"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 people´s 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`´T 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