winged wet flies have declined in popularity somewhat recently.some people reckon its due to many being unable to tie wings to a good standard.i am able to tie winged wets but have now stopped altogether as i find them a time consuming pain and am not convinced they are necessary.almost all my wets nowadays are dabblers bumbles or palmers i have given some previously essential wets the treatment,eg an invicta bumble or a dunkeld dabbler.how do others feel about this ,are there any flies where you think the wing is essential to the fish catching abilities of the fly.
Garry
In most cases the wings on wet flies are not only superfluous but detrimental. This depends very considerably on how they are dressed and fished, but the wings on "traditional" wet flies, considering the way they are usually dressed and fished are generally useless.
i agree about bronze mallard and teal ,i used to use them a lot but mainly on double hooks which ensured they swam the right way up.the usual wet fly wing must surely act like a rudder and unless it is pulled absolutely straight then it must be swimming on its side or even upside down.not that it puts the fish off.as i fish barbless these days i dont use doubles anymore as i find them poor hookers when de-barbed.not sure why though.
Garry
I'm sure if you were determined enough you could catch a fish on say, a Woocock and Mixed, or a Teal and Green or whatever.
But, really, I think it would be more of an affectation than a serious fishing tactic.
And fair enough. Some people like to keep these flames alive.
Lets face it, the age of the traditional winged wet fly, as the standard model, is well and truly over.
Although I seldom use them I would not be without a few traditional winged wets in my box. I have seen many dour days when The Butcher and Silver Invicta has saved a blank.
On flies like the butcher, silver invicta it probably helps create a baitfish illusion. Like a mini streamer.
I've moved away from winged wets over the years too, but still have pearly and silver invictas in the box. I find the Priest (black hackle, silver body and rib, red floss tail) works just as well as a Butcher and takes a fraction of the time to tie.
On the invictas, I always thought they were seen by some loosely as sedge imitations - hence the wing. with the silver or pearly versions, the fish/fry imitation makes sense for me too though.
I mostly fish rivers with dries or nymphs. When I do fish wet flies, I use hackled flies as opposed to winged. Like Alan, I've never really seen the point in the wing.
I can't really see any reason to change that way of thinking for lochs, so as a first choice I use the same imitative/impressionistic approach to lochs as I do for rivers. It seems to work OK :)
Now, my loch flybox (wherever it is) has the usual selection of bibios, butchers etc as everybody else's. I see these as mini lures that suggest food of some unspecified sort.
I can't see how red tagged or green globrited flies for example could be viewed as anything other than fancy lures. In my opinion wings are just another part of the lure.
Alex
On rivers many of the wet flies that now reside in my fly box have a wing but almost no hackle. I've used these on the lochs and they are very successful there too, fished as a bob fly with a dry on the tail, which is my preferred tactic on stillwater.
These are the very traditional Scottich river wet flies which I have started to take a lot of interest in.
I don't use many traditional Scottish wets for the very good reason that I am by some margin the worst and least successful loch wet fly fisherman in Scotland. Except on Loch Leven. There a few of my successful flies have wings - Dunkeld, Hardy's Gold Butcher, Wickhams, Silver invicta, Butchers and of course the Peter Ross. I don't have the confidence to fish wingless versions of these.
maybe the style of wet fly fishing now generally does not suit winged wets.back in the day when many of these flies were invented the style of casting was short linking and more or less stroking the surface with the flies probably a lot slower than most people today.that maybe helped keep the flies fishing the right way up.i cant help but feel with the faster retrieve i use with wet flies that they end up spinning or upside down.
Garry
Quote from: garryh on October 27, 2012, 01:14:25 PM
maybe the style of wet fly fishing now generally does not suit winged wets.back in the day when many of these flies were invented the style of casting was short linking and more or less stroking the surface with the flies probably a lot slower than most people today.that maybe helped keep the flies fishing the right way up.i cant help but feel with the faster retrieve i use with wet flies that they end up spinning or upside down.
Garry
That is correct but there are other reasons. The vast majority of winged wet flies were dressed as adult winged flies and fished DEAD DRIFT. Dragging winged flies about can not be a good imitation of anything as winged flies can't swim, and most certainly not against a current. This is also a major reason why "Down and across" with winged wet flies is a poor method.
Also, due to confusion with nomenclature the "standard" winging of many wet flies is based on mistakes by the dressers concerned. None of the older dressers winged their flies like this, and they also fished them differently in any case.
Some old flies showing the winging styles;
(http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/8328/practiflyfish00jackrich.jpg) (http://img201.imageshack.us/i/practiflyfish00jackrich.jpg/)
For some more info on that;
http://www.wildfisher.co.uk/smf/index.php?topic=16752.0 (http://www.wildfisher.co.uk/smf/index.php?topic=16752.0)
Never without a box of winged wets in the boat on the loch.
Quote from: Inchlaggan on October 27, 2012, 01:53:38 PM
Never without a box of winged wets in the boat on the loch.
I have a few boxes myself, sometimes they work really well, much more so than on rivers. A great deal depends on how you fish them and what you are trying to imitate, if at all.
Quotebut the wings on "traditional" wet flies, considering the way they are usually dressed and fished are generally useless.
What a load of tosh, I am not even going to bother arguing the point as it would fall on deaf ears.
