![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 donīt 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 donīt know what it looks like, and they also donīt 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 peopleīs 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`īT SEE !!!! Mainly for lack of looking! Regards and tight lines! Mike |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|