Fly Patterns: East vs. West

Danl wrote:
So, if Tom says they don't care about the perzact color of your sulphur and
jeffie says "they don't, just so long as its orangish yellow", then one
might conclude to construct one's sulphurs with a bit of orange, remembering
to mind the presentation most of all. I got that right?

Hey Tom, what did happen to your website with examples of your fave flies?

Danl



actually...and as you know...i simply stumble about all day and
eventually luck into something that works...or i find a pod of
incredibly stupid or peculiar fish. but, makela will vouch for the weird
orange sulphur event. i think he experienced the same thing. other
years, the traditional pmd/sulphur stuff worked fine. of course, i like
the old standby elk hair caddis...and you might try one of those cdc&elk
caddis.

if anyone wants to know what works or how to make it work at penns, tom
and the finn would be my go to sources. davePA is also a good resource,
though one tends to become a bit inebriated and, uh, disoriented when
fishing with him for the day (as in, "how did we get in this oasis of
totally nude young women, weren't we just on the juniata?"
disoriented)...and, of course, bruce fisher.

jeff

On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 08:25:24 -0400, jeff
wrote:

Danl wrote:
So, if Tom says they don't care about the perzact color of your sulphur and
jeffie says "they don't, just so long as its orangish yellow", then one
might conclude to construct one's sulphurs with a bit of orange, remembering
to mind the presentation most of all. I got that right?

Hey Tom, what did happen to your website with examples of your fave flies?

Danl



actually...and as you know...i simply stumble about all day and
eventually luck into something that works...or i find a pod of
incredibly stupid or peculiar fish. but, makela will vouch for the weird
orange sulphur event. i think he experienced the same thing. other
years, the traditional pmd/sulphur stuff worked fine. of course, i like
the old standby elk hair caddis...and you might try one of those cdc&elk
caddis.

if anyone wants to know what works or how to make it work at penns, tom
and the finn would be my go to sources. davePA is also a good resource,
though one tends to become a bit inebriated and, uh, disoriented when
fishing with him for the day (as in, "how did we get in this oasis of
totally nude young women, weren't we just on the juniata?"
disoriented)...and, of course, bruce fisher.

jeff

IMO, you guys have, even if unknowingly, hit upon the very reason that,
also IMO, folks proclaiming absolutes in such matters are on very thin
ice. Tom has greater experience from which to draw, but jeff obviously
has some experience, yet neither claims to have performed actual,
defendable experiments (assuming such were even possible). In this
case, both are sensible people and are doing no more than offering their
experience(s).

Here's my take: Whether this or that particular species can see color
isn't important and the color per se isn't important, what's important
is what the fish associates with what it sees. From the perspective of
the fisher and their offering's color, if it associates "food," than
that's good, if the fish associates nothing, it's neutral, and if the
fish associates danger, obviously, it's bad. But that's not the end of
it. The next thing is the "shape," and the same associations apply. And
the third is "movement," (or "action," or whatever one wishes to call
it) with the same associations. So, if Tom has a "neutral" color, with
the "food" shape and movement, one or more fish might eat, while if jeff
has a "food" color with neutral shape and movement, one or more fish
might eat, but if Clyde J. Slingass has a "food" color, a "bad" "shape,"
and a neutral movement, his chances aren't too good.

And in an area or in a time period with abundant food, the fisher is
competing with the "easy pickings" of real food that the fish's brain is
trained to key on as food, so simply not showing any "danger" elements
may well not be enough. OTOH, in a scarce food situation, just one good
element (or no "danger" elements) may well be enough. And of course,
there's the famous exception to the rule - maybe this or that fish
simply says, "Eh, close enough..." for whatever reason.

And of course, the above is applicable to using imitations, not,
necessarily, other forms of "lure."

So what's the final answer? Damned if I know, and I'd not trust anyone
who said they (absolutely did) know, but here's what I'd do: have a
variety of offerings, try a few things, and have fun...IOW, I'd go
fishing and not catching...

TC,
R

wrote


Here's my take: Whether this or that particular species can see color
isn't important and the color per se isn't important, what's important
is what the fish associates with what it sees. From the perspective of
the fisher and their offering's color, if it associates "food," than
that's good, if the fish associates nothing, it's neutral, and if the
fish associates danger, obviously, it's bad.


Mine:

Failures to take an offering are most often the result of poor presentation
.... on tough waters "micro drag" would make any effort at "pattern science"
impossible because you just can't always tell if the presentation is good
enough. "Bad" presentation will cause the fish to show fear, maybe stop
feeding, poor presentation simply doesn't get eaten. "Refusals" ... i.e.
the fish clearly looks and considers but doesn't eat, are probably pattern
problems, but not always.