No we don't "need" wets
But tell you what people.
Next time you drift off Castle to Shallows with a south west behind & a size 16 wee double Kingfisher Butcher on bob, a Burleigh on dropper & a Silver Butcher on the tail.
A drift across Carron Valley in the old days with a team of size 16 Clyde Style Wets
A July night on the tidal stretch of the River Leven with a Teal Blue & Silver for Black Nebs
The glide above Wolf Clyde Bridge in May, with a Sandfly, top dropper & Hen Blackie on point.
Then you come & tell me then winged wets are no good.
You fish your way
I'll fish away with my winged wets & I will bet I will still catch fish for many more years to come.
Rant over & I will say no more on the subject
Tight Lines
I fish a winged, wet, Iron Blue Dun on the middle dropper of my three fly cast all the time. Invariably it only catches when there are upwings about, either Sepias, Clarets or one of the olives, and it works both on still and running water. It is never off the cast. It is a size #12 so is at least three times the size of an actual Iron Blue but it has caught trout on the river even when they are about. I saw mating shrimp in the shallows of a loch in Moidart and the male clasped to the neck of the female and draped along her back reminded me of an Invicta. I'll keep the wings as the Iron Blue doesn't get many hits when the wing goes.
Oh they certainly catch fish, no disputing that.
And in the case of fry-imitations there's an undeniable logic there. Even, at a push, starling wings might do a good job of imitating a drowned dun (how many duns sink?) :think2
But as a standard template for trout-fly design - lovely as they are, they're heading for the same bin as horsehair and greenheart.
Quote from: Highlander on October 27, 2012, 02:09:40 PM
What a load of tosh, I am not even going to bother arguing the point as it would fall on deaf ears.
No we don't "need" wets
But tell you what people.
Next time you drift off Castle to Shallows with a south west behind & a size 16 wee double Kingfisher Butcher on bob, a Burleigh on dropper & a Silver Butcher on the tail.
A drift across Carron Valley in the old days with a team of size 16 Clyde Style Wets
A July night on the tidal stretch of the River Leven with a Teal Blue & Silver for Black Nebs
The glide above Wolf Clyde Bridge in May, with a Sandfly, top dropper & Hen Blackie on point.
Then you come & tell me then winged wets are no good.
You fish your way
I'll fish away with my winged wets & I will bet I will still catch fish for many more years to come.
Rant over & I will say no more on the subject
Tight Lines
Some will catch fish under various conditions, and using various techniques, there is no disputing that, but there are other flies and techniques which invariably catch better.
I always fish my way! :) Whatever it happens to be at the time. I don't mind at all how anybody else fishes, and I would not presume to tell them how. Just giving my opinions, there is no obligation to accept or implement them.
It is odd that so many people consider the mention of something which differs from their own methods as a personal attack.
I hope you have many years of enjoyable fishing, regardless of how you do it or what with.
More like laziness. It is easier to wind a second hackle or tie in a hair wing rather than tie in a slip wing. Double hackle flies to me are surface or sub-surface flies, winged wets sink deeper and enter the water cleaner. Nothing wrong with spiders or hackle dries which I also use but I prefer the traditional wets with feather wings to the modern bushy wets.
Quote from: fishtales on October 27, 2012, 08:31:15 PM
More like laziness. It is easier to wind a second hackle or tie in a hair wing rather than tie in a slip wing. Double hackle flies to me are surface or sub-surface flies, winged wets sink deeper and enter the water cleaner. Nothing wrong with spiders or hackle dries which I also use but I prefer the traditional wets with feather wings to the modern bushy wets.
I can understand some people not using them because they have difficulty dressing them. But that's not my reason, I simply find them generally less effective than some other patterns. Dressing flies too heavily has always been a bad idea but a lot of people do it.
As you and I and others have said, it doesn't matter how or what or where you fish as long as you enjoy it :)
Quote from: fishtales on October 27, 2012, 08:41:49 PM
As you and I and others have said, it doesn't matter how or what or where you fish as long as you enjoy it :)
Agreed, but there is no reason one should not look at other methods, flies, gear, etc. Something might be better! :)
Quote from: Alan on October 27, 2012, 10:46:13 PM
there is conviction in this and more than a little suggestion that the secret is in the way they are fished, i don't own a wet fly never mind a winged one, and my whole approach is as Alex describes, match the hatch river or loch, but i'm pretty sure there is more to the wet fly than the heavy duty blind fishing, or cast out and pull in thing i see people do, i'd like to see it done well and figure it out, i imagine it more like dapping than lure fishing.
There are various ways, but the most effective methods on rivers are more like dry fly fishing, matching the hatch is also a good idea and often ignored.
Quote from: Alan on October 27, 2012, 10:46:13 PMand my whole approach is as Alex describes, match the hatch river or loch
That works if there is a hatch to match. The biggest mistake in fishing is to be dogmatic - just because a DHE worked today does not mean it will work tomorrow. Be flexible. There was a time when The Alexandra was banned on many rivers, long time ago. it was considered far too much of a fish killer. You don't get much more winged and wet. Me? I've never caught a fish on one - that's because I never use it.
If I only used a DHE then 100% of my fish would be caught on it. It would also have meant I'd have blanked up at a certain hill loch last year when The Butcher and Peter Ross were doing rather well.
