Caddis searching pattern - from failure to success

Willi wrote in message ...

Although, IMO, dead drifting nymphs is THE most effective technique day
in and day out, it's not a very fun way of fishing. Swinging wets and
some of the other nymphing techniques are much more fun. However, they
are not as consistently effective and it's hard, at least for me, to
determine when they are going to be effective.

Willi


As a general commentary . . .

As a follow-on to my last post -- I think that emerger fishing offers
the maximum advantage to anglers, not nymph fishing. The bulk of the
instar larval and pupal stages of burrowing/crawling mayfly and
cased/net building caddis are mostly unavailable to trout, living as
they do in the interstitial zones of gravel, pebble, and cobble or
burrowed into the silt. Before they're ready to emerge, they're only
available when dislodged or during biological drift. Grubbing trout
can get at some but we can't imitate that approach. Better nymph
opportunities lie with the free swimming larval forms that the nymph
fisher can easily imitate and use to enjoy success, but they only
represent a fraction of the total nymph population. However, it's
during emergence, when even pupae tucked under rocks must expose
themselves to predation, that our best shot exists.

The nymphing trout basically sits in its feeding lie picking off
drifting larvae, rarely straying very far. But the trout feeding on
emergers is far more bold, roaming about, and more likely to be
actively feeding, as opposed to the static trout that is
opportunistically feeding. These two conditions, exposed larvae/pupae
and actively feeding fish provide us with our best chance, however as
Mu points out, this is also the toughest form of fishing to get right.
I'm sure many successful nymph fishers unwittingly blunder into
emerger success by drifting their nymphs along with the emerging
mayfly larvae.

These two points together, with the tendency of caddis to emerge over
prelonged periods during the day and the season, are the reasons why
I'm try to pay a lot more attention to these emergence opportunities.
My recent Whitemans experience can't be taken too far but it is
encouraging that presenting a fly that is both visually and
behaviourally correct can get much better results than the "chuck 'n'
chance it" of blind nymphing.

Peter

Willi wrote in message ...

Although, IMO, dead drifting nymphs is THE most effective technique day
in and day out, it's not a very fun way of fishing. Swinging wets and
some of the other nymphing techniques are much more fun. However, they
are not as consistently effective and it's hard, at least for me, to
determine when they are going to be effective.

Willi


As a general commentary . . .

As a follow-on to my last post -- I think that emerger fishing offers
the maximum advantage to anglers, not nymph fishing. The bulk of the
instar larval and pupal stages of burrowing/crawling mayfly and
cased/net building caddis are mostly unavailable to trout, living as
they do in the interstitial zones of gravel, pebble, and cobble or
burrowed into the silt. Before they're ready to emerge, they're only
available when dislodged or during biological drift. Grubbing trout
can get at some but we can't imitate that approach. Better nymph
opportunities lie with the free swimming larval forms that the nymph
fisher can easily imitate and use to enjoy success, but they only
represent a fraction of the total nymph population. However, it's
during emergence, when even pupae tucked under rocks must expose
themselves to predation, that our best shot exists.

The nymphing trout basically sits in its feeding lie picking off
drifting larvae, rarely straying very far. But the trout feeding on
emergers is far more bold, roaming about, and more likely to be
actively feeding, as opposed to the static trout that is
opportunistically feeding. These two conditions, exposed larvae/pupae
and actively feeding fish provide us with our best chance, however as
Mu points out, this is also the toughest form of fishing to get right.
I'm sure many successful nymph fishers unwittingly blunder into
emerger success by drifting their nymphs along with the emerging
mayfly larvae.

These two points together, with the tendency of caddis to emerge over
prelonged periods during the day and the season, are the reasons why
I'm try to pay a lot more attention to these emergence opportunities.
My recent Whitemans experience can't be taken too far but it is
encouraging that presenting a fly that is both visually and
behaviourally correct can get much better results than the "chuck 'n'
chance it" of blind nymphing.

Peter

"Peter Charles" wrote in message
...

snip

The typical nympher fisher walks up to a run, sees no
surface activity and ties on a nymph then catches a whack of fish.
Would he have caught the same or more with another technique? Maybe,
but most anglers I know are two dimensional: dries or nymphs, so we
don't get to find out.

snip


What about streamer fishing? At what point would someone choose not to use a
dry or a nymph, but a streamer instead?




-------------------------------------------------------------
"...more and more of our imports are coming from overseas."
-George W. Bush

"Peter Charles" wrote in message
...

snip

The typical nympher fisher walks up to a run, sees no
surface activity and ties on a nymph then catches a whack of fish.
Would he have caught the same or more with another technique? Maybe,
but most anglers I know are two dimensional: dries or nymphs, so we
don't get to find out.

snip


What about streamer fishing? At what point would someone choose not to use a
dry or a nymph, but a streamer instead?




