Yesterday Afternoon

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

Wayne Harrison wrote:

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. 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.


These stories you guys tell of PJ from time to time ARE entertaining. I
especially like how you're able to portray him as such an endearing fellow!

Willi

Willi wrote:



These stories you guys tell of PJ from time to time ARE entertaining. I
especially like how you're able to portray him as such an endearing fellow!



think "skinner box" and you'll understand...

jeff

On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 20:32:30 GMT, Jeff wrote:



Willi wrote:



These stories you guys tell of PJ from time to time ARE entertaining. I
especially like how you're able to portray him as such an endearing fellow!



think "skinner box" and you'll understand...

I think it's more like "Stockholm Syndrome"...

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.

yfitons
wayno


Any snipage would be wrong. The above stuff is why I keep hangin' around
this place.

Thanks guys,

Russell

"Jeff Miller" wrote in message
news:Cvxcc.12811$pM1.735@lakeread06...


...i have a real fondness for fellas like
warren, makela, walt, pj, wayno, you, wolfgang, etc. who probably
know
the scientific details...

Not guilty and falsely accused, counselor. I can correctly paste the
Latin binomials on exactly two bugs......one of them because I think
it's a good idea to know the name of anything that looks big enough to
hurt me, and the other because I've never heard it referred to by any
other name.

That said, I agree that there is no good practical reason to make a
fetish of learning all of the bugs' true names (and it's probably bad
juju anyway), but some of us do derive some satisfaction from that
sort of things for various more esoteric reasons. I've always been in
love with trees. I've forgotten a lot in the last twenty years, but I
used to know the Latin binomials for virtually all of the native
species as well as a few dozen more or less common introduced species
in this area. It never did me any earthly good whatsoever beyond
boring companions nearly to death with a never ending string of what
they doubtless considered pretentious gibberish.......reason enough,
in my book.

Wolfgang

"Wolfgang" wrote

one of them because I think
it's a good idea to know the name of anything that looks big enough to
hurt me,

snip
That said, I agree that there is no good practical reason to make a
fetish of learning all of the bugs' true names (and it's probably bad
juju anyway), but some of us do derive some satisfaction from that
sort of things for various more esoteric reasons.

If I tell you that the lake 2 miles from here has a Hexagenia limbata hatch
and the bass feed on the nymphs and somewhat on the duns .... does that
prepare a mid-westerner to fish that activity better than "big yellow may"

Do you have a pretty damn good idea what nymph and dun patterns would likely
work? What size "big" is? What time of day to be there? What bottom type
the bug prefers and thus can limit your search to those types?

I agree that to a large extent that the Latin is often the opposite of
valuable, since it DEcreases real communication ( and bores others and makes
one appear snobby ;-) unless both parties have real knowledge linked to
those Latin words. And I agree that a lot of the value lies simply in the
"more esoteric reasons" But, I think they is good practical reason ....
at times, anyway .... to learn more about the bugs and their names,
especially if one wants to communicate with others on the subject.

Um, I just flashed on a thought

I can barely walk many days and just had my knee "imaged." When the
radiologist sends his report to the Dr that will suggest "cut or no cut" I'd
FAR prefer that he send that report in the scientific language that he and
the doc both use exactly the same than to say " the guy's got a bum knee"
scientific accuracy in wording, and Latin namimg, has advantages G

Taxonomy is the first science and the study of most fields starts with
learning the language of that field. In my case, learning more about the
bugs, including latin names, increases my fun and enjoyment. If that isn't
the case for others than they shouldn't do so

Larry L wrote:



If I tell you that the lake 2 miles from here has a Hexagenia limbata hatch
and the bass feed on the nymphs and somewhat on the duns .... does that
prepare a mid-westerner to fish that activity better than "big yellow may"

no... but if you say the bugs look like size 8 yellow humpies (i've
never seen one of those, btw), i'd have a good clue from your words.
wayne knight showed me some hex flies once...they looked like sparrows.


Do you have a pretty damn good idea what nymph and dun patterns would likely
work? What size "big" is? What time of day to be there? What bottom type
the bug prefers and thus can limit your search to those types?

much too complicated for me and my fishing adventures, but i admire your
intellectual spunk...


I agree that to a large extent that the Latin is often the opposite of
valuable, since it DEcreases real communication ( and bores others and makes
one appear snobby ;-) unless both parties have real knowledge linked to
those Latin words.

and, truth be told, it's a very limited...some would claim,
elite...group of folks, eh? might as well require white gloves and
french for fishing discussions... parlez vous francais?

And I agree that a lot of the value lies simply in the
"more esoteric reasons" But, I think they is good practical reason ....
at times, anyway .... to learn more about the bugs and their names,
especially if one wants to communicate with others on the subject.

who are you communicating with? entomologists? i suspect yiddish would
be every bit as effective in such communications with the vast majority
of folks who are passionate about the fishing...


Um, I just flashed on a thought

I can barely walk many days and just had my knee "imaged." When the
radiologist sends his report to the Dr that will suggest "cut or no cut" I'd
FAR prefer that he send that report in the scientific language that he and
the doc both use exactly the same than to say " the guy's got a bum knee"
scientific accuracy in wording, and Latin namimg, has advantages G


do you honestly think that is a true or even helpful analogy with regard
to our specific fishing and flies conversation? c'mon larry... most
fishermen aren't entomologists; however, all orthopedic surgeons
are...well, you see what i mean?

Taxonomy is the first science and the study of most fields starts with
learning the language of that field. In my case, learning more about the
bugs, including latin names, increases my fun and enjoyment.

and, lest i be misunderstood, i accept and believe that is a good and
sufficient and even admirable reason for your or anyone else's mastery
of the latin taxonomy of bugs. however, we were talking effective or
useful communication among a group of fishermen, few of whom are
entomologists.

If that isn't
the case for others than they shouldn't do so

jeff