Quote from: Alan on October 27, 2012, 10:46:13 PM
i don't own a wet fly never mind a winged one, and my whole approach is as Alex describes, match the hatch river or loch, but i'm pretty sure there is more to the wet fly than the heavy duty blind fishing, or cast out and pull in thing i see people do, i'd like to see it done well and figure it out, i imagine it more like dapping than lure fishing.
I don't profess to be an expert but given the right conditions, but with no obvious rise on, and particularly from a drifting boat I'll take a team of wets, fished blind or otherwise, over the dries on most occassions. IMHO a great way of fishing on their day - and probably a cross between the dapping/lure fishing you describe.
All the really good loch fishermen I have met have wet flies as a major part of their armoury. Most of these have wings. Sometimes dries outfish wets but my experience on Scottish waters is that someone who is a good wet fly fisherman will outfish a dry fly fisherman more often than not. I know that sort of statement winds up people who sometimes do well on dries - and I personally happen to catch more on dries than wets but that's more down to my incompetence with the traditional wets than the superiority of the dry fly.
There's also a huge amount of skill involved fishing sub surface. Really good clyde style fishermen are great to watch and the they are really prolific catchers of trout. Which is not to say that stalking rising trout is not a fine skill to have. It seems to me that all these forms of fishing can be extremely skilful and it's a shame to proclaim any one greater than another. I spent many years with the dry fly and nymph on the chalk streams and naively thought of it as the apex of skill. Twenty years on I realise what a foolish thought that was. So at the grand old age of 55 I'm starting to just get a handle on wet fly fishing on rivers. Not the chuck it and cance it of myth but a rare skill in it's own right.
Even salmon and seatrout fishing with big gaudy flies and heavy sinking lines has much more skill attached to it than the unobservant person will ever see!
Quote from: Tweed on October 27, 2012, 11:12:14 PM
I don't profess to be an expert but given the right conditions, but with no obvious rise on, and particularly from a drifting boat I'll take a team of wets, fished blind or otherwise, over the dries on most occassions. IMHO a great way of fishing on their day - and probably a cross between the dapping/lure fishing you describe.
I agree with that, given the right choice of wets.
Quote from: admin on October 27, 2012, 11:09:17 PM
That works if there is a hatch to match.
That's the main trick Fred, matching the hatch when there isn't one! Seriously, if fish are obviously feeding, and you can match the hatch then you will probably do OK. If they aren't feeding you can still try to deduce what they might take, and this should be more effective than blind choice, but in a lot of cases they may well take anything or nothing.
Quote from: Malcolm on October 27, 2012, 11:32:48 PM
There's also a huge amount of skill involved fishing sub surface.
For sure. when I was out on Loch Lee with Eric (hopper) in August he caught at least 2 fish for every one I caught, perhaps more. That was not "luck"
Quote from: admin on October 27, 2012, 11:47:24 PM
For sure. when I was out on Loch Lee with Eric (hopper) in August he caught at least 2 fish for every one I caught, perhaps more. That was not "luck"
That's a point that comes up time and time again, and is very interesting indeed. There is a big difference between knowing how to do something and actually doing it, and it is not primarily due to "luck" and "skill" as such. It depends mainly on talent.
For instance, I am only a mediocre guitar player, I know how to do it but I will never be very good regardless of how much I practice or learn, because I simply don't have the talent for it ( unfortunately).
I am pretty good at quite a few things, but the only thing I have always truly excelled at is fishing, and this is because I have a talent for it, also, over the years the more I have learned the luckier and more skillful I have become. This is basically inexplicable to others. I can't teach it either, although I have often demonstrated it. ( Pisses a lot of people off! :) )
This is more or less universally ignored, but it is nevertheless true that some people have a high degree of talent for something and others have less or none. No matter what you do, you will never be as good as someone who has such a talent unless you have similar talent. Doesn't mean you can't enjoy yourself, but you will not reach the same level of skill when the talent is not there. This applies just as much to fishing as it does to many other things.
When a spectator shouted "lucky" when Gary Player holed a long putt, Player replied "The funny thing is, the more I practice, the luckier I get."
Quote from: Alan on October 28, 2012, 12:34:23 AM
dapping, nothing rising..don't know to be honest, a big sedgehog sometimes brings them up,
So what exactly is the difference between that and any other from of blind fishing? Under these conditions I often get a fish or two on a Butcher or a Silver Invicta.
Quote from: admin on October 27, 2012, 11:47:24 PM
For sure. when I was out on Loch Lee with Eric (hopper) in August he caught at least 2 fish for every one I caught, perhaps more. That was not "luck"
It's when you look over for the umpteenth time that day and see the nemesis (you have "Hopper" and I've got my equivalent) bent into yet another fish that you have to acknowledge that there is a lot of know how and skill involved. For whatever reason trout sometimes prefer one fly over another and some of these have wings. I have to conclude that wings can be an important part of a fly.
Quote from: Roobarb on October 28, 2012, 10:40:42 AM
If we were starting from scratch with no preconcieved ideas what would our wet flies look like? Possibly completely different but they would still work as long as we gave them life (movement) and put them where the fish are.
