|
|
What they see?
Well, I have heard untold numbers of discussions on this, taken part in more
than a few, and read a great deal about it, including weighty scientific tomes and treatises, but to be perfectly honest, I think the problem lies elsewhere. There is no way to know what a trout sees, even assuming our eyes were the same, or that it is possible to theorise based on eye construction etc etc. Images are engendered in the brain, and there is no way to simulate that, or even theorise about it much. What animals experience in the way of thought, perception etc is ( at least for now, and perhaps forever! ) beyond our comprehension. In my opinion, the main problem is that people concentrate on both naturals and artificials, but in the HUMAN environment. This is not where they are used, or seen , or taken by the trout. If you observe these things under the same conditions that the fish see them, then quite a number of things immediately become apparent. The first is, few of the patterns extant resemble the naturals much, IN THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THEY ARE USED! Secondly, very few people know how these creatures behave. Most of the anglers and dressers I know donīt even bother doing simple things like testing their flies in a glass of water! There we have the two main problems. They are attempting to imitate something although they donīt know what it looks like, and they also donīt know how it behaves. Many people use all sorts of patterns, some good, some more or less useless, and catch fish, But not even a small percentage of these people has ever seen what they are trying to imitate under the pertaining conditions, or how it behaves. These are the main reasons why some anglers catch a lot, and others very little. Other factors are of course important. Recognising a hatch as such, and for what it is. Knowing when and how to fish certain patterns, even when there is no obvious activity. Recognizing certain behaviour or signs on the water, watercraft, etc etc etc. Luck does play a part of course, but it has nothing to do with fly choice! Or at least it should not have! At any rate, all these things, luck included, are not much use unless your lure looks and behaves as it should! People have argued with me in the past, that it is essential to know how a trout sees. 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. This is only possible if you see them under the same conditions to which they and the trout are subjected. It has been proven time and time again, to my own and many other peopleīs satisfaction, that lures which look and behave correctly catch more fish. So I think the problem does not lie with what the trout sees, but with what WE DON`īT SEE !!!! Mainly for lack of looking! Regards and tight lines! Mike |
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:01:15 +0100, "Mike Connor"
wrote: [snip] Regards and tight lines! Mike and the other part -- having some idea about insect behaviour. For example, I've read here and been told by people that they have little success with Lafontaine's patterns. I don't claim to be a genius with them either -- but I'd speculate that we're missing the critical ingrediant that we don't fish these patterns correctly. I'm putting an effort into knowing the behaviours of three common genera reasonable well -- the ones I mentioned in the first post, commonly known as the spotted sedge (cinnamon caddis), little sister sedge, and the green rock worm. I'll be adding the Mother's Day caddis as well, but it's lower on my list as it's mostly a spring pattern, while the others are virtually all season. There are others that are important to my area but these will do to start. Basically, I can fish all of my waters with variations of three patterns in various sizes, olive bodied gray wing, tan bodied brown wing, and black bodied gray wing. Hydropsyche (spotted sedge) tend to drift along the bottom for quite a ways, then head upwards, the drift in the surface film as they struggle to hatch. This gives fish two shots at then, the bottom drift and the film drift. Once they emerge, they fly off quickly and present little opportunity to the trout. Trying to appeal to trout during a hatch with either an ascending pattern (LaFontaine's sparkle pupa) or an adult, isn't going to get you very far. The best patterns will be a pupal stage (in the pharate skin) dead drifted along the bottom and a Yorkshire style wet for the ascending, surface fim stage. Hydropsyche are diving egg layers so a a dry presented during egg laying followed by pulling it under at the end and swinging it, should take some fish. Makes life simple -- three patterns -- a weighted pupal stage (ginger and brown), a tan Yorkshire style wet, and your choice of your favourite dry, KRC or EHC -- all tied on a fine wire #16 dry hook but as a size 14 wing. With these three flies, in my area, you're good from May until September. I have a specific spotted sedge diving pattern and it's a killer when the egg laying is on. Little Sister Sedge (Cheumatopsyche) has a lot of the same traits but being a smaller bug, things happen a bit faster -- not the same long drifts as the spotted sedge. Both bugs have darker wings early in the season and become lighter as the season progresses. Rhyacophilia (green rock worm) are free swimming larvae (as oposed to the net building spotted sedge and little sister sedge) so the GRW is the only one of the three where a dead drifted larva will be a natural behaviour. The other two can be dead drifted at dawn and dusk during biological drift. Obviously, people take fish on these all during the day, but you're presenting a behaviour with a low incidence of coccurence during the day. Most larvae that are free swimming during the day (other than the GRW) were probably dislodged by a grubbing trout , sucker, or an angler's boot. GRW should be tied upside down as they swim head down. Peter turn mailhot into hotmail to reply Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharl...ers/index.html |