I suggest finding places to try the type experiment I did here ( use
barbless hooks )
http://tinyurl.com/2kyuzt

Truly "selective" feeding is rare. I spend the season trying to find it as
I enjoy that type fishing above all others and it ain't that easy to come
by.

But true selective feeding does occur and at times on certain water types
can be "extremely selective."

When it occurs, my experience indicates that stage of development... nymph
in film, emerger in film, emerger shuck in wings out, cripple, dun ..etc is
likely to be the most important thing ( given 'decent' or rdeans 'neutral'
efforts at the other stuff)

A great many failures are the result of "angler's selectivity" .... the bug
the
fish are taking isn't the one the angler chooses to see .... last Fall on
Silver I was near some guys that were very frustrated and I could overhear
them. "I've tried every calibaetis pattern they sold us and nothing!"
I butted in, trying not to sound pushy and arrogant but maybe failing,
"There ARE calibaetis on the water, but have you seen any naturals eaten?
Watch your prey and see if you can see what he eats ... bet you can't ... if
you can't see what he's eating but you CAN clearly see your fly ... ah,
that's a clue." Those fish were eating midges ( ah, they were eating my
midge pattern ... ) I was prepared to give the anglers some working
flies, but they didn't pursue the "if not calibaetis, then what?"

The other pattern attributes of size, shape, color .... I think rdean has
pegged fairly well ... get one right and you up your chances. As for
color specifically, I've had several experiences where I feel it proved to
be very important, if not "as" important as the others. When I collect
bugs and tie my own flies, I try fairly hard to match color .... I do PMD
Sparkle Duns in three different dubbings for instance, all to fish the same
species but on different streams. Do I think that is essential ...no.
Do I think it helps ...yes ... if only my confidence and any angler with
some years behind him knows confidence is very important.

But, mainly, IF I can come closer to matching ALL the factors, presentation,
stage, size, shape, color ... why settle for just "enough?"

My mentor, really a man I adopted as a father figure, taught me about dog
training ... "make your FIRST effort, your best effort ... don't just
halfass try, then up the standard upon failing." If you fish tough
water like Penns, Silver, HFork ... your first effort can often be you only
chance, yet it's common for us to pray for "good enough" instead of work for
our best ... isn't it?

On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 17:25:23 GMT, "Larry L"
wrote:


wrote


Here's my take: Whether this or that particular species can see color
isn't important and the color per se isn't important, what's important
is what the fish associates with what it sees. From the perspective of
the fisher and their offering's color, if it associates "food," than
that's good, if the fish associates nothing, it's neutral, and if the
fish associates danger, obviously, it's bad.


Mine:

Failures to take an offering are most often the result of poor presentation
... on tough waters "micro drag" would make any effort at "pattern science"
impossible because you just can't always tell if the presentation is good
enough. "Bad" presentation will cause the fish to show fear, maybe stop
feeding, poor presentation simply doesn't get eaten. "Refusals" ... i.e.
the fish clearly looks and considers but doesn't eat, are probably pattern
problems, but not always.

I suggest finding places to try the type experiment I did here ( use
barbless hooks )
http://tinyurl.com/2kyuzt

Truly "selective" feeding is rare. I spend the season trying to find it as
I enjoy that type fishing above all others and it ain't that easy to come
by.

But true selective feeding does occur and at times on certain water types
can be "extremely selective."

When it occurs, my experience indicates that stage of development... nymph
in film, emerger in film, emerger shuck in wings out, cripple, dun ..etc is
likely to be the most important thing ( given 'decent' or rdeans 'neutral'
efforts at the other stuff)

A great many failures are the result of "angler's selectivity" .... the bug
the
fish are taking isn't the one the angler chooses to see .... last Fall on
Silver I was near some guys that were very frustrated and I could overhear
them. "I've tried every calibaetis pattern they sold us and nothing!"
I butted in, trying not to sound pushy and arrogant but maybe failing,
"There ARE calibaetis on the water, but have you seen any naturals eaten?
Watch your prey and see if you can see what he eats ... bet you can't ... if
you can't see what he's eating but you CAN clearly see your fly ... ah,
that's a clue." Those fish were eating midges ( ah, they were eating my
midge pattern ... ) I was prepared to give the anglers some working
flies, but they didn't pursue the "if not calibaetis, then what?"

The other pattern attributes of size, shape, color .... I think rdean has
pegged fairly well ... get one right and you up your chances.

Well, it's more than simply getting _one_ right. It's also getting none
"wrong" in the sense of having the fish "see" "danger."

