Egg patterns

Nymphs are what you use when you have dry fly fishing for about 3 hours and
haven't caught anything. It is one step above going home!

--


---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Are you still wasting your time with spam?...
There is a solution!"

Protected by GIANT Company's Spam Inspector
The most powerful anti-spam software available.
http://mail.spaminspector.com


"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
Ken Fortenberry writes:

Dave LaCourse wrote:
If using streamers (immitating bait fish) is ok, then egg patterns are
ok.

Streamers are made of fur and feathers, but yeah egg patterns are OK
(where legal) if that's what you want to do.

It's what they are immitating, not what they are made of. I have
streamers
that have neither fur nor feather on them. They immitate bait fish. An
egg
pattern also immitates another entree on the trout's menu.


BTW,. nymphing is the most difficult of the ways to fish, far more
difficult
than drifting a dry where you can see the drag. ...

Pure, unalduterated caca. Nymphing is so easy I've been in places
where if you go three drifts without catching a fish you know that
you've got moss on your fly. Been there, done that, but no more.
Anybody who says catching fish consistently with nymphs is more
difficult than catching fish consistently with dries doesn't know
jack **** about fishing either.

My, my, my. I seem to have hit a nerve, which indicates I was right on
target.
Try nymphing in a moss and slime covered bottom (i.e. a tailwater which
you
just *hate* to fish) stream like the Big Horn or Henry's Fork without
getting
your hook fouled. *That* is part of the fishing, and if you can't do it
(you
obviously can not), then ya ain't gonna catch fish. On three of my four
trips
to Idaho and Montana, you wouldn't have caught jack **** because you
didn't
know how. The dry fly is a wonderful way to fish, my preferred method,
but
you, like a certain departed friend, are too stubborn to realize it.
BTW, a
dry fly "purist" who goes steelheading is a hypotcrite. But, that's ok
too.
d;o)


Dave

http://hometown.aol.com/davplac/myhomepage/index.html

Sierra fisher opines:

Nymphs are what you use when you have dry fly fishing for about 3 hours and
haven't caught anything. It is one step above going home!

Ah, an open mind. Just what everyone needs. You obviously have had your
troubles mastering nymphing, and I can understand why. d;o)
Dave

http://hometown.aol.com/davplac/myhomepage/index.html

Sierra fisher opines:

Nymphs are what you use when you have dry fly fishing for about 3 hours and
haven't caught anything. It is one step above going home!

Ah, an open mind. Just what everyone needs. You obviously have had your
troubles mastering nymphing, and I can understand why. d;o)
Dave

http://hometown.aol.com/davplac/myhomepage/index.html

Dave, I see that you subscribe to the concept that if you can't think of
anything else to add, just criticise the other person. That adds a lot to
the discussion
--


---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Are you still wasting your time with spam?...
There is a solution!"

Protected by GIANT Company's Spam Inspector
The most powerful anti-spam software available.
http://mail.spaminspector.com


"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
Sierra fisher opines:

Nymphs are what you use when you have dry fly fishing for about 3 hours
and
haven't caught anything. It is one step above going home!

Ah, an open mind. Just what everyone needs. You obviously have had your
troubles mastering nymphing, and I can understand why. d;o)
Dave

http://hometown.aol.com/davplac/myhomepage/index.html

Ken Fortenberry wrote:



Pure, unalduterated caca. Nymphing is so easy I've been in places
where if you go three drifts without catching a fish you know that
you've got moss on your fly. Been there, done that, but no more.
Anybody who says catching fish consistently with nymphs is more
difficult than catching fish consistently with dries doesn't know
jack **** about fishing either.


And I've been in places that if you go three drifts without a fish on a
dry, you know something is wrong.

I think that your statement just reflects how important nymphs are in a
trout's diet. Trout feed on nymphs much more often than they do on
dries. A good percentage of surface feeding is on nymphs rather than
duns. Even poorly presented nymphs will often catch some fish.

However, it is MUCH more difficult to become a GOOD nymph fisherman than
to become a good dry fly man because of the wider range of techniques
that can be used and the added dimension of depth. Nymphing goes beyond
flinging weight below an indicator. For me, there's nothing more
exciting than sight fishing a nymph or a soft hackle to a trout feeding
in shallow water and watching them reject drift after drift and fly
after fly until you get it right and they take. That's VERY cool!

I can understand wanting to fish dries and even only fishing dries, but
you're WAY off base if you think that fishing a dry is more difficult
than fishing below the surface. Fishing on the surface is generally less
effective (even more so if you limit yourself to "true" dry flies) but
not more difficult.

Willi

"Sierra fisher" wrote in message
...
Dave, I see that you subscribe to the concept that if you can't think of
anything else to add, just criticise the other person. That adds a lot to
the discussion
--


Dave & I have had our exchanges before, but this time I have to agree with
him. If the fish aren't rising to dries, then the next "logical" step is to
use a nymph. It only makes practical sense. Anyone that can't see that fact,
really isn't much of an experienced fisher. 90% of a fishes diet contains
items that are found below the surface, not on top. So why limit yourself to
going to your favorite stream, seeing no rising fish or a hatch going on,
and saying, "Fock-it. I'm going home the fish aren't biting." ?