Andy
Indeed, that's the approach I tend to take. I try to look at what is there and how and when the fish take it and how it behaves and then make something that I think may imitate it.
In many cases almost anything will work, and practically anything will catch a fish now and again, but good imitations of various things that the fish eat invariably work better.
Very many "traditional" patterns are "chuck and chance it" constructions. A well thought out imitation is a different thing altogether.
Quote from: Mike Connor on October 28, 2012, 11:22:51 AM
Very many "traditional" patterns are "chuck and chance it" constructions. A well thought out imitation is a different thing altogether.
If that is true Mike then why does my confidence in catching a fish on the Iron Blue Dun rise when I see upwings flying about? They don't have to be on or in the water as long as they are about I can more or less guarantee a fish or two on it. The other flies on the cast consistently take fish whether there are flies around or not but the dun takes its share at other times. I can't explain the reason for it but when the dun looses the wing it stops catching until I replace it with one with a wing, and it has to be the same size and shape of wing as the one that was catching :)
Another anomaly is my HillLoch Nymph, if I have the #12 on the cast and not catching anything I change it for a #14 and it starts catching, if I stop catching on the #14 later and change back to the #12 I start catching again, and vice versa. I also have two different patterns for it, one with the silver rib wound in the same direction as the body so that it sinks into the seal fur and one wound in the opposite direction so that it sits on top, both catch fish but one does when the other doesn't :)
My DryFly is the same. When it stops bringing fish up it isn't on top properly so needs to be greased. If I change it and the new one doesn't have enough hackles or has a bit less seal fur it doesn't work so I have to change it for one that sits/looks right. I can't explain what I am doing as I just know when it is right.
The wing on the dun is important to me. I have tried a hair wing and as a spider and it just doesn't work. After seeing those shrimp in Moidart I even use an Invicta now and again, with a wing of course :)
One word somes up my fly choice,confidence.
I do experiment out of desparation if I cannot find a fish,but mostly I use a fly that works on any given day .Sometimes they have wings and sometimes they don't,I remember when "Wingless Wickhams" hit the shops and were hailed as the next best thing on the southern chalk streams I was fishing at the time.I bought some,even cut the wings off the ones in my box.I found them less easy to watch on the surface and no better at deceiving a fish either. Each to their own.
Quote from: guest on October 28, 2012, 11:47:16 AM
A complete pile of pants...... :roll:
Whilst I agree that the traditional wet fly design is no longer the blueprint for most modern flies you cannot simply write off hundreds of years of fish catching pedigree that some of these flies have. When selecting a fly I have to have hit rock bottom before I described my choice as 'chuck it and chance it'
I do not write it off, but I am very careful in what I choose to use.
With all due respect and with no wish or intention to offend, think much of this wing / no wings stuff is bollox. Technique and thoughtfulness are far more important than fly design. Not that fly design does not matter of course it does, but other things have more of a bearing on success or failure.
I don't really enjoy blind fishing that much, no matter if I am using a Peter Ross or DHE. I quickly become bored with it. I am pretty sure most serous trout fly fishers rapidly pass through the chuck and pull stage.
As I said in my "Peaceful Place" film narrative this is why when conditions are dead I prefer fishing small stream pocket water than larger open glides or featureless lochs. It is far easier to fish thoughtfully and figure out where unseen fish will, hopefully, be. Whether or not the fly has wings is a detail. I do not enjoy chuck it and chance and this is probably the main reason I could never be a salmon fisher.
Quote from: fishtales on October 28, 2012, 11:53:14 AM
If that is true Mike then why does my confidence in catching a fish on the Iron Blue Dun rise when I see upwings flying about? They don't have to be on or in the water as long as they are about I can more or less guarantee a fish or two on it. The other flies on the cast consistently take fish whether there are flies around or not but the dun takes its share at other times. I can't explain the reason for it but when the dun looses the wing it stops catching until I replace it with one with a wing, and it has to be the same size and shape of wing as the one that was catching :)
Another anomaly is my HillLoch Nymph, if I have the #12 on the cast and not catching anything I change it for a #14 and it starts catching, if I stop catching on the #14 later and change back to the #12 I start catching again, and vice versa. I also have two different patterns for it, one with the silver rib wound in the same direction as the body so that it sinks into the seal fur and one wound in the opposite direction so that it sits on top, both catch fish but one does when the other doesn't :)
My DryFly is the same. When it stops bringing fish up it isn't on top properly so needs to be greased. If I change it and the new one doesn't have enough hackles or has a bit less seal fur it doesn't work so I have to change it for one that sits/looks right. I can't explain what I am doing as I just know when it is right.
The wing on the dun is important to me. I have tried a hair wing and as a spider and it just doesn't work. After seeing those shrimp in Moidart I even use an Invicta now and again, with a wing of course :)
Obviously it is a good general imitation. Wings are definitely important on some flies but the type and manner of wing construction on many traditional patterns makes them less suitable for a lot of things, and in many cases more or less useless.
Good general imitations, which those you named obviously are, will always catch better than traditional winged flies chosen at random.
This has always been one of my most successful still water patterns, and it does not work very well at all without the wings;
(http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/7476/spoint.jpg) (http://img32.imageshack.us/i/spoint.jpg/)
it is Broughtons point or "Dark Bloa". There are various dressings but I have invariably used Pritt's;
DARK BLOA. Hook 16 to 12
WINGS.- From the Starling's quill.
