Yesterday Afternoon

Got out for a couple hours yesterday afternoon. It was a cloudy, misty
afternoon and my home river has started to rise but is still clear. The
conditions that helped the firefighters control our local fire also
seemed perfect for an Olives hatch.

When I got to the river, I found lots of Olives hatching but nothing
rising for them. The river risen several inches, but it had also gotten
much colder. Although the fish weren't feeding ontop, they were
aggressively chasing the nymphs. Fishing was VERY good and many of the
takes were aggressive enough to send my indicator streaking across the
current.

I had gone to the newly opened section of river that Charlie and I
fished a couple of weeks ago. (I think that one of the Rainbows was the
same one that both Charlie caught when we were there last time) This
stretch fishes very much like the section in town fished a number of
years ago. Maybe something like I picture in New Zealand in terms of
fish population - lots of dead water with not very many fish per mile
but all of them good ones. I hooked eight fish and landed 6 - one
sixteen inches the rest over 18 with one VERY fine Brown that threw the
hook on a jump. The jumping was unusual too. Several of the Rainbows
porpoised across the top but the two Browns I hooked were the only ones
that jumped.

With the influx of a bit of extra water, the fish have just started to
move out of their Winter holes. They are still concentrated in those
areas but have spread themselves out a bit. Gonna be a fun stretch of
water.

Willi

Green, yep green, with envy. I'd love to have a "home stream" that I could
take seriously.

Just curious, when you say "olives" I assume you mean baetis, one of the
swimmer mayfly nymphs. Do you present your pattern with any "action" or
dead drift? I've always just fished a PT dead drift, ( or tried to, my
nymphing skills don't justify using the word 'skill' ) but your skitter on
top posts made me think that maybe you are working differently down below,
too G

Larry L wrote:

Green, yep green, with envy. I'd love to have a "home stream" that I could
take seriously.

Just curious, when you say "olives" I assume you mean baetis, one of the
swimmer mayfly nymphs. Do you present your pattern with any "action" or
dead drift? I've always just fished a PT dead drift, ( or tried to, my
nymphing skills don't justify using the word 'skill' ) but your skitter on
top posts made me think that maybe you are working differently down below,
too G



I'm not too up on Latin names but supposedly the "Olives" are made up of
Baetis and some other I don't remember. However, use of the two Latin
names is misleading and even the common label Olives is misleading.
Maybe small gray Mayfly might be better.

Locally they hatch out throughout most of the year in various
permutations. They range from of a size 17 down to a 26. Wing colors
range from very light to very dark gray. Body color is mainly shades of
gray with some olive and rust. So functionally, the name covers a wide
range of bugs, whether or not the scientific name is the same or not is
irrelevant, IMO.

Back to your question. Since this class of bugs is so important on my
home river, I fish it alot and use a variety of flies. How I fish it
depends on what part of the hatch the fish are concentrating on. When
there are bugs out but no surface activity, a dead drifted PT usually
works. They seem less fussy in terms of fly type, and to some degree
size, at this stage partly because they're often feeding in faster
water. If they're up in the water column or making splashy rises (this
is generally in areas of less current) a wet hackle or an RS2 emerger
type pattern works well. I generally fish them on a dropper under a dry
generally dead drifted but sometime the fish will key in on a swing.
However, a skittering fly generally doesn't work. When they feeding on
top, sometimes they key in on emergers in the film and sometimes on the
duns. You can usually see if they're taking duns by following some duns
on the surface and see if they're taken or ignored. Unless there's wind
pushing them around, they usually want a totally dead drifted fly. The
three types of flies I fish on top are CDC comparaduns, parachutes and
standard hackled dries.

Willi

"Willi" wrote

I'm not too up on Latin names but supposedly the "Olives" are made up of
Baetis and some other I don't remember. However, use of the two Latin
names is misleading and even the common label Olives is misleading.
Maybe small gray Mayfly might be better.

Locally they hatch out throughout most of the year in various
permutations. They range from of a size 17 down to a 26. Wing colors
range from very light to very dark gray. Body color is mainly shades of
gray with some olive and rust. So functionally, the name covers a wide
range of bugs, whether or not the scientific name is the same or not is
irrelevant, IMO.


I certainly don't sit around talking Latin much, and most certainly don't
use Latin to "be impressive". "PMD," for instance, is pretty universally
used to mean two species that look alike and vary only in size. I'd prefer
to say "size 18 PMD" than one of the Latin names, since my words will likely
convey my meaning simply and without resorting to silly over complication.
But, IMO, the second paragraph above is a classic example of why we "should"
use Latin, at times.

If you, or anyone else, says "blue winged olive" I'm given very little real
information. Say I want to come fish with you and you tell me to tie up
some "olives" .... without several other paragraphs to define "olive" in the
current usage I don't know what size or color, do I? But, tell me Baetis
tricaudatis is hatching and I'm much better informed .... or can be with
some research.

