly part then. The woolly (worm or bugger)
>variations are often cited here as patterns for stone fly nymphs.
>
>Steve

Not that I use. I have few stones in my repertoire, but I do have a yellow
stone that is my "lucky fly" (or at least it was until I lost it to a snag).
Small (for stones) - size 14 with a black bead tied in on the shank of the
hook, surrounded by yellow dubbing. Tail and antennae were yellow goose biots.
Head was same as body with the hair (dubbing) pulled out. I got this fly from
the jaw of a large (22+) land locked salmon. Over time it began to fall apart,
but rather than fix it (it still worked - why bother?) I continued to use it
and catch fish. It was a scraggly looking thing when last I saw it. d;o)

Dave

http://hometown.aol.com/davplac/myhomepage/index.html

[Stephen Welsh]

(Dave LaCourse) wrote in
:

> Not that I use. I have few stones in my repertoire, but I do have a
> yellow stone that is my "lucky fly" (or at least it was until I lost
> it to a snag). Small (for stones) - size 14 with a black bead tied in
> on the shank of the hook, surrounded by yellow dubbing. Tail and
> antennae were yellow goose biots.
> Head was same as body with the hair (dubbing) pulled out. I got this
> fly from
> the jaw of a large (22+) land locked salmon. Over time it began to
> fall apart, but rather than fix it (it still worked - why bother?) I
> continued to use it and catch fish. It was a scraggly looking thing
> when last I saw it. d;o)
>
> Dave
>
>

That's the sort of thing I mean though. Willi has scraggly,
in the round stones. The goose biots seem to be popular.

Did you shed a tear at the passing of "old yeller" (-;

Steve (how stiff was that salmon?! )

[Hooked]

"Salmo Bytes" > wrote in message
om...
>
> Come to think of it, maybe somebody should write
> a book entitled "The Impractical Tier."

And include all the patterns that with full color prints of all the flies
that have been tied over the years that have been tied to catch fishers more
than fish.

Damn thing would be bigger than a government document on how to tie a shoe
lace.

[Larry L]

"Michael Kessler" > wrote

.. Does
> anybody know, with all due respect to Mr. Schwiebert, whether trout
> really notice the difference between these things? And, does anybody
> else out there bother to put marabou gills on them as I've been doing?
>


I'm not enough of a nympher to justfy posting an opinion, but I'm bored on a
Sunday afternoon .... so here it is, anyway




trout don't notice UNLESS you think they do ...then they care a lot about
details

[Lat705]

Don't be concerned over losing the "lucky" fly. If it truly was lucky it won't
of lost itself. 8>)

Lou T

[Mike Connor]

Mr Schwieberts book is a masterpiece in its own right. The information is
detailed, accurate, in fact quite brilliant, and seldom matched. The book
is also technically excellent, and also seldom matched. However, I rather
doubt that such wide variety and extreme attention to detail, although of
considerable interest, and laudable for its own sake, is worth the bother
time and expense it entails, either when tying flies, or when actually
angling. The book leans far more towards entomology than to practical
angling considerations.

Two or three generic nymphs will catch you a great many fish when presented
properly. It is extremely unlikely that "precise imitation" assuming that
you even get close to this, will catch you any more. Indeed, in my
experience the reverse is actually the case. Much the same applies to most
other flies. Only seldom does one require an "exact" imitation, and often in
such circumstances, one does not have the one presumed or deduced to be
required. Such flies are invaribaly also more difficult, expensive and time
consuming to tie. How many flies are you going to carry? Mr. Schwiebert
covers some three hundred patterns in his book. Many of insects which are
practically indistinguishable from each other.

Even assuming you did carry that many patterns, how are you going to know
when to use the "right" pattern? I submit that such a thing is well nigh
impossible. It is also quite obvious that trout very rarely select their
food as carefully as some think. This must be so, as otherwise none of the
cruder "expressionistic" patterns extant would work at all, but they all do,
and some amazingly effectively.

One may use a Hare´s ear, a Pheasant Tail, and perhaps a caddis pupa, in a
small range of patterns shades and sizes, and one will be succesful in most
places under most conditions.

Many anglers love to carry huge boxes full of flies, and why not? If they
enjoy it. One must nevertheless always remember that there is only one fly
which catches a fish, and that is the one which is either in or on the water
at the end of your line. Having a thousand flies in your box will not catch
you one single fish! Quite apart from which, it can be self defeating. If
you only have a few flies, ( comparatively), then you wont have much trouble
choosing one, or tying up replacements for those sacrificed to tree gods,
various snags, and dropped backcasts! If you have a thousand, it is possible
that you spend more time trying to choose one, than actually fishing with
it.