As for
color specifically, I've had several experiences where I feel it proved to
be very important, if not "as" important as the others. When I collect
bugs and tie my own flies, I try fairly hard to match color .... I do PMD
Sparkle Duns in three different dubbings for instance, all to fish the same
species but on different streams. Do I think that is essential ...no.
Do I think it helps ...yes ... if only my confidence and any angler with
some years behind him knows confidence is very important.

But, mainly, IF I can come closer to matching ALL the factors, presentation,
stage, size, shape, color ... why settle for just "enough?"

I don't think it's a matter of "settling," but rather, the plain ability
to get "close enough." No one is going to "fish perfect" every time,
and when it might occur, a) it won't be able to be realized as such, and
b) it won't repeatable, and, c) it'll be a function of "luck," at least
to some extent.

My mentor, really a man I adopted as a father figure, taught me about dog
training ... "make your FIRST effort, your best effort ... don't just
halfass try, then up the standard upon failing." If you fish tough
water like Penns, Silver, HFork ...

your first effort can often be you only chance,

Now this I disagree with, and here's why: If that were true, then there
could only be one attempt by anyone at a particular fish. IOW, once
"spooked," that fish could never again be "fooled" and thus caught.
While I can't _prove_ that _no_ fish has _ever_ learned from a single
instance, the evidence that fish don't learn so quickly is certainly
there. And in your scenario, the fish would have to know it was the
same angler making a second attempt. I'd offer the likelihood of that
is, well, pretty low. Now, if you mean a particular angler might not
get an _immediate_ "second chance," yeah, OK, I'd go with that, but
given that these waters are heavily fished, I'd say the record shows
that the particular angler could easily avail themselves of many "second
chances."

yet it's common for us to pray for "good enough" instead of work for
our best ... isn't it?

Now that's a whole 'nuther, um, kettle of fish...

TC,
R

wrote

Larry wrote
your first effort can often be you only chance,



R wrote
Now this I disagree with, and here's why: If that were true, then there
could only be one attempt by anyone at a particular fish. IOW, once
"spooked," that fish could never again be "fooled" and thus caught.
While I can't _prove_ that _no_ fish has _ever_ learned from a single
instance, the evidence that fish don't learn so quickly is certainly
there. And in your scenario, the fish would have to know it was the
same angler making a second attempt. I'd offer the likelihood of that
is, well, pretty low. Now, if you mean a particular angler might not
get an _immediate_ "second chance," yeah, OK, I'd go with that, but
given that these waters are heavily fished, I'd say the record shows
that the particular angler could easily avail themselves of many "second
chances."




can "often" not always .... and implied but not stated was "for a short
time" I have fished for days for a single fish before I caught him,
there is no type of fishing that challenges and focuses me more. I was
basically saying the same thing as yourself "you might spook him, you
almost certainly will make him more wary ... for a short time " NOT that
"your first effort WILL be your only chance" and I was leading up to the
idea that trying your best the first effort is a key tactic of the most
consistently successful anglers I've met "on tough, hatch matcher, waters"
.... indeed such waters make "he who casts less, catches most" usually true
as opposed to the "keep your fly in the water" truth of much angling of a
different nature.

On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 19:27:55 GMT, "Larry L"
wrote:


wrote

Larry wrote
your first effort can often be you only chance,



R wrote
Now this I disagree with, and here's why: If that were true, then there
could only be one attempt by anyone at a particular fish. IOW, once
"spooked," that fish could never again be "fooled" and thus caught.
While I can't _prove_ that _no_ fish has _ever_ learned from a single
instance, the evidence that fish don't learn so quickly is certainly
there. And in your scenario, the fish would have to know it was the
same angler making a second attempt. I'd offer the likelihood of that
is, well, pretty low. Now, if you mean a particular angler might not
get an _immediate_ "second chance," yeah, OK, I'd go with that, but
given that these waters are heavily fished, I'd say the record shows
that the particular angler could easily avail themselves of many "second
chances."




can "often" not always .... and implied but not stated was "for a short
time" I have fished for days for a single fish before I caught him,
there is no type of fishing that challenges and focuses me more. I was
basically saying the same thing as yourself "you might spook him, you
almost certainly will make him more wary ... for a short time " NOT that
"your first effort WILL be your only chance" and I was leading up to the
idea that trying your best the first effort is a key tactic of the most
consistently successful anglers I've met "on tough, hatch matcher, waters"
... indeed such waters make "he who casts less, catches most" usually true
as opposed to the "keep your fly in the water" truth of much angling of a
different nature.