BODY.- Dark claret silk.
LEGS.- From the black feather of a black hen's neck
.........if necessary for the enjoyment of your fishing then yes, and if not, then no.
I'd say that evolution is inevitable and in fly tying as products improve,so will our use of them.I use a cane rod now and again for fun,but making horse hair lines, not something I would be keen on doing(oh all right now I'm thinking maybe I would,curiosity now,damn it).
Methods have changed too, I have used live insects many years ago,don't think I would need to now as even my tyings are good enough to deceive a fish or two.
Fred mentioned Salmon fishing, now there is a branch of the sport that has changed even more than trout where fly tying is concerned.Some of those beautiful old traditionals are still sold,but I don't think any one uses them now.More likely to be framed on a wall or worn as a broach.
As to chuck and chance it,I've been getting away with it for years,just kid myself that I actually know what I'm doing.
With unwaxed medium claret silk and upright wing(s);
(http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/7129/darkbloa.gif) (http://img651.imageshack.us/i/darkbloa.gif/)
Quote from: burnie on October 28, 2012, 12:21:30 PM
Some of those beautiful old traditionals are still sold,but I don't think any one uses them now.More likely to be framed on a wall or worn as a broach.
I don't think that can be used as a comparison. The built wing salmon flies were a Victorian need for invention. They had access to all these exotic feathers and saw the salmon fly as a way to use them. The fact that they actually caught fish was a bonus. The old salmon flies were much more drab.
As these old Spey flies show.
[attachimg=1]
Tweed flies were the same.
http://browniebogle.wordpress.com/2012/10/23/meg-with-the-muckle-mouth/ (http://browniebogle.wordpress.com/2012/10/23/meg-with-the-muckle-mouth/)
The hair wing has taken over from the built feather wing because of necessity as the exotic feathers are no longer easily available.
Quote from: admin on October 28, 2012, 12:00:19 PM
I quickly become bored with it. I am pretty sure most serous trout fly fishers rapidly pass through the chuck and pull stage.
As I said in my "Peaceful Place" film narrative this is why when conditions are dead I prefer fishing small stream pocket water than larger open glides or featureless lochs. It is far easier to fish thoughtfully and figure out where unseen fish will, hopefully, be. Whether or not the fly has wings is a detail. I do not enjoy chuck it and chance and this is probably the main reason I could never be a salmon fisher.
Each to their own and all that. I'm mainly talking lochs here, but personally I love the feeling of finding the rhythym of fishing wets properly, be it from the boat or wading the bank. When it really clicks you're often fishing as you walk or just feel 'in the zone' from a boat. I also find it more active than fishing dries, and therefore don't get bored as quickly! As I say, each to their own, and I can understand why it's not everyone's cup of tea. :D
I reckon there's more to it than many give credit for though and it's telling that if someone's been away from it for a while - like me all too often - it can be the third day of a 3 day trip that you get into the groove, and the results follow. Also witness comp. fishers - Shetland or Orkney for example - whether you agree with it or not, it's about putting fish in the boat, and most of them wouldn't start with the dries, unless there's an obvious rise on. Chuck and chance or whatever, as has been said some get better results than others.
I also have more confidence in wets when searching water on lochs, as I know I'm covering more water.
didnt really mean this to become a dries are much more skillfull than wets debate,the point i suppose i was really trying to make i dont think wings are totally neccesary because i am not convinced fish see them as wings. just an observation that after having actually mostly done away with wings in my own WET fly fishing i havnt noticed a drop off in my catch rates it was not an attack on anyones preferences or methods,
Garry
I don't think that's how it's been take Garry :). It's opened up an interesting discussion though - it may have deviated off topic a wee bit right enough, but it is interesting to hear peoples preferences and their reasons for them.
Whether it's wings/no wings or dry/wet decisions - it seems it's a mixture of past experience/confidence/preferred method that dictates what we stick on the end.
The reason wet fly fishing blind on lochs works is that it's a way to efficiently cover a lot of water. Step, cast,step,cast. If done methodically, like drifting in a boat this covers a phenomenal area quickly. It's more to do with that than wings.
Quote from: admin on October 28, 2012, 09:40:25 PM
The reason wet fly fishing blind on lochs works is that it's a way to efficiently cover a lot of water. Step, cast,step,cast. If done methodically, like drifting in a boat this covers a phenomenal area quickly. It's more to do with that than wings.
Funnily enough that isn't how I generally fish lochs, but then I fish three different flies on the same cast and only one is a winged wet. The others are a dry and a nymph :)
Wet fly on rivers is very often far from random. On the Clyde in April very often rising fish aren't taking dries. They are taking nymphs just below the surface and very often drowned adults. Like the fish taking dries they take up stations that are productive. Looking into the water on a windy day there are lots of drowned adults floating just a few inches under the surface and it's these that create these interesting times when swarms of Large dark olives float down and the fish rise all over but not to the flies we watch floating down like little galleons. Pit a clyde style wet on and fish dead drift and the fishing can quickly turn from the frustrating to the spectacular. Taking a holistic view means looking at the whole kife cycle and understanding when trout are feeding at the various stages: nymphs, emergers, duns, spinners and drowned flies. It's part of the learning experience and the importance of the drowned fly in windy conditions was a new lesson for me a couple of years ago.
