What they see?

Well, I have heard untold numbers of discussions on this, taken part in more
than a few, and read a great deal about it, including weighty scientific
tomes and treatises, but to be perfectly honest, I think the problem lies
elsewhere.

There is no way to know what a trout sees, even assuming our eyes were the
same, or that it is possible to theorise based on eye construction etc etc.
Images are engendered in the brain, and there is no way to simulate that, or
even theorise about it much. What animals experience in the way of thought,
perception etc is ( at least for now, and perhaps forever! ) beyond our
comprehension.

In my opinion, the main problem is that people concentrate on both naturals
and artificials, but in the HUMAN environment. This is not where they are
used, or seen , or taken by the trout. If you observe these things under
the same conditions that the fish see them, then quite a number of things
immediately become apparent. The first is, few of the patterns extant
resemble the naturals much, IN THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THEY ARE USED!
Secondly, very few people know how these creatures behave. Most of the
anglers and dressers I know don´t even bother doing simple things like
testing their flies in a glass of water!

There we have the two main problems. They are attempting to imitate
something although they don´t know what it looks like, and they also don´t
know how it behaves.

Many people use all sorts of patterns, some good, some more or less useless,
and catch fish, But not even a small percentage of these people has ever
seen what they are trying to imitate under the pertaining conditions, or how
it behaves. These are the main reasons why some anglers catch a lot, and
others very little. Other factors are of course important. Recognising a
hatch as such, and for what it is. Knowing when and how to fish certain
patterns, even when there is no obvious activity. Recognizing certain
behaviour or signs on the water, watercraft, etc etc etc. Luck does play a
part of course, but it has nothing to do with fly choice! Or at least it
should not have!

At any rate, all these things, luck included, are not much use unless your
lure looks and behaves as it should!

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!

Mike

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:01:15 +0100, "Mike Connor"
wrote:

[snip]

Regards and tight lines!

Mike

and the other part -- having some idea about insect behaviour.

For example, I've read here and been told by people that they have
little success with Lafontaine's patterns. I don't claim to be a
genius with them either -- but I'd speculate that we're missing the
critical ingrediant that we don't fish these patterns correctly.

I'm putting an effort into knowing the behaviours of three common
genera reasonable well -- the ones I mentioned in the first post,
commonly known as the spotted sedge (cinnamon caddis), little sister
sedge, and the green rock worm. I'll be adding the Mother's Day
caddis as well, but it's lower on my list as it's mostly a spring
pattern, while the others are virtually all season. There are others
that are important to my area but these will do to start. Basically,
I can fish all of my waters with variations of three patterns in
various sizes, olive bodied gray wing, tan bodied brown wing, and
black bodied gray wing.

Hydropsyche (spotted sedge) tend to drift along the bottom for quite a
ways, then head upwards, the drift in the surface film as they
struggle to hatch. This gives fish two shots at then, the bottom
drift and the film drift. Once they emerge, they fly off quickly and
present little opportunity to the trout. Trying to appeal to trout
during a hatch with either an ascending pattern (LaFontaine's sparkle
pupa) or an adult, isn't going to get you very far. The best patterns
will be a pupal stage (in the pharate skin) dead drifted along the
bottom and a Yorkshire style wet for the ascending, surface fim stage.

Hydropsyche are diving egg layers so a a dry presented during egg
laying followed by pulling it under at the end and swinging it, should
take some fish. Makes life simple -- three patterns -- a weighted
pupal stage (ginger and brown), a tan Yorkshire style wet, and your
choice of your favourite dry, KRC or EHC -- all tied on a fine wire
#16 dry hook but as a size 14 wing. With these three flies, in my
area, you're good from May until September. I have a specific spotted
sedge diving pattern and it's a killer when the egg laying is on.

Little Sister Sedge (Cheumatopsyche) has a lot of the same traits but
being a smaller bug, things happen a bit faster -- not the same long
drifts as the spotted sedge. Both bugs have darker wings early in the
season and become lighter as the season progresses.

Rhyacophilia (green rock worm) are free swimming larvae (as oposed to
the net building spotted sedge and little sister sedge) so the GRW is
the only one of the three where a dead drifted larva will be a natural
behaviour. The other two can be dead drifted at dawn and dusk during
biological drift. Obviously, people take fish on these all during the
day, but you're presenting a behaviour with a low incidence of
coccurence during the day. Most larvae that are free swimming during
the day (other than the GRW) were probably dislodged by a grubbing
trout , sucker, or an angler's boot. GRW should be tied upside down
as they swim head down.

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharl...ers/index.html

"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

"Peter Charles" wrote


For example, I've read here and been told by people that they have
little success with Lafontaine's patterns. I don't claim to be a
genius with them either -- but I'd speculate that we're missing the
critical ingrediant that we don't fish these patterns correctly.


You are likely right, but I own and have read "Caddisflies" a couple times,
and have a video of LaFontaine tying and fishing his patterns. I do my
best to fish them as he says .... the Deep Pupa, dead drifted, ah deep ...
the Emergent, dry .... and I have better luck with other patterns fished
best I can to mimic the same behavior, myself.