TL
MC

[DaveMohnsen]

"Dave LaCourse" > wrote in message
...
> Steve writes:
>
> >Is there a generic stonefly pattern (especially for the larger species)
> >that would "work anywhere there are trout" just like the PTN and Hares
Ear?
> >(Assuming there is a population of large stoneflys of course)
> >
> >You've answered the woolly part then. The woolly (worm or bugger)
> >variations are often cited here as patterns for stone fly nymphs.
> >
> >Steve
>
> Not that I use. I have few stones in my repertoire, but I do have a
yellow
> stone that is my "lucky fly" (or at least it was until I lost it to a
snag).
> Small (for stones) - size 14 with a black bead tied in on the shank of the
> hook, surrounded by yellow dubbing. Tail and antennae were yellow goose
biots.
> Head was same as body with the hair (dubbing) pulled out. I got this fly
from
> the jaw of a large (22+) land locked salmon. Over time it began to fall
apart,
> but rather than fix it (it still worked - why bother?) I continued to use
it
> and catch fish. It was a scraggly looking thing when last I saw it. d;o)
>
> Dave


Hi Dave,
If so inclined please send me your email address. Had it once, but got
bumped twice today. Interested in the pattern. Just want a few more
details. Fun for me to goof around with patterns.
BestWishes,
DaveMohnsen
Denver

[-- Rob]

>Rob ... 'snel window' is not a term I'm familiar with.
>Care to expand on it a little?
>
>Steve

Steve,

I'm sure someone more familiar with the work could explain it much better, but
due to the physical properties of water, the light refracts in such a way that
a trout (or any seeing animal underwater) has a circular window through which
objects above the water can be seen. I'm sure you're familiar with this by some
other term. I found this link
<http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/explain/atmos_refr/invariant.html> which has a lot
more information than I can digest right now, but if you follow the first link
on that page to Snel's law there is a more reasonable explanation of
refraction... with which I'm sure you're also very familiar.

At any rate, others applied all this to angling and what a trout sees and found
(by analysis alone I believe) that at a certain distance objects in the circle
(or as I called it 'window') were magnified.

I'm way over my head here, but that's what I was referring to in my post.
Apparently, according to Merwin, Marinaro, Edward Hewitt, and others wrote
about this in their works.

-- Rob

[Willi]

-- Rob wrote:


>
> I'm sure someone more familiar with the work could explain it much better, but
> due to the physical properties of water, the light refracts in such a way that
> a trout (or any seeing animal underwater) has a circular window through which
> objects above the water can be seen. I'm sure you're familiar with this by some
> other term. I found this link
> <http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/explain/atmos_refr/invariant.html> which has a lot
> more information than I can digest right now, but if you follow the first link
> on that page to Snel's law there is a more reasonable explanation of
> refraction... with which I'm sure you're also very familiar.
>
> At any rate, others applied all this to angling and what a trout sees and found
> (by analysis alone I believe) that at a certain distance objects in the circle
> (or as I called it 'window') were magnified.
>
> I'm way over my head here, but that's what I was referring to in my post.
> Apparently, according to Merwin, Marinaro, Edward Hewitt, and others wrote
> about this in their works.


I used to do alot of snorkeling. Although I've worn glasses or contacts
since I was twelve, I was able to snorkel without any eye correction. I
didn't see quite as well as with correction, but I was able to see a
WHOLE lot better underwater than I could on land without correction.

Willi

[Stephen Welsh]

(-- Rob) wrote in
:

> At any rate, others applied all this to angling and what a trout sees
> and found (by analysis alone I believe) that at a certain distance
> objects in the circle (or as I called it 'window') were magnified.

Yeah ... the window at the surface I understand.

Thanks


Steve

[-- Rob]

> used to do alot of snorkeling. Although I've worn glasses or contacts
>since I was twelve, I was able to snorkel without any eye correction. I
>didn't see quite as well as with correction, but I was able to see a
>WHOLE lot better underwater than I could on land without correction.
>
>Willi


I'm not sure of the physics involved, but
I don't think that's the same thing that the trout experience, since their eyes
are built to see underwater in the first place. I would guess that your vision
is corrected by the artificial lens created by the air/glass/water boundary of
the mask/goggles, not being underwater per se. The effect of the snel circle,
on the other hand, would be something that you could (if I can believe what
they're writing) experience if you approach an object floating on the surface
and view it at the right angle / distance.

-- Rob (of course, I could be completely wrong about this...)

[Larry L]

"Willi" > wrote

, but I was able to see a
> WHOLE lot better underwater than I could on land
>


Fu**ing proof that this guy IS part fish !!! IMHO, this invalidates his
awesome fisherman's reputation, hell he probably thinks in little bubbles
like a trout, too <G> ...no fair !!



JK, of course