There are also duns that crawl under water to lay their eggs and then either let go, die or get swept off and drift in the current at all depths.
Quote from: guest on October 28, 2012, 10:07:08 PM
Drowned olives are a staple on lochs too Malcolm
Didn't know that and never thought about that either although it's completely logical - another one for the memory banks. Maybe that's why they take the small spider that I often fish on the bob on lochs when I have a dry on the tail.
Quote from: Alan on October 28, 2012, 10:13:44 PM
would a dead drift drowned fly not be better fished upstream?
Not all drowned flies float dead drift, only the dead ones :) If they are struggling to get to the surface then they will swim up towards it, slowly obviously, but faster than the current should be making it and fast enough that draws a fishes attention to it.
Quote from: Alan on October 28, 2012, 10:13:44 PM
would a dead drift drowned fly not be better fished upstream?
Yes and that it the way I fish them, to be precise normally across and up just like I fish dry flies.
Quote from: Alan on October 28, 2012, 10:05:49 PM
what your saying is its not about wet versus dry, its carpet bomb versus lazer guided.
What I'm really saying is laser guided is only relevant if you know where the target is, because if you don't it too is carpet bombing or perhaps hearth rug bombing.
Quote from: guest on October 28, 2012, 10:39:52 PM
Lochs are far from featureless and the Bomber Harris approach either shows a lack of understanding or imagination.
Exactly. It's not about wings or even fly design. These things are secondary.
Quote from: garryh on October 28, 2012, 08:55:11 PM
didnt really mean this to become a dries are much more skillfull than wets debate,the point i suppose i was really trying to make i dont think wings are totally neccesary because i am not convinced fish see them as wings. just an observation that after having actually mostly done away with wings in my own WET fly fishing i havnt noticed a drop off in my catch rates it was not an attack on anyones preferences or methods,
Garry
That's not true anyway, it is much more difficult to fish wet flies skillfully. Dry fly fishing is comparatively easy.
Wings are not essential on any artificial fly, but many flies wont work very well if you leave them off. A large number of traditional flies are flights of fancy anyway, some may work better without wings, some with. It doesn't really matter much because they were never designed to imitate anything anyway, just something that the fish might eat.
I like a wing on my wet flies when fishing down and cross is the fly not representing a drowned adult fly and if the fish have been feeding on dries they will take them in the rough and broken water
Quote from: hopper on October 29, 2012, 10:25:09 PM
I like a wing on my wet flies when fishing down and cross is the fly not representing a drowned adult fly and if the fish have been feeding on dries they will take them in the rough and broken water
The main problem with that is that drowned adult flies can not swim, and swimming flies make fish suspicious. If you can fish them dead drift and they are reasonably dressed then they work OK. Dragging flies catch mainly small fish. Larger fish tend to ignore them or even shy away from them. They work better up and across and not being allowed to drag but that is not how most people fish them.
Some winged flies are taken as small fish or beetles and the like and these can swim of course.
If fishing up and across i tend to fish nymphs down and across was how i was taught 40 years ago and have had my share of good trout and sea trout on that method
Quote from: hopper on October 29, 2012, 10:43:38 PM
If fishing up and across i tend to fish nymphs down and across was how i was taught 40 years ago and have had my share of good trout and sea trout on that method
You can catch fish using that method but it is the least effective method for fishing imitative wet flies generally and winged flies in particular.
I also think you need to take into account what food is available,rich waters with a lot of food available makes fish more choosy almost,wheras in a poor water fish will have a go at something life like because they are hungry and don't want to let a meal slip by. More so on rivers,but I'm sure it applies to lochs as well and not just trout of course.
Think we will have to agree to differ on that one Mike
Quote from: burnie on October 29, 2012, 10:50:00 PM
I also think you need to take into account what food is available,rich waters with a lot of food available makes fish more choosy almost,wheras in a poor water fish will have a go at something life like because they are hungry and don't want to let a meal slip by. More so on rivers,but I'm sure it applies to lochs as well and not just trout of course.
That can make a difference, but it is hard to evaluate. In some fairly barren streams and lochs the trout will often grab more or less anything, but NOT if it is behaving suspiciously. Fish are instinctively wary of anything that does not behave naturally. Small imitative flies that swim are not behaving naturally.
Quote from: hopper on October 29, 2012, 10:50:28 PM
Think we will have to agree to differ on that one Mike
No problem, there are a lot of people who learned to fish like that and use it all the time, and also insist that it is a good method. The only thing that baffles me with that is how would they know if they have never tried anything else?
Quote from: Alan on October 29, 2012, 11:16:46 PM
i'd agree that pulling a fly through the water could only imitate a small fish, down and across similarly but some nymphs move at a surprising rate, these movements are subtle, twitchy short rapid movements, nothing can move at the rate they are generally pulled but lots of things swim and move about about down there.
Indeed, more or less everything that lives under water can move in some fashion or other, but the DEGREE of movement varies widely. Small drowned insects can hardly move at all, much less across or against a current. In most cases flies with minimal movement which are otherwise good imitations work best. In the case of drowned winged flies, or spent spinners and the like most do not move at all, and if an artificial does in such a situation it will most often be ignored or refused by the fish.