"Sierra fisher" wrote in message
...
Dave, I see that you subscribe to the concept that if you can't think of
anything else to add, just criticise the other person. That adds a lot to
the discussion
--


Dave & I have had our exchanges before, but this time I have to agree with
him. If the fish aren't rising to dries, then the next "logical" step is to
use a nymph. It only makes practical sense. Anyone that can't see that fact,
really isn't much of an experienced fisher. 90% of a fishes diet contains
items that are found below the surface, not on top. So why limit yourself to
going to your favorite stream, seeing no rising fish or a hatch going on,
and saying, "Fock-it. I'm going home the fish aren't biting." ?

Willi wrote:



Ken Fortenberry wrote:



Pure, unalduterated caca. Nymphing is so easy I've been in places
where if you go three drifts without catching a fish you know that
you've got moss on your fly. Been there, done that, but no more.
Anybody who says catching fish consistently with nymphs is more
difficult than catching fish consistently with dries doesn't know
jack **** about fishing either.


And I've been in places that if you go three drifts without a fish on a
dry, you know something is wrong.

I think that your statement just reflects how important nymphs are in a
trout's diet. Trout feed on nymphs much more often than they do on
dries. A good percentage of surface feeding is on nymphs rather than
duns. Even poorly presented nymphs will often catch some fish.

However, it is MUCH more difficult to become a GOOD nymph fisherman than
to become a good dry fly man because of the wider range of techniques
that can be used and the added dimension of depth. Nymphing goes beyond
flinging weight below an indicator. For me, there's nothing more
exciting than sight fishing a nymph or a soft hackle to a trout feeding
in shallow water and watching them reject drift after drift and fly
after fly until you get it right and they take. That's VERY cool!

I can understand wanting to fish dries and even only fishing dries, but
you're WAY off base if you think that fishing a dry is more difficult
than fishing below the surface. Fishing on the surface is generally less
effective (even more so if you limit yourself to "true" dry flies) but
not more difficult.

I disagree. As you well know I don't limit myself to "true" dry flies
in that I do fish emergers in the film. Often these are exceedingly
small.

I'm not talking about the effort involved in becoming a "good" nymph
fisherman as opposed to a "good" dry fly fisherman. In that case maybe
you're right, but I don't recall that much difference in the learning
curve. What I'm talking about it is *consistently*, as in every day,
taking several fish on a dry fly no matter whether it's August or
February, Wisconsin or Montana. THAT is a hell of a lot easier for a
nymph fisherman than a dry fly fishermen.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Willi wrote:



Ken Fortenberry wrote:



Pure, unalduterated caca. Nymphing is so easy I've been in places
where if you go three drifts without catching a fish you know that
you've got moss on your fly. Been there, done that, but no more.
Anybody who says catching fish consistently with nymphs is more
difficult than catching fish consistently with dries doesn't know
jack **** about fishing either.


And I've been in places that if you go three drifts without a fish on a
dry, you know something is wrong.

I think that your statement just reflects how important nymphs are in a
trout's diet. Trout feed on nymphs much more often than they do on
dries. A good percentage of surface feeding is on nymphs rather than
duns. Even poorly presented nymphs will often catch some fish.

However, it is MUCH more difficult to become a GOOD nymph fisherman than
to become a good dry fly man because of the wider range of techniques
that can be used and the added dimension of depth. Nymphing goes beyond
flinging weight below an indicator. For me, there's nothing more
exciting than sight fishing a nymph or a soft hackle to a trout feeding
in shallow water and watching them reject drift after drift and fly
after fly until you get it right and they take. That's VERY cool!

I can understand wanting to fish dries and even only fishing dries, but
you're WAY off base if you think that fishing a dry is more difficult
than fishing below the surface. Fishing on the surface is generally less
effective (even more so if you limit yourself to "true" dry flies) but
not more difficult.

I disagree. As you well know I don't limit myself to "true" dry flies
in that I do fish emergers in the film. Often these are exceedingly
small.

I'm not talking about the effort involved in becoming a "good" nymph
fisherman as opposed to a "good" dry fly fisherman. In that case maybe
you're right, but I don't recall that much difference in the learning
curve. What I'm talking about it is *consistently*, as in every day,
taking several fish on a dry fly no matter whether it's August or
February, Wisconsin or Montana. THAT is a hell of a lot easier for a
nymph fisherman than a dry fly fishermen.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Hooked writes:

So why limit yourself to
going to your favorite stream, seeing no rising fish or a hatch going on,
and saying, "Fock-it. I'm going home the fish aren't biting." ?


Exactly! I have never, *never*, uttered the words, "I'm going home. The fish
aren't biting. *NEVER*

I go fishing for a number of reasons, but I always expect to catch fish. I
prefer on the surface, but 75% of the time, I nymph. I've learned over the
years how to do it well, and if someone isn't willing to spend a year or so
learning, then they have a closed mind.
Dave

http://hometown.aol.com/davplac/myhomepage/index.html