"Larry L" wrote in message
...
SNIP
I've seen some video of the silver bubble taken in a tank. I always
wondered if an object lit from the side and photographed from the side
would
look the same as one lit from above and observed from below ... closer to
trout's view. I guess I could try getting a tank, maybe I will. Most of
the fishing season I live in a travel trailer and an aquarium is out of
the
question .... and I'm not sure how I'd cool and oxygenate a jar, either
I just kept mine in a cool place. No cooling was necessary. If you only have
a few larvae in there, oxygenation is not a problem either, Just put a
reasonably sized plant in with them. Failing that, a "bubble stone" ( an
air pump from aquarium suppliers), is more than sufficient. No complex
set-up is necessary.
There is not much difference in the "live" ( on stream etc)observations, and
those made in the tank. One can arrange lighting to suit. It is much more
difficult to simulate running water properly, but even this can be done if
required.
For a suitable set-up see here;
http://www.flyanglersonline.com/feat...ope/part8.html
When observing, I just covered the tank sides except for the observation
window. The first few times one sees these things, one is amazed that some
patterns catch fish at all, as they really are nothing at all like the
naturals. In some cases, the movement may be responsible, and in others the
fish may well take these things for something else entirely. There is no
real way to know. Patterns which look and behave like the naturals are of
course a lot more successful.
After observing quite a few insects and things in streams, tanks and the
like. It became obvious to me why some apparently very "bright and gaudy"
tinsel flies caught so well. They are often much better imitations of the
natural when seen underwater. In my considered opinion, this is one of the
main reasons that "gold bead head" and similar flies are so successful. The
other is the weight! They get down to the fish better. Personally I donīt
like gold head patterns, ( mainly an aesthetics problem, difficult to
explain!
), but there is no gainsaying there success.
The effect is not so much one of isolated bubbles, but of one large
silvery
bubble, which reflects the surroundings, and the basic colour may shine
through somewhat.
That was the impression I had ... rather like a waterboatman, which I have
seen
When I first read Fontainesīs findings, I was very
excited, pleased that his results so closely corresponded to mine, and
immediately tied up the patterns, but unfortunately, they did not work
very
well for me.
I've never had good success with any of his caddis patterns either, and
I'll
admit that is one reason I'm glad to hear your observations match his.
Two
of my life's passions, dog training and fly fishing, both have lots of
literature, lots of pretend science, and lots of misinformation, passed on
for generations in many cases. In the dog training area I personally
have
known 10 or 12 published authors, and their dogs, and can testify that
only
one of them could consistently train a hungry dog to eat. Some of
LaFontaines ( not to speak ill of the dead ) theory's, in several of his
books, seem better able to sell books than qualify as science
Well, in theory, and according to his observations, the patterns should be
very effective. I really donīt know why they didnīt work very well for me.
It may be a confidence thing, but I doubt it. ( although in the meantime, I
donīt have much confidence in them, and would use my own).For a while I was
worried that perhaps the materials were not exactly right, but this is not
the case. Most of the straeams I fished at the time were what I class as
"general" streams. No large specific hatches, not really very fertile,
plenty of fly life, but very mixed, with a predominance of caddis, and
terrestrials. No large concentrations of fish. In larger more fertile
streams, with clearly defined and observable hatches, then the situation
might be different. I really donīt know.
My own patterns were better. I have no idea why this should be
so.
I know .... as I posted earlier .... confidence is THE most important
material in any pattern
Indeed, were I limited in any way to patterns, I would feel quite
confident
on practically any stream, with a range of midges, and caddis.
The midges for sure ... my caddis knowledge and faith increases each
season.
I have knee surgery soon and I'm hoping it will allow a little more
variety
in the types of water I can painlessly fish. If so, I'm certain to spend
more time tossing caddis ties. BUT, and I'm sure you know this Mike,
but
others may not ... 'soft' rivers like Silver Creek and the ranch section
of
the HFork, famous for mayfly hatches, are often "tough" simply because the
anglers refuse to see the caddis everywhere ... a mistake trout don't
make.
It has always been rather surprising to me that many anglers ( here at
least!)do seem to ignore caddis and midges. This is an overhang from much
of the mainly available literature I think, although this has in the
meantime increased considerably both in scope and depth, which concentrates
on mayflies (ephemoptera), almost to the exclusion of all else. It has
little to do with fish preferences! Many anglers in Europe concentarted on
the "Chalk Stream" literature for a long time, and much of this is more or
less useless when applied to rough streams and the like, and many methods.
No sensible angler would carry just a box full of dry mayflies on such a
stream, the opportunities to fish them properly are simply too rare, but a
lot of people did, and still do. Some of course may simply wish to fish dry
flies, even where they are not the most effective method, merely because
they find it more enjoyable, and this is fair enough. Each to his own.
Usually, it takes quite a while before one has sufficient knowledge, skill,
and confidence, to try oneīs own ideas successfully. At first one is more or
less obliged to use "standard" stuff, and not very skillfully either. There
is also a great deal of pontificating in regard to many things. This is
confusing to "normal" anglers, and they are often unsure what to believe at
all. Especially when things donīt work!
Regarding American waters, I only know what I have read, but it would not
surprise me at all to find that the same problems reign there!
There are anglers, and there are anglers. Some ( like myself for a long
time), become almost totally obsessed and absorbed, and want to know
everything about everything, use lots of flies and methods, read and think
about it a lot, others are happy with a handfull of flies and a fishing trip
two or three times a year, and of course every shade and colour in between!
It is not really sensible to assume that skill and knowledge levels are
evenly distributed.
With regard to some authors, I agree with you. Reading some works, it is
often quite hard to believe what they write. Especially when it does not
seem to work very well in practice
For me, after a relatively short while, angling was like chess, where the
rules may change at will, the pieces move differently, and the playing field
constantly changes. One may never deduce some of the rules, or the pieces,
or the playing field, but occasionally one has a great game!
TL
MC