It all depends on what you are trying to imitate and how good your imitations are, this includes the correct movement. When you get the right combination you can catch a lot of fish. Other methods work less well.
With many winged wet flies it is more or less impossible to know what the fish take them for, might be small fish, beetles, etc. This does work but not as often and not as well as methods which use good imitations and take the correct movement ( if any) into account. When fishing down and across in the traditional manner it is quite impossible to produce the correct movement. There are also other major problems with the method.
I enjoy nothing better than dry fly up through the runs but often we catch more and better up here on the small streams down and across, maybe that's how the fish like their lunch presented to them in the northeast. When learning to fish all those years ago when kids could just disappear for the day with no worries to the parents i would fish the club water down about 4 miles wet fly have lunch turn about put on the dries and fish the runs i had bypassed on the way down all the way back to where i had left my bike.
Quote from: hopper on October 29, 2012, 11:30:02 PM
I enjoy nothing better than dry fly up through the runs but often we catch more and better up here on the small streams down and across, maybe that's how the fish like their lunch presented to them in the northeast. When learning to fish all those years ago when kids could just disappear for the day with no worries to the parents i would fish the club water down about 4 miles wet fly have lunch turn about put on the dries and fish the runs i had bypassed on the way down all the way back to where i had left my bike.
Have you tried up and across? It works better. It is harder to do properly, but there is no comparison in the effectiveness. Doing it well is mostly a matter of practice.
A dead and drowned fly will not swim against the current but will move about in the current as the water does not flow in a straight line flies will go to the left and right and if a back eddy behind a stone the fly will indeed go upstream
Quote from: hopper on October 29, 2012, 11:35:50 PM
A dead and drowned fly will not swim against the current but will move about in the current as the water does not flow in a straight line flies will go to the left and right and if a back eddy behind a stone the fly will indeed go upstream
That is widely believed but in fact is not true. A drowned fly in moving water does not move relative to the body of water surrounding it.
Quote from: Alan on October 29, 2012, 11:46:28 PM
i agree with all these things, i'm a dry fly fisher for these reasons, i'd take a wager on catching better if not more upstream, but in my former fishing life i fished small toby lures across and down on the swing, done delicately i'd offer a bigger wager on catching the best fish this way.
Upstream dry fly works better than downstream dry fly, and so does upstream wet fly, for very similar reasons. You can fish a dry fly downstream, ( often works very well indeed for grayling ) but it is a lot harder to do and there are other problems connected with it.
With regard to tobies and the like, these are most likely taken for fish, and the movement, vibration etc excites the predatory instincts of the fish. You will also often get the larger fish when using spinners etc. Even there though, they often work better when fished upstream. Especially for seatrout.
I fish any which way I can. Up, down, across, down and across, up and across whichever is easiest at the time. I fish each differently and at different speeds to represent how I think the prey items will be swimming. Small prey can only swim at a speed matching their size. The smaller they are the slower their maximum speed. Predators, be they fish or something else, know this and adjust there own strategy, and speed, to take that into account. They respond to movement that is contrary to what should be happening. If something is moving up through the water column, across the current, up into the current or across and up through the water column then it must be alive, dead things don't do that. I don't fish across and down at speed and have the fly skimming across the surface or stripped back at speed. I fish down and across, notice the difference, raising the rod tip as the fly moves across the flow maintaining its distance from me or letting it drift down slightly before raising the rod again to make it swim up and into the current. The movements are subtle, sometimes jerky but not fast. This is what prey do and this is what the predator looks for.
Quote from: fishtales on October 29, 2012, 11:56:11 PM
They respond to movement that is contrary to what should be happening.
Sometimes, and with dead drifting insects most often not. Any movement of dead drifting insects will put most fish off and especially larger fish. If it is larger prey that struggles and moves a lot like grasshoppers or similar, the movement will often attract the larger fish. It just doesn't work very well at all with small imitative artificials.
Winged flies can not swim underwater. If they move too much they will invariably be ignored or refused and in a lot of cases fish will shy away from them. This is the main reason why down and across with winged wet flies is a poor method. The majority of fish that see the flies wont take them.
It is exactly the same as drag on a dead drifting dry fly. It will put fish off.
This is why upstream wet fly fishing with small imitative patterns is more effective than downstream fishing with such patterns.
Quote from: Alan on October 30, 2012, 12:33:05 AM
good question, i used to fish a 4g toby, which is tiny, on a tippet looped to 6lb mono, delicate stuff, you can put it anywhere and swim/drift it to the fish, on rivers i would cast upstream where i had to and did it a lot but never found it a successful thing to do, the zone was letting the lure carry down in the current till it was in front of the fish then lock the line about 45 degrees across and raise the rod tip just enough to get it swimming, it would then sweep round, 90% of takes were half way through this sweep, trout, sea trout, and salmon react in the same way to this, sea trout were the most predictable just cos there would be loads in the one spot,
what you do from the moment the lure enters the water i would say is as skilled, and strangely similar in an opposite sort of way to achieving a drag free drift with a dry fly, you have to target the fish in much the same way and work the lure into quite precise places, its also very visual in rivers in that you see a flash as the fish turns to position itself before taking,
i find an upstream dry, which is invariably a cross stream cast with a mend, more effective when fish are rising, and often the fly cast is the less complex one.