"Mike Connor" wrote People have argued with me in the past, that it is essential to know how a trout sees. 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. This is only possible if you see them under the same conditions to which they and the trout are subjected. It has been proven time and time again, to my own and many other peopleīs satisfaction, that lures which look and behave correctly catch more fish. So I think the problem does not lie with what the trout sees, but with what WE DON`īT SEE !!!! Mainly for lack of looking! Regards and tight lines! my assumption, valid or not, has been that even though they probably see things differently .... the difference would be rather uniform so that two things that look nearly identical to me.... could possibly each look very different to a trout.... but they'd still look nearly identical to each other, for the trout hope that makes a tiny bit of sense G I habitually test my flies in a clear container of water ... usually lifting it over my head to get an underneath view too, and swirling it around to check for internal movement in the materials ..... and spilling water on my head. If catching fish was the most fun part of fly fishing I would rarely fish.... it's Mike's chess game, the thinking and experimenting and more than anything else it's trying to immerse ( literally at times) yourself in your prey's environment and micro ecology that make this sport ... for me |
"Peter Charles" wrote For example, I've read here and been told by people that they have little success with Lafontaine's patterns. I don't claim to be a genius with them either -- but I'd speculate that we're missing the critical ingrediant that we don't fish these patterns correctly. You are likely right, but I own and have read "Caddisflies" a couple times, and have a video of LaFontaine tying and fishing his patterns. I do my best to fish them as he says .... the Deep Pupa, dead drifted, ah deep ... the Emergent, dry .... and I have better luck with other patterns fished best I can to mimic the same behavior, myself. But, to be honest, if a fish is rising anywhere it's unlikely I'm fishing deep ... more and bigger fish there or not. So the Emergent Sparkle Pupa has received a much fairer test, at my hand. For the "struggle at the film" stage I currently prefer an Iris Caddis .... similar to the LaFontaine pattern in many ways, but more effective in MY hands ..... get one wet and look up at it and it nearly shouts "eat me, eat me ... before I get away" Another standard approach is the soft hackle ( I 'think' this is what you mean by Yorkshire ... not sure ) and I've noticed and mentioned before that if one the right size and general color is floating IN the film at the right level, it WILL get eaten. That level I define as "you can see a bump in the film, where the fly is, but not the fly" As I typed the previous paragraph about the Iris Caddis I had a light bulb moment. The bend in the film when a SH is most deadly undoubtedly causes a light show at that spot, for our trout. The humped back of Zelon on the Iris and the basic form of the Sparkle Pupa could mimic that light show. The Zelon picks up water from capillary action and to my mind looks like glowing water around the body of the fly .... much as a 'bent menicus" looks One last note: I mean no disrespect of LaFontaine ... I think I own all of his books, 3 or 4 at least .... but I think the observations he made and Mike and others confirm will eventually be worked into better patterns than his series. Keep us posted Peter ... I think caddis are STILL the least understood of the common aquatic insects important to trout. If my knee surgery helps, I'll spend far more last light hours on the Madison this summer ... and it is caddis heaven/ hell .... depending on whether you're doing it right at the moment ..... I admit it's hell more often for me than heaven |
"Peter Charles" wrote in message ... On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:01:15 +0100, "Mike Connor" SNIP GRW should be tied upside down as they swim head down. Peter Yeah well, looks like I fcuked up again, because that post was sent somewhetre else! All very good comments though. I still feel I must have been doing something wrong with some of LaFontaines patterns, because his observations and reasoning were obviously correct. I donīt think anybody would seriously question that. So, what are we doing wrong? I exchanged e-mails with Gary for a while, ( he was a very nice and generous man, although I never met him personally. Moreīs the pity). But somehow we never did get to agree on some things, or we simply failed to understand what the other was trying to say. Part, and a very large part!, of the magic for some people, ( and you are obviously one of them), is "fathoming" the "secrets". It has little to do with catching fish per se. I need fish like I need a hole in the head! I donīt even eat fish! ( Or at least not very often). Your basic approach seems to be similar to mine. I try to concentrate, ( or at least I did, I have not done any serious fishing for a while, but I still think about it a lot!:)) on one thing at a time. Study a particular species, set up a working theory, find a pattern and method, prove or disprove it. Be successful, or at least more than usually consistent. Get bored with it, and move on to the next! Finding the solutions is more important than catching fish. It is also more satisfactory when these aer your own solutions, and not just "hand-me-downs" from somebody else, although all available information is grist for the mill. The same applies to fly-patterns. I will not fish with a pattern that I do not know inside and out. Your observations on the various species are obviously also correct, and I have no doubt that you will come up with reasonable, ( or perhaps even wildly successful):) patterns for these. Given your enthusiasm and concentration, this is a foregone conclusion, and only a matter of time. The point here is, they are "your" solutions. Not mine or anybody elseīs. In the meantime, I rather tend to think this is the nub of the matter. Discussing it, is merely an interesting sideline. I also get annnoyed when somebody tries to help me with crossword puzzles! But perhaps I am just a pervert? Oh well, into every life a little rain must fall! TL MC ( Who, by the way, will be moving to the West of Ireland in the near future, and is looking forward to some really good fishing for a change!). |
