Caddis searching pattern - from failure to success
 

On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 17:13:51 -0400, Mu Young Lee
wrote:

On Mon, 2 Aug 2004, Peter Charles wrote:

As far as the swing goes with this pattern, the first third dead
drifted didn't produce a single hit. The middle third where tension
comes on then fly and it accelerates towards the middle of the creek
produced about 40% of the hits and the last third, where the fly was
slowing down, produced the bulk.

Well is it so critical to use a caddis pattern or will the old-fashioned
"variants" and "spiders" work just as well?


Based on this sole experience, I did way better with this fly than
when I've used P&Os and the like on Whitemans.



Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

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

Caddis searching pattern - from failure to success
 

Mu Young Lee wrote:

On Mon, 2 Aug 2004, Peter Charles wrote:

As far as the swing goes with this pattern, the first third dead
drifted didn't produce a single hit. The middle third where tension
comes on then fly and it accelerates towards the middle of the creek
produced about 40% of the hits and the last third, where the fly was
slowing down, produced the bulk.


Well is it so critical to use a caddis pattern or will the old-fashioned
"variants" and "spiders" work just as well?


From what I understand, variants are dry flies tied with dry fly hackle
as are American spiders. The British use the name spider for soft
hackles which I think are good wet caddis imitations, although I like
the "Americanized" soft hackles and flymphs better than the traditional
British ties..

Willi

Caddis searching pattern - from failure to success
 

Mu Young Lee wrote:

On Mon, 2 Aug 2004, Peter Charles wrote:

As far as the swing goes with this pattern, the first third dead
drifted didn't produce a single hit. The middle third where tension
comes on then fly and it accelerates towards the middle of the creek
produced about 40% of the hits and the last third, where the fly was
slowing down, produced the bulk.


Well is it so critical to use a caddis pattern or will the old-fashioned
"variants" and "spiders" work just as well?


From what I understand, variants are dry flies tied with dry fly hackle
as are American spiders. The British use the name spider for soft
hackles which I think are good wet caddis imitations, although I like
the "Americanized" soft hackles and flymphs better than the traditional
British ties..

Willi

Caddis searching pattern - from failure to success
 

Peter Charles wrote:

You read my mind -- I'm thinking about the same fly sans wing --
however - - - -

When this fly is held in the current, I get a very natural V shape
wing in the water. I think the wing may say "caddis" more loudly,
when viewed from underneath. We can never know exactly what makes a
trout strike one particular fly over another, though we can usually
make some decent inferences. So . . . I'm loathed to tamper with it
as it appears to work as is.

My brown trout weamer works. Every, and I do mean every modification
I've made to that fly to "improve" it in some way, has reduced its
effectiveness, sometimes to the point of zero. I go back to the
original and good things happen all over again.


Good points.

Although I'm not too big on using specific patterns, I do have some
favorites that just seem right. These are consistant producers for me. I
think it's partly because I have confidence in them but I also think
there's something about them that makes them special.

Willi

Caddis searching pattern - from failure to success
 

Peter Charles wrote:

You read my mind -- I'm thinking about the same fly sans wing --
however - - - -

When this fly is held in the current, I get a very natural V shape
wing in the water. I think the wing may say "caddis" more loudly,
when viewed from underneath. We can never know exactly what makes a
trout strike one particular fly over another, though we can usually
make some decent inferences. So . . . I'm loathed to tamper with it
as it appears to work as is.

My brown trout weamer works. Every, and I do mean every modification
I've made to that fly to "improve" it in some way, has reduced its
effectiveness, sometimes to the point of zero. I go back to the
original and good things happen all over again.


Good points.

Although I'm not too big on using specific patterns, I do have some
favorites that just seem right. These are consistant producers for me. I
think it's partly because I have confidence in them but I also think
there's something about them that makes them special.

Willi

Caddis searching pattern - from failure to success
 

Peter Charles wrote:


If I see any caddis hitting the water, that's my signal to get these
swinging. If I see bulging or jumping rises, that the signal to swing
emergers and tossing dries instead. If I see nothing anywhere, then
I'll swing these through a riffle simply because I don't like
nymphing.


Although, IMO, dead drifting nymphs is THE most effective technique day
in and day out, it's not a very fun way of fishing. Swinging wets and
some of the other nymphing techniques are much more fun. However, they
are not as consistently effective and it's hard, at least for me, to
determine when they are going to be effective.

Willi

Caddis searching pattern - from failure to success
 

Peter Charles wrote:


If I see any caddis hitting the water, that's my signal to get these
swinging. If I see bulging or jumping rises, that the signal to swing
emergers and tossing dries instead. If I see nothing anywhere, then
I'll swing these through a riffle simply because I don't like
nymphing.


Although, IMO, dead drifting nymphs is THE most effective technique day
in and day out, it's not a very fun way of fishing. Swinging wets and
some of the other nymphing techniques are much more fun. However, they
are not as consistently effective and it's hard, at least for me, to
determine when they are going to be effective.

Willi

Caddis searching pattern - from failure to success
 

On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 20:38:52 -0600, Willi wrote:



Peter Charles wrote:


If I see any caddis hitting the water, that's my signal to get these
swinging. If I see bulging or jumping rises, that the signal to swing
emergers and tossing dries instead. If I see nothing anywhere, then
I'll swing these through a riffle simply because I don't like
nymphing.


Although, IMO, dead drifting nymphs is THE most effective technique day
in and day out, it's not a very fun way of fishing. Swinging wets and
some of the other nymphing techniques are much more fun. However, they
are not as consistently effective and it's hard, at least for me, to
determine when they are going to be effective.

Willi



I think the success of nymphing is also because more people do it a
lot of the time, plus they're applying it to places where fish are
known to be. The typical nympher fisher walks up to a run, sees no
surface activity and ties on a nymph then catches a whack of fish.
Would he have caught the same or more with another technique? Maybe,
but most anglers I know are two dimensional: dries or nymphs, so we
don't get to find out.

In heavily fished waters, the ability to do something other than nymph
can connect you with a lot of fish. Nymphers tend to stand in one
spot, swingers tend to move, so I frequently fish up to a nympher,
then walk around to continue downstream. It's quite common for me to
catch a fish on both sides of him as his pounding have pushed fish out
of the run. I really don't feel at a disadvantage by resorting to
other methods.

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

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

Caddis searching pattern - from failure to success
 

On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 20:38:52 -0600, Willi wrote:



Peter Charles wrote:


If I see any caddis hitting the water, that's my signal to get these
swinging. If I see bulging or jumping rises, that the signal to swing
emergers and tossing dries instead. If I see nothing anywhere, then
I'll swing these through a riffle simply because I don't like
nymphing.


Although, IMO, dead drifting nymphs is THE most effective technique day
in and day out, it's not a very fun way of fishing. Swinging wets and
some of the other nymphing techniques are much more fun. However, they
are not as consistently effective and it's hard, at least for me, to
determine when they are going to be effective.

Willi



I think the success of nymphing is also because more people do it a
lot of the time, plus they're applying it to places where fish are
known to be. The typical nympher fisher walks up to a run, sees no
surface activity and ties on a nymph then catches a whack of fish.
Would he have caught the same or more with another technique? Maybe,
but most anglers I know are two dimensional: dries or nymphs, so we
don't get to find out.

In heavily fished waters, the ability to do something other than nymph
can connect you with a lot of fish. Nymphers tend to stand in one
spot, swingers tend to move, so I frequently fish up to a nympher,
then walk around to continue downstream. It's quite common for me to
catch a fish on both sides of him as his pounding have pushed fish out
of the run. I really don't feel at a disadvantage by resorting to
other methods.

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

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

Caddis searching pattern - from failure to success
 

On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 20:38:52 -0600, Willi wrote:



Peter Charles wrote:


If I see any caddis hitting the water, that's my signal to get these
swinging. If I see bulging or jumping rises, that the signal to swing
emergers and tossing dries instead. If I see nothing anywhere, then
I'll swing these through a riffle simply because I don't like
nymphing.


Although, IMO, dead drifting nymphs is THE most effective technique day
in and day out, it's not a very fun way of fishing. Swinging wets and
some of the other nymphing techniques are much more fun. However, they
are not as consistently effective and it's hard, at least for me, to
determine when they are going to be effective.

Willi



I think the success of nymphing is also because more people do it a
lot of the time, plus they're applying it to places where fish are
known to be. The typical nympher fisher walks up to a run, sees no
surface activity and ties on a nymph then catches a whack of fish.
Would he have caught the same or more with another technique? Maybe,
but most anglers I know are two dimensional: dries or nymphs, so we
don't get to find out.

In heavily fished waters, the ability to do something other than nymph
can connect you with a lot of fish. Nymphers tend to stand in one
spot, swingers tend to move, so I frequently fish up to a nympher,
then walk around to continue downstream. It's quite common for me to
catch a fish on both sides of him as his pounding have pushed fish out
of the run. I really don't feel at a disadvantage by resorting to
other methods.

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

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