BTW, for years I've been urging those I know in retriever trials to
standardize the language of training, for exactly the same reason.
Communication ( having your meaning understood, if not agreed with ) depends
on using language that is universally understood, and ( as we see so often
on Usenet), the honest desire to actually communicate, as opposed to argue,
or "win."

Rex Carr and Mike Lardy are THE two field trial trainers of all time ( Rex,
now dead, was my mentor ) and they only spent 3 days together, several years
back, when Mike came out specifically to met Rex. I was the only other
person there most of that three days, and at one point they bickered for 3/4
hour over a point, before agreeing to disagree, from mutual respect. The
sadly amusing thing was that from the "outside" it was clear that they were
using the same words (push and pull) to mean different things and that lack
of standardized training language was keeping communication from happening
between two greats of the activity.

In a like manner, I think there are times when the Latin is useful .....
"caddis" includes both Hydropsyche and Glossosoma and both may be active on
the same water at the same time ..... telling me you nailed em last night on
caddis doesn't help me as much as some Latin would ( assuming we were both
accurate in our use of the scientific names )

Still Green ( a grayish, rusty shade ;-), and tied fat on a big hook ...
yours truly

Larry L wrote:



I certainly don't sit around talking Latin much, and most certainly don't
use Latin to "be impressive". "PMD," for instance, is pretty universally
used to mean two species that look alike and vary only in size. I'd prefer
to say "size 18 PMD" than one of the Latin names, since my words will likely
convey my meaning simply and without resorting to silly over complication.
But, IMO, the second paragraph above is a classic example of why we "should"
use Latin, at times.

If you, or anyone else, says "blue winged olive" I'm given very little real
information. Say I want to come fish with you and you tell me to tie up
some "olives" .... without several other paragraphs to define "olive" in the
current usage I don't know what size or color, do I? But, tell me Baetis
tricaudatis is hatching and I'm much better informed .... or can be with
some research.


I disagree. I think that Latin just needlessly complicates things and
MANY of our aquatic insect species aren't even identified and named.

I brought in a sample of a huge Mayfly that comes off at sunset in the
middle of Summer to a professor of entomology at our university. He was
unable to identify it and wasn't aware of any local species that large.
(I need to check back with him and see if he ever did identify it.

Getting back to Olives - if you wanted to know the correct size and
color etc, you would have to know a number of species and subspecies (if
they are all even recognized). I'm also guessing there is size and color
difference in different strains of the same species. WAY too complicated
for me.

My suggestion would be for example: a size 20 gray winged gray bodied
Mayfly.

Willi

Willi wrote:

My suggestion would be for example: a size 20 gray winged gray bodied
Mayfly.

If they're gray, why are they called "olives"? THAT'S confusing.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

"Willi" wrote in message
...
Got out for a couple hours yesterday afternoon. It was a cloudy, misty
afternoon and my home river has started to rise but is still clear. The
conditions that helped the firefighters control our local fire also
seemed perfect for an Olives hatch.


Nice report. I look forward to reading more as you become familiar with
this new water.

Cheers,
Bill

Willi wrote:



My suggestion would be for example: a size 20 gray winged gray bodied
Mayfly.


and my request would be...tell me if it's a #20 parachute adams, a #14
ehc, etc. ... screw the fancy bug names, tell me about the size, the
color, and the flies you're using.

i might eventually be able to learn, remember, and spout the latin names
(mangled by southern speak), but what's the point? i'm fishing, trying
to catch fish, not presenting a lecture or trying to wow anyone with my
knowledge of latin bug names. i have a real fondness for fellas like
warren, makela, walt, pj, wayno, you, wolfgang, etc. who probably know
the scientific details but simply say those bugs look like a griffith's
gnat might work or a 16 humpy or something like that. perhaps you're
just making accommodations for this nitwit or others like me, but in my
ever-expanding experience, latin ain't the universal language of
flyfishers. for whatever reason, i've never thought being able to name
the bug meant as much as an ability to simply find the artificial (and i
don't know all those names either) that best mimics whatever the fish
are eating or might eat. whatever gratification the ability to identify
a bug by its scientific name provides, it's a pleasure of very personal
and limited utility among most fisher folk. for me, it's in the doin,
not the sayin.

one of the best examples i remember was the salmon fishing on the rapid
about 3 or 4 years ago when peter charles and daytripper and 3 or 4
others tied up some 24s and 26s to imitate the tiny little nit the fish
were gorging on - i called it a peter's nit. no one identified the bug
as a chironomid, ephemerella, or whatever latin identifier they probably
knew. instead, it was "looks like a 24 or 26, dark body, black, with a
wing". they went back to the cabins, tied some tiny flies they thought
would do the trick, and we had a fishin fiesta. that was fun.