Study a particular species,
set up a working theory, find a pattern and method, prove or disprove it. Be successful, or at least more than usually consistent. Get bored with it, and move on to the next! Yup, that pretty well sums it up -- more fun to forge you're own path, even when it's wrong. The forging is as important as the final result. The getting bored part is an occupational hazard as I sometimes get bored before the final result . :((( It's one of the great attractions of the two-hander as it's a never-ending learning process on top of the never-ending fishing learning process. I'm pushing hard on the caddis problem as my trout two-hander is on order and I want a selection of swung wets as well as streamers to work with it. Peter turn mailhot into hotmail to reply Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharl...ers/index.html |
"Peter Charles" wrote in message ... SNIP .. I'm pushing hard on the caddis problem as my trout two-hander is on order and I want a selection of swung wets as well as streamers to work with it. Just a thought, ( and I have never tried it, my "two-handers" have multipliers on them!:)), but what about soft-hackles upstream? The long rod would seem pre-destined for this? TL MC |
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 00:38:31 +0100, "Mike Connor"
wrote: "Peter Charles" wrote in message .. . SNIP . I'm pushing hard on the caddis problem as my trout two-hander is on order and I want a selection of swung wets as well as streamers to work with it. Just a thought, ( and I have never tried it, my "two-handers" have multipliers on them!:)), but what about soft-hackles upstream? The long rod would seem pre-destined for this? TL MC yes, that too - chuck it upstream, hold most of the line off, let it drift through while letting line down into the drift, then swing it out at the bottom. Peter turn mailhot into hotmail to reply Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharl...ers/index.html |
"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 |
"Gene Cottrell" wrote in message ... 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 This approach can work well if all of your fishing is confined to a single fishery. It helps greatly to be able to correllate it to bug activity (or baitfish behavior) if you want to carry that success from stream to stream(or lake to lake, or whatever). What the fly looks like to the fish, it would seem to me, is merely an educated guess, but the consistent relation of success in a fly pattern, to a given type of prey is critical. Tom |
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 |
"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 Iīll 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 Iīll 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 |
|
"Gene Cottrell" wrote in message ... SNIP Each person should fish the way that gives him/her the experience they're looking for. Iīll agree quite unconditionally with that! TL MC |
"Gene Cottrell" wrote I'm now retired and I can choose the places and times I fish, which makes it better for me. I don't fish sun-up to sun-down any more and really don't care how many I catch, just as long as I have a little action. If the action is slow, I pack it in and take a hike with my camera. I don't say I have more fun now than I did when I fished harder, I had great fun back then. Each person should fish the way that gives him/her the experience they're looking for. I thought I was reading my own post when I read that. I'm really getting into sight nymphing, however, and find myself sometimes passing by risers looking for fish I can see that are feeding below the surface. That's the main difference I see in myself now than me "back when" ... "fishing the water" simply bores me now, ... but if I can see my prey I'm still a damn intense predator .... ah, in the stylistic manner of C&R Actually I'm more INTENSE than the young me, probably the same amount of emotion and concentration per day but spent in less hours. Now I seek out fish that demand 100% of my ability. Putting more of me into my fishing per hour, but for fewer hours, suits me ... that way both the fishing and the 'just sitting' are done to higher standards. |
"Mike Connor" wrote match the supposed hatch. If one is accurate with ones predictions, ( or the chart is accurate!:)) this too can be pretty successful. A couple years ago was a hot and accelerated season. Over a week after the last Green Drake was seen, I saw a guy tossing a big green paradrake pattern at some nice rising fish. As I passed he asked the common, "how ya doin' " and I said I had managed to catch a couple. He was fishless he replied and couldn't understand it as "the fish 'should' be eating Green Drakes at this time of year" Hatch chart blindness G there was absolutely nothing that even vaguely resembled a Green Drake on the water, except that lone Paradrake. On the "pattern vs presentation" deal ... I agree that presentation, as defined by Willi is the game .... but the average guy thinks presentation as nothing more than "no drag," To them, I like to say, and it IS true, for me .... "Somehow I always find it easier to get a good presentation with the right pattern." |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:01 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Đ2004 - 2006 FishingBanter