On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 01:24:52 GMT, "Gene Cottrell"
wrote:


"Mike Connor" wrote in message
...
SNIP
I disagree, it is essential to know what the things the trout
take look like, and this is to a considerable extent independent of how
the
fish see them.
SNIP

I disagree further. It is essential only to know what the fish will take at
any given time. What it looks like to us or the fish is not of any concern
whatsoever to me.

Gene

How do you go about knowing "what the fish will take at any given
time"?

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharl...ers/index.html

Peter Charles wrote:

How do you go about knowing "what the fish will take at any given
time"?


That is THE question.

The natural inclination is to simply use a fly that looks most like the
natural to OUR eyes. A trout eyes are mechanically different from ours
and perceive light in different ways from ours - they can see further
into the ultra violet spectrum and infrared scale than ours and (as
Scott showed me) they can also utilize polarized light. In addition,
like Mike said, how something is perceived also relies on brain
processing and I'm pretty confident that a trout's brain is going to
interpret things differently than ours' does. I do think we judge size
in a similar manner as a trout but beyond that ?????? , I think it's a
crap shoot.

So where does that leave us? I don't think we can or should reject
what our vision tells us, but we also shouldn't rely on it too much.
What I think is FAR more important than how well a fly we're using
matches a natural to our eyes, is presentation. Presentation, as I look
at it, goes farther than how you as an angler "present" the fly.
(Although that's VERY important) It also involves fly selection.
Different flies present themselves to the fish in different ways. With
dries, there are a wide range of characteristics - hackle length and
density, no hackle ties, body material and weight, tail material and
length etc etc that will determine how a fly will sit on/in the surface
and how it presents itself to the fish. With "wets" - weight,
absorption, texture, flexibility, water resistance, etc etc are going to
effect how a fly will act in the water. IMO, this "attitude" that the
fly takes when it is fished, is much more important than using a fly
that's a precise color or profile match to our eyes.

Willi

"Willi & Sue" wrote in message
...
SNIP
. With "wets" - weight,
absorption, texture, flexibility, water resistance, etc etc are going to
effect how a fly will act in the water. IMO, this "attitude" that the
fly takes when it is fished, is much more important than using a fly
that's a precise color or profile match to our eyes.

Willi


I would agree with that. In most cases I consider presentation to be of much
greater importance than any "exact" imitation, but at the same time, if the
presentation is correct, and the pattern is also good, one will be
successful.

With poor patterns, a good presentation can be largely a waste of time, as
the pattern simply is not good enough for the fish. One may still catch a
fish or two, but nothing like the success one can have when everything comes
together.

Further to that, in my experience "exact imitation", ( i.e especially
"realistic tying"), is also not very successful in terms of fish catching,
mainly because the flies so tied do not behave properly. Many "suggestive"
flies are however extremely successful. The trick is, to find the right
combination of presentation and pattern, and I maintain that the only way to
do this properly is to observe the creatures themselves, and using this
knowledge, dress the appropriate patterns which are behaviourally correct,
and also suggestive of the real thing in appearance.

One can indeed learn what insects should be hatching when, ( or use "hatch
charts" prepared by others, and fish "standard" patterns which more or less
match the supposed hatch. If one is accurate with ones predictions, ( or
the chart is accurate!:)) this too can be pretty successful. But still not
as successful as "Knowing" what is happening, at a specific time.

Often, a few simple deductions from careful observation on the water, will
tell you all you need to know about what is hatching. All you then have to
do, is match it properly, in terms of appearance and behaviour.

TL
MC

Peter Charles wrote:

How do you go about knowing "what the fish will take at any given
time"?

I believe that is called fishing (the successful kind).

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Ha! That's the trick I've been trying to learn for nearly 50 years. In my
experience, presentation is the no.-1 concern and size is the second. Color,
shape, etc. have far less effect on the numbers of fish I take (although I
don't discount them entirely). I fish almost exclusively with drys, using
streamers sometimes early in the season, and then it's almost always the
Matuka. I don't stick with drys due to any purist, stuck-up kind of thing. I
just enjoy it more and after all of these years, enjoyment is what I want
and the number of fish I catch only plays a part in that fun. I've fished
with lots of "match the hatch" guys and on the average I do just as well
with 3 or 4 patterns in sizes from 14 to 24. I've found it a must to fish
with a pattern and size that I have faith in. I fish it better if I think
it will catch a fish. The one thing I've learned in those 50 years is, if
fish are refusing on the take, go smaller.

Gene



"Peter Charles" wrote in message
...
How do you go about knowing "what the fish will take at any given
time"?

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at
http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharl...ers/index.html

In article , Mike Connor
wrote:
Cead mile failte, Mike.

What's the story? And why did it take you so long? And whereabouts?
Draught or bottled Guinness?

Lazarus

--
Remover the rock from the email address

"Lazarus Cooke" wrote in message
om...
In article , Mike Connor
wrote:
Cead mile failte, Mike.

What's the story? And why did it take you so long? And whereabouts?
Draught or bottled Guinness?

Lazarus


I need some decent fishing for a change! :) Had things to do! Waterville,
ring of Kerry. I think I´ll stick to whisky!

TL
MC

In article , Mike Connor
wrote:

I need some decent fishing for a change! :) Had things to do! Waterville,
ring of Kerry. I think I´ll stick to whisky!

You're lucky. That's about as far from me as you can get.

I still hope you'll come up north, from time to time. Maybe we can meet
up sometime in neutral territory. Ever been to Delphi?

Lazarus

--
Remover the rock from the email address

On 1/26/05 10:47 AM, in article , "Mike
Connor" wrote:


"Lazarus Cooke" wrote in message
om...
In article , Mike Connor
wrote:
Cead mile failte, Mike.

What's the story? And why did it take you so long? And whereabouts?
Draught or bottled Guinness?

Lazarus


I need some decent fishing for a change! :) Had things to do! Waterville,
ring of Kerry.

We spent a week in Kenmare several years ago. You made a fine choice, Mike,
that's some beautiful country. I spent a morning fishing near the Cloonee
loughs. Oh, and the hotel in Parknasilla serves a nice tea as well :-)

Bill

"Gene Cottrell" wrote in message
...
SNIP
Each person should fish the way that gives him/her the experience they're
looking for.

I´ll agree quite unconditionally with that!

TL
MC