But, to be honest, if a fish is rising anywhere it's unlikely I'm fishing
deep ... more and bigger fish there or not. So the Emergent Sparkle Pupa
has received a much fairer test, at my hand. For the "struggle at the
film" stage I currently prefer an Iris Caddis .... similar to the LaFontaine
pattern in many ways, but more effective in MY hands ..... get one wet and
look up at it and it nearly shouts "eat me, eat me ... before I get away"

Another standard approach is the soft hackle ( I 'think' this is what you
mean by Yorkshire ... not sure ) and I've noticed and mentioned before that
if one the right size and general color is floating IN the film at the right
level, it WILL get eaten. That level I define as "you can see a bump in
the film, where the fly is, but not the fly" As I typed the previous
paragraph about the Iris Caddis I had a light bulb moment. The bend in the
film when a SH is most deadly undoubtedly causes a light show at that spot,
for our trout. The humped back of Zelon on the Iris and the basic form of
the Sparkle Pupa could mimic that light show. The Zelon picks up water
from capillary action and to my mind looks like glowing water around the
body of the fly .... much as a 'bent menicus" looks

One last note: I mean no disrespect of LaFontaine ... I think I own all of
his books, 3 or 4 at least .... but I think the observations he made and
Mike and others confirm will eventually be worked into better patterns than
his series. Keep us posted Peter ... I think caddis are STILL the least
understood of the common aquatic insects important to trout. If my knee
surgery helps, I'll spend far more last light hours on the Madison this
summer ... and it is caddis heaven/ hell .... depending on whether you're
doing it right at the moment ..... I admit it's hell more often for me than
heaven

"Peter Charles" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:01:15 +0100, "Mike Connor"

SNIP

GRW should be tied upside down
as they swim head down.

Peter


Yeah well, looks like I fcuked up again, because that post was sent
somewhetre else!

All very good comments though. I still feel I must have been doing something
wrong with some of LaFontaines patterns, because his observations and
reasoning were obviously correct. I don´t think anybody would seriously
question that. So, what are we doing wrong? I exchanged e-mails with Gary
for a while, ( he was a very nice and generous man, although I never met
him personally. More´s the pity). But somehow we never did get to agree on
some things, or we simply failed to understand what the other was trying to
say.

Part, and a very large part!, of the magic for some people, ( and you are
obviously one of them), is "fathoming" the "secrets". It has little to do
with catching fish per se. I need fish like I need a hole in the head! I
don´t even eat fish! ( Or at least not very often).

Your basic approach seems to be similar to mine. I try to concentrate, ( or
at least I did, I have not done any serious fishing for a while, but I still
think about it a lot!) on one thing at a time. Study a particular species,
set up a working theory, find a pattern and method, prove or disprove it. Be
successful, or at least more than usually consistent. Get bored with it, and
move on to the next!

Finding the solutions is more important than catching fish. It is also more
satisfactory when these aer your own solutions, and not just "hand-me-downs"
from somebody else, although all available information is grist for the
mill. The same applies to fly-patterns. I will not fish with a pattern that
I do not know inside and out.

Your observations on the various species are obviously also correct, and I
have no doubt that you will come up with reasonable, ( or perhaps even
wildly successful) patterns for these. Given your enthusiasm and
concentration, this is a foregone conclusion, and only a matter of time. The
point here is, they are "your" solutions. Not mine or anybody else´s. In
the meantime, I rather tend to think this is the nub of the matter.
Discussing it, is merely an interesting sideline.

I also get annnoyed when somebody tries to help me with crossword puzzles!
But perhaps I am just a pervert?

Oh well, into every life a little rain must fall!

TL
MC ( Who, by the way, will be moving to the West of Ireland in the near
future, and is looking forward to some really good fishing for a change!).

Study a particular species,
set up a working theory, find a pattern and method, prove or disprove it. Be
successful, or at least more than usually consistent. Get bored with it, and
move on to the next!


Yup, that pretty well sums it up -- more fun to forge you're own path,
even when it's wrong. The forging is as important as the final
result. The getting bored part is an occupational hazard as I
sometimes get bored before the final result . (( It's one of the
great attractions of the two-hander as it's a never-ending learning
process on top of the never-ending fishing learning process. I'm
pushing hard on the caddis problem as my trout two-hander is on order
and I want a selection of swung wets as well as streamers to work with
it.



Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharl...ers/index.html

"Peter Charles" wrote in message
...
SNIP

.. I'm
pushing hard on the caddis problem as my trout two-hander is on order
and I want a selection of swung wets as well as streamers to work with
it.



Just a thought, ( and I have never tried it, my "two-handers" have
multipliers on them!), but what about soft-hackles upstream? The long rod
would seem pre-destined for this?

TL
MC

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 00:38:31 +0100, "Mike Connor"
wrote:


"Peter Charles" wrote in message
.. .
SNIP

. I'm
pushing hard on the caddis problem as my trout two-hander is on order
and I want a selection of swung wets as well as streamers to work with
it.



Just a thought, ( and I have never tried it, my "two-handers" have
multipliers on them!), but what about soft-hackles upstream? The long rod
would seem pre-destined for this?

TL
MC


yes, that too - chuck it upstream, hold most of the line off, let it
drift through while letting line down into the drift, then swing it
out at the bottom.

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharl...ers/index.html

"Mike Connor" wrote in message
...
SNIP
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.
SNIP

I disagree further. It is essential only to know what the fish will take at
any given time. What it looks like to us or the fish is not of any concern
whatsoever to me.

Gene

"Gene Cottrell" wrote in message
...

I disagree further. It is essential only to know what the fish will take
at
any given time. What it looks like to us or the fish is not of any concern
whatsoever to me.

Gene
This approach can work well if all of your fishing is confined to a single
fishery. It helps greatly to be able to correllate it to bug activity (or
baitfish behavior) if you want to carry that success from stream to
stream(or lake to lake, or whatever). What the fly looks like to the fish,
it would seem to me, is merely an educated guess, but the consistent
relation of success in a fly pattern, to a given type of prey is critical.
Tom