jeff

"Jeff Miller" wrote

one of the best examples i remember was the salmon fishing on the rapid
about 3 or 4 years ago when peter charles and daytripper and 3 or 4
others tied up some 24s and 26s to imitate the tiny little nit the fish
were gorging on - i called it a peter's nit. no one identified the bug
as a chironomid, ephemerella, or whatever latin identifier they probably
knew. instead, it was "looks like a 24 or 26, dark body, black, with a
wing". they went back to the cabins, tied some tiny flies they thought
would do the trick, and we had a fishin fiesta. that was fun.

good point, and one that we in the hatch challenged southern
appalachians often disregard.

if you tell him i posted this story, i will have to kill you; unless, of
course, you do, and he gets to me first. anyway, me and pj were fishing on
snowbird one time in the early 90's during the ncaa tournament (the heels
lost to kansas in the final four), and we slogged for a couple hours,
catching nothing, fishing royal wulffs and yellow humpies, our favored
patterns during the year past. i had bought a streamside insect identifier
from orvis, and jim razzed my ass incessantly about being a dillettante. i
became bored/tired, and just sat down on a rock, watching him continue to do
a perfectly fine imitation of a 40 horse evinrude, relentlessly moving
upstream. i began to notice the growing presence of a small mayfly coming
off the water. i was initially stunned, since the sight of any bug other
than a dark caddis that time of year was very unusual. i managed to grab
one without totally smushing it, and put my little book to work. long story
short, i was in the midst of a hatch of paraleptophebia ------ (i can't
recall the last part--maybe adoptiva), which the book suggested was a
"little blue dun". i searched my box, and tied on a 16 adams parachute, the
closest i could come to "matching the hatch". it will come as no surprise
that i caught back up with jim, and began to slay the browns in front of his
ever widening eyes. his initial frustration turned to panic, and then
anger. he stopped fishing, and yelled over at me, "what in the **** are you
using?" i responded, "oh, just something that my book suggested---haven't
you noticed the paraleptophebias?" he kept that big ol ****eatin grin on
his face all the way across the creek, and was still smiling as he tore my
rod from my hands and gave me his. i just tied on another adams, and we
headed upstream together.

since then, i have been a firm believer in "matching the hatch", even in
our sterile waters.

yfitons
wayno

"Wayne Harrison" wrote...

"Jeff Miller" wrote

one of the best examples i remember was the salmon fishing on the rapid
about 3 or 4 years ago when peter charles and daytripper and 3 or 4
others tied up some 24s and 26s to imitate the tiny little nit the fish
were gorging on - i called it a peter's nit. no one identified the bug
as a chironomid, ephemerella, or whatever latin identifier they probably
knew. instead, it was "looks like a 24 or 26, dark body, black, with a
wing". they went back to the cabins, tied some tiny flies they thought
would do the trick, and we had a fishin fiesta. that was fun.

good point, and one that we in the hatch challenged southern
appalachians often disregard.

if you tell him i posted this story, i will have to kill you; unless, of
course, you do, and he gets to me first. anyway, me and pj were fishing on
snowbird one time in the early 90's during the ncaa tournament (the heels
lost to kansas in the final four), and we slogged for a couple hours,
catching nothing, fishing royal wulffs and yellow humpies, our favored
patterns during the year past. i had bought a streamside insect identifier
from orvis, and jim razzed my ass incessantly about being a dillettante. i
became bored/tired, and just sat down on a rock, watching him continue to do
a perfectly fine imitation of a 40 horse evinrude, relentlessly moving
upstream. i began to notice the growing presence of a small mayfly coming
off the water. i was initially stunned, since the sight of any bug other
than a dark caddis that time of year was very unusual. i managed to grab
one without totally smushing it, and put my little book to work. long story
short, i was in the midst of a hatch of paraleptophebia ------ (i can't
recall the last part--maybe adoptiva), which the book suggested was a
"little blue dun". i searched my box, and tied on a 16 adams parachute, the
closest i could come to "matching the hatch". it will come as no surprise
that i caught back up with jim, and began to slay the browns in front of his
ever widening eyes. his initial frustration turned to panic, and then
anger. he stopped fishing, and yelled over at me, "what in the **** are you
using?" i responded, "oh, just something that my book suggested---haven't
you noticed the paraleptophebias?" he kept that big ol ****eatin grin on
his face all the way across the creek, and was still smiling as he tore my
rod from my hands and gave me his. i just tied on another adams, and we
headed upstream together.

since then, i have been a firm believer in "matching the hatch", even in
our sterile waters.

Both fine stories and fun to read. That is pretty much how I like to fish, but I
get into trouble when the fish are feeding on what's under the surface. Every
once in a while I get lucky and tie on the right thing at the right time, or
some companion will point me in the right direction, but I much prefer dry fly
fishing.
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj