Thoughts

"rw" wrote ( on the tying forum )

Scooping up nymphs is fun. I'm struck by how little the artificial
resemble the naturals. 99% of the mayfly nymphs I find look kind of like
Pheasant Tails and Hare's Ears, but even those patterns aren't all that
close. It's amazing that fish are so gullible and, I suppose, lucky for
us.


I have nothing better to do, so I'll post some thoughts I've long had.

Many of these thoughts probably evolve from a long, ardent history as a
waterfowl hunter. Indeed, the type of fishing I enjoy greatly resembles
decoy hunting, 'just sitting' until the prey is spotted, then an effort to
lure it via manmade fakes and illusions ... 'homemade' manmade greatly
increasing the pleasure of success. This is unlike other hunting/
fishing where the predator moves around and probes likely places to find
game, ala pheasant hunting, which largely bore me, I haven't hunted
pheasants in years but have them right on the property, and seldom 'fish the
water.'

Since the essence of 'my' style of hunting/ fishing is visually fooling the
prey with manmade fakes, I've spent a lot of time thinking about such fakes
and how the prey seem to judge them. In both decoy waterfowl hunting and
fishing to rising trout concentrating on a plentiful, specific, food item
I've found the following things true as best as such 'truth' can be
found..... and given the always present rare exceptions

1) Some individual can be fooled with nearly anything. ( I actually
conducted side by side tests of black painted bleach bottles against hand
painted, hand carved decoys at one point ... the bottles do attract 'some'
ducks .... and we all know that any fly will catch a fish, somewhere,
sometime ) But, even for the most innocent individuals, better fakes
produce better takes.

2) Most individuals more sophisticated than the above, ones that can't be
fooled by 'anything,' look for POSITIVES. This, to me, is extremely
important, and I've 'proven' it to my satisfaction both with decoys and
flies. It leads to big improvements in success to understand this, and a
certain style that might be called cartooning ... certain qualities, the
ones the prey is looking for as a sign of recognition, slightly overstated.
Generally, these are exactly the same things we humans would use to
recognize the various waterfowl or bugs, but experimentation is both fun and
valuable.

For most individuals, get the 'positive' they are looking for right and they
will ignore 'negatives' that one would think would make fooling them
impossible. In both decoy hunting and fly fishing "behavior' can be a very
important such positive, not just visual elements.

3) A few individuals DO start to look for 'negatives' to avoid, as opposed
to positives to seek out. These creatures can be very very difficult to
fool. A duck that has learned to avoid other ducks with anchor lines can
be impossible except in enough wind to create a chop. A fish that is truly
'leader shy' or 'hook shy' will also be very tough. IME, most hunters and
fishermen concentrate too much blame on these negatives and blame them when,
in reality, they are not giving the prey the positive it seeks. A duck
'looking FOR' life and movement in another group of ducks will avoid the
dead looking decoys of a calm day, but most hunters 'blame' a poor blind or
'shine.' A reasonably experienced trout will avoid microdragging dry
flies, but most fishermen seem to jump instantly to 'leader shy.'

Generally we are NOT going to fool individuals actively looking for
negatives, since those negatives are part of our methods ... hook, leader,
anchor line, paint that reflects light like no feather ever has. Given a
lucky set of circumstances we can 'get' these guys, but don't count on it,
and don't plan strategy too much around 'negatives' trying.