-------------------------------------------------------------
"...more and more of our imports are coming from overseas."
-George W. Bush

On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 05:57:36 GMT, "Hooked" wrote:

"Peter Charles" wrote in message
.. .

snip

The typical nympher fisher walks up to a run, sees no
surface activity and ties on a nymph then catches a whack of fish.
Would he have caught the same or more with another technique? Maybe,
but most anglers I know are two dimensional: dries or nymphs, so we
don't get to find out.

snip


What about streamer fishing? At what point would someone choose not to use a
dry or a nymph, but a streamer instead?



Streamers work best in off colour, fast water, but anytime is streamer
time. When I haven't been able to match the hatch and there are fish
rising all round me, I've tied on a streamer and slayed 'em. The use
of a streamer is more "angler's choice" than anything else. It's a
big fish method and I've used large streamers in search of big browns,
knowning full well that I'm passing up opportunites for lesser fish.

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

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

On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 05:57:36 GMT, "Hooked" wrote:

"Peter Charles" wrote in message
.. .

snip

The typical nympher fisher walks up to a run, sees no
surface activity and ties on a nymph then catches a whack of fish.
Would he have caught the same or more with another technique? Maybe,
but most anglers I know are two dimensional: dries or nymphs, so we
don't get to find out.

snip


What about streamer fishing? At what point would someone choose not to use a
dry or a nymph, but a streamer instead?



Streamers work best in off colour, fast water, but anytime is streamer
time. When I haven't been able to match the hatch and there are fish
rising all round me, I've tied on a streamer and slayed 'em. The use
of a streamer is more "angler's choice" than anything else. It's a
big fish method and I've used large streamers in search of big browns,
knowning full well that I'm passing up opportunites for lesser fish.

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

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

Peter Charles wrote:
Willi wrote in message ...

Although, IMO, dead drifting nymphs is THE most effective technique day
in and day out, it's not a very fun way of fishing. Swinging wets and
some of the other nymphing techniques are much more fun. However, they
are not as consistently effective and it's hard, at least for me, to
determine when they are going to be effective.

Willi



As a general commentary . . .

As a follow-on to my last post -- I think that emerger fishing offers
the maximum advantage to anglers, not nymph fishing. The bulk of the
instar larval and pupal stages of burrowing/crawling mayfly and
cased/net building caddis are mostly unavailable to trout, living as
they do in the interstitial zones of gravel, pebble, and cobble or
burrowed into the silt. Before they're ready to emerge, they're only
available when dislodged or during biological drift. Grubbing trout
can get at some but we can't imitate that approach. Better nymph
opportunities lie with the free swimming larval forms that the nymph
fisher can easily imitate and use to enjoy success, but they only
represent a fraction of the total nymph population. However, it's
during emergence, when even pupae tucked under rocks must expose
themselves to predation, that our best shot exists.


I disagree with this. Biological drift occurs to some degree throughout
most days and gives the trout who are "holed up" during non feeding
periods the opportunity to eat with little effort. Research has shown
that early mornings are the time of the most biological drift, but it
does occur throughout the day. That's the strength of dead drift
nymphing with weight etc.

IMO, the strength of drifting a nymph along the bottom is that it will
generally interest at least some of the fish that are in a nonfeeding
mode. It will also take fish that are actively feeding. All the other
techniques that I'm aware of primarily rely on taking only actively
feeding fish.



The nymphing trout basically sits in its feeding lie picking off
drifting larvae, rarely straying very far. But the trout feeding on
emergers is far more bold, roaming about, and more likely to be
actively feeding, as opposed to the static trout that is
opportunistically feeding. These two conditions, exposed larvae/pupae
and actively feeding fish provide us with our best chance, however as
Mu points out, this is also the toughest form of fishing to get right.
I'm sure many successful nymph fishers unwittingly blunder into
emerger success by drifting their nymphs along with the emerging
mayfly larvae.

Actively feeding trout are much more fun to target, IMO, and I try and
seek them out. However, for most of the year in most waters, these
feeding periods are very limited both in occurrence and duration.


These two points together, with the tendency of caddis to emerge over
prelonged periods during the day and the season, are the reasons why
I'm try to pay a lot more attention to these emergence opportunities.
My recent Whitemans experience can't be taken too far but it is
encouraging that presenting a fly that is both visually and
behaviourally correct can get much better results than the "chuck 'n'
chance it" of blind nymphing.


I think it's definitely more fun and is more effective during the right
time and in the right place. I also think that anglers are missing out
by not learning these different techniques. I'm not trying to convince
you to chuck and duck, I don't find it particularly fun, but I'm also
convinced that day in and day out throughout the season across the
Country, nymphs dead drifted along the bottom are going to catch far
more trout than any other technique.

Willi

Peter Charles wrote:
Willi wrote in message ...

Although, IMO, dead drifting nymphs is THE most effective technique day
in and day out, it's not a very fun way of fishing. Swinging wets and
some of the other nymphing techniques are much more fun. However, they
are not as consistently effective and it's hard, at least for me, to
determine when they are going to be effective.

Willi



As a general commentary . . .

As a follow-on to my last post -- I think that emerger fishing offers
the maximum advantage to anglers, not nymph fishing. The bulk of the
instar larval and pupal stages of burrowing/crawling mayfly and
cased/net building caddis are mostly unavailable to trout, living as
they do in the interstitial zones of gravel, pebble, and cobble or
burrowed into the silt. Before they're ready to emerge, they're only
available when dislodged or during biological drift. Grubbing trout
can get at some but we can't imitate that approach. Better nymph
opportunities lie with the free swimming larval forms that the nymph
fisher can easily imitate and use to enjoy success, but they only
represent a fraction of the total nymph population. However, it's
during emergence, when even pupae tucked under rocks must expose
themselves to predation, that our best shot exists.


I disagree with this. Biological drift occurs to some degree throughout
most days and gives the trout who are "holed up" during non feeding
periods the opportunity to eat with little effort. Research has shown
that early mornings are the time of the most biological drift, but it
does occur throughout the day. That's the strength of dead drift
nymphing with weight etc.

IMO, the strength of drifting a nymph along the bottom is that it will
generally interest at least some of the fish that are in a nonfeeding
mode. It will also take fish that are actively feeding. All the other
techniques that I'm aware of primarily rely on taking only actively
feeding fish.



The nymphing trout basically sits in its feeding lie picking off
drifting larvae, rarely straying very far. But the trout feeding on
emergers is far more bold, roaming about, and more likely to be
actively feeding, as opposed to the static trout that is
opportunistically feeding. These two conditions, exposed larvae/pupae
and actively feeding fish provide us with our best chance, however as
Mu points out, this is also the toughest form of fishing to get right.
I'm sure many successful nymph fishers unwittingly blunder into
emerger success by drifting their nymphs along with the emerging
mayfly larvae.

Actively feeding trout are much more fun to target, IMO, and I try and
seek them out. However, for most of the year in most waters, these
feeding periods are very limited both in occurrence and duration.


These two points together, with the tendency of caddis to emerge over
prelonged periods during the day and the season, are the reasons why
I'm try to pay a lot more attention to these emergence opportunities.
My recent Whitemans experience can't be taken too far but it is
encouraging that presenting a fly that is both visually and
behaviourally correct can get much better results than the "chuck 'n'
chance it" of blind nymphing.


I think it's definitely more fun and is more effective during the right
time and in the right place. I also think that anglers are missing out
by not learning these different techniques. I'm not trying to convince
you to chuck and duck, I don't find it particularly fun, but I'm also
convinced that day in and day out throughout the season across the
Country, nymphs dead drifted along the bottom are going to catch far
more trout than any other technique.

Willi

Willi wrote in message ...
Places to try it:


Also anywhere you can't drift a fly into normally, like
into the top of a logjam or similar situation. Two things
I like to do are try to get the fly to swing right in front
of it, and get a downstream dead-drift right into the top.
Detecting the hit on a downstream dead-drift is of course
the real problem. If you can get right above where you want
the fly to drift into, you can match the current speed
with your rod and maintain fairly direct contact, and feel
the hit. Otherwise, it's mostly intuition and luck, that
6th sense that tells you to lift up.

Downstream dead-drifting is useful in a lot of other situations
as well, such as fishing heavy C+R areas like the San Juan,
where fish see lots of leaders and fly lines. There you almost
need to see the fish move to take the fly, since by the time
you feel a hit on a #22 fly, it's too late.

Jon.

Willi wrote in message ...
Places to try it:


Also anywhere you can't drift a fly into normally, like
into the top of a logjam or similar situation. Two things
I like to do are try to get the fly to swing right in front
of it, and get a downstream dead-drift right into the top.
Detecting the hit on a downstream dead-drift is of course
the real problem. If you can get right above where you want
the fly to drift into, you can match the current speed
with your rod and maintain fairly direct contact, and feel
the hit. Otherwise, it's mostly intuition and luck, that
6th sense that tells you to lift up.

Downstream dead-drifting is useful in a lot of other situations
as well, such as fishing heavy C+R areas like the San Juan,
where fish see lots of leaders and fly lines. There you almost
need to see the fish move to take the fly, since by the time
you feel a hit on a #22 fly, it's too late.

Jon.