IMO, you're getting into the character of the angler (one who always
strives to "do their best, first") rather than the fish. Fair enough,
but not relevant on the topic of flies, color, and presentation. IOW,
the "perfect" fly lobbed out by a careless angler doesn't mean the fly
is wrong. OTOH, an "imperfect" fly well-presented by a careful angler
doesn't mean the fly is any better. Yet in both cases, the angler is
being considered in a discussion about, um, what the trout saw.

TC,
R

wrote

IMO, you're getting into the character of the angler (one who always
strives to "do their best, first") rather than the fish. Fair enough,
but not relevant on the topic of flies, color, and presentation. IOW,
the "perfect" fly lobbed out by a careless angler doesn't mean the fly
is wrong. OTOH, an "imperfect" fly well-presented by a careful angler
doesn't mean the fly is any better. Yet in both cases, the angler is
being considered in a discussion about, um, what the trout saw.



I "think" I can see your point. Maybe this fault of my being "irrelevant"
is partly due to my past profession. "Why is he doing that?" is a very
common question to be asked by people trying to learn dog training to a high
standard. At first, they are usually put off, even miffed, by an honest
answer, "It really doesn't matter, and if it did we'd be stuck with just
guessing anyway. What matters is his behavior, is it what we want or want
we don't want, and that is something we deal with pragmatically. The "why"
of his actions can make interesting chat, but not much change in how we
actually proceed."

In that same vein, I don't really have anything more than a guess about what
Mr Trout sees, thinks, and feels.

I DO know how I think and feel at the times I'm most successful at angling
( assuming reasonably constant apparent activity by Mr Trout between times
of success and times of failure ). That, I can try to point at in an
effort to help .... much as I'd tell my clients to "focus harder on what YOU
are doing" far more often than "HE is doing X because." It was what I
found, from hard work and long experience, made the most actual, positive,
change in behavior of the dog ... increased trainer concentration and effort
( I trained with people that were investing much of their lives, and tens
of thousands of dollars/year in the sport and were way past serious ...
they didn't need basic instruction in techniques or .... speculation )

Hopefully, suggesting looking hard first, sampling the flow to see what bugs
are in it, trying to match what your observations suggest Mr Trout wants to
the best of ablility, and taking the time to approach carefully with respect
for your prey's defenses, won't hurt anyone out there in ROFFland,
............ even if it doesn't help them.


total aside coming ... now THIS is irrelevant

As I type the above, I'm drawn to point out that trying to assign
"motivation" is always, at best, risky. And it is one of the constant
causes of contention around here ( this has nothing to do with you, rdean,
or this thread, it's just my aging brain wandering ). Not long ago, my
son made a comment about some students at his school taking certain classes
" because" of reasons he didn't approve of. I asked if they had said that
was their reason, "no." Me, " Then you really don't know, do you? What
you are really telling me is that if YOU took those classes that would be
YOUR motivation. Tis better to judge actions since the motivations of
others will always be mostly a projection of ourselves, and subject to great
inaccuracy."



end total aside


Think I'll leave now and go fishing for the evening ....

"Larry L" wrote in message news:7mTNh.194986

"Refusals" ... i.e.
the fish clearly looks and considers but doesn't eat, are probably pattern
problems, but not always.

Larry,
if you could read the mind of a fish I envy you.

For me, "refusal" is if the fish takes the fly then immediately ejects it.
And I've seen it happen within tenths of a second.
A few times it's hard to distinguish between a missed strike and a refusal.
fwiw,
-tom

"Tom Nakashima" wrote


Larry,
if you could read the mind of a fish I envy you.



I often fish places where every movement of the fish is visible .. and have
seen them drift with a fly feet "looking" before deciding to eat, ot not
eat. I "speculate" on why, or why not.

On the Holy Water section of the Rogue, during salmon fly action, I've seen
many trout, and on several different trips and in different years, actually
come up "nudge" a fly or natural and then drift with it "looking" If
the fly flutters or otherwise pleases Mr Trout, it gets eaten, if no, not.
No I can't say what those fish "think" ... I CAN catch them after years of
observation and pattern modification, based on that observation.

Now, I'm a pragmatist and tire easily of word games, so let me say, for
the record, "NO, I do NOT know what trout 'think' but I DO observe what they
do." IF I limited myself only to "facts" I couldn't talk about fish
"motivation" at ANY level .... I might then not be as guilty of hideous
misuse of the language, but I wouldn't enjoy my life as much either.


Gone fishin'

Tom Nakashima wrote:
"Larry L" wrote:

"Refusals" ... i.e.
the fish clearly looks and considers but doesn't eat, are probably pattern
problems, but not always.

For me, "refusal" is if the fish takes the fly then immediately ejects it.
And I've seen it happen within tenths of a second.

First time I've heard that definition. I've always thought of a
"refusal" in Larry's sense.

- JR