That is basically a so called "induced take" which causes the fish to grab the prey instinctively. It works very well if you are precise enough. It is not the same thing as simply fishing down and across on a taut line.
Thinking through all my really big brownies: only one has taken a dry fly and that was a huge G&H sedge - I posted a picture of that fish earlier this year.
Nearly all the others both sea run, and freshwater brownies have taken huge flies swinging across the river - very often speeded up with a big downstream mend. For the big trout casting directly across with a huge downstream mend seems to trigger the aggressive reactions as they chase the fly downstream before hitting it as it starts to swing across the stream.
Quote from: Malcolm on October 30, 2012, 12:42:44 AM
Thinking through all my really big brownies: only one has taken a dry fly and that was a huge G&H sedge - I posted a picture of that fish earlier this year.
Nearly all the others both sea run, and freshwater brownies have taken huge flies swinging across the river - very often speeded up with a big downstream mend. For the big trout casting directly across with a huge downstream mend seems to trigger the aggressive reactions as they chase the fly downstream before hitting it as it starts to swing across the stream.
Indeed, that often works very well indeed, but it wont work very often with a small winged wet fly.
Quote from: Alan on October 30, 2012, 01:06:03 AM
i think there are times, fishing the Clyde earlier this season drift after drift was ignored and pulling in at the end of the drift the fly sunk on the move and was hit every time, the fly was a 14 dhe, something working there.
Fish do all sorts of things under all sorts of circumstances. Practically anything will catch a fish at some time or other. For consistent success you need to tailor your methods to the normal behaviour of the fish, and not to what they might do sometimes. Even less so when you know perfectly well that quite a few things are not normal behaviour at all.
If you consistently drag a wet size 14 DHE upstream you will eventually get a fish on it, but it wont happen very often, and you will get mostly small fish.
How people fish is a matter of indifference to me unless they have found a method or tactic which works consistently, and then I am all ears. The topic here was whether one needs wings on artificial flies. One does not, but a lot of flies work better with wings when they are dressed and fished appropriately.
If people want to do something else, that's fine with me.
All living things move, whether it is a swimming action or just a wriggling in its death throws, this is what attracts the predator in the first place. They will take dead unmoving flies but I think that is because they have taken that many drowned live ones they are taking a recognised food item. There are also two types of fish. The forager that swims actively about a stretch of river or pool and the ambusher who sits and waits for the food to come to him. Each uses a different strategy when looking for food items but they are both reacting to movement whether a drowning fly, with wings or an underwater creature that is supposed to be there. The static fish also go for faster moving food items than the forager who will take slower and more sedentary food items. The main thing is they have to come in contact with the prey item first before they can eat it. Whether fishing up, down, across, wet or dry it has to come within their capture area which is based on speed of flow, reaction time of the fish and the size of food item. Any item that is within that capture area will be investigated or eaten if the energy loss is less than the energy gained. Any un-natural movement will stop the process. This could be the item moving to fast for its size in the wrong direction to the flow. A winged fly which is still living, will be attempting to reach the surface. Its struggles will make it rise in the water column at a speed determined by its size, strength and flow rate. A wet, winged fly fished parallel to the flow and allowed to rise slowly in the water column will represent that. It will also represent the rising of a nymph to the surface to hatch so two for the price of one :)
I don't just chuck it and chance it, I use a tactic that I have confidence in and that works. If someone thinks that wet fly fishing is just throwing out the line, holding it tight and following the line and flies round in the current or stripping them back at a high rate of knots then they aren't doing it right.
One of the things that has hapened over the past years is that furrin people put interesting names to things (especially casts and techniques) that have been done by people here for many years. So while we pragmatic Scots call the technique "across and down" with most of the takes coming just as the fly starts to swing the Americans found this hugely successful technique and gave it a proper name: the Leisenring Lift - sounds much better and more sophisticated now!
I quite a few winged wets in my boxes, partly because I do catch fish with them and partly because I like to look of them and enjoy tying them (however there is plenty room for improvement).
Admittedly I have never fished wet fly on moving water, which is something I may have to remedy next season.
Having read through this (excellent) thread, it struck me that their may be a risk of assuming that the wings we tie on our wet flies are meant to imitate the wings of a natural, could be wrong but I did not think this was the case for all flies. I have never seen many silver bodied insects with bright red go faster strips and metallic green wings.
Quote from: Roobarb on October 30, 2012, 08:47:10 AM
It wasn't a question Alan :wink: A 4g Toby probably isn't the best lure for upstream spinning...
I have seen this myself many times fishing small rivers down in Devon. A team of two size 14 spiders fished downstream and dragging (not dragging hard but there is tension on the fly line) out fishing the same flies fished upstream. Before anyone asks yes I can fish upstream wet :roll: Why it should work I don't know, logic says it shouldn't but it does. Not only that but I could recognise the conditions it would work in (early season, steady but not prolific hatches of olives) so in those conditions on those waters it was a better method than upstream.
Andy
I think such flies are taken for hatching nymphs. It doesn't work as well everywhere but does well on some streams. Dragging flies do sometimes work of course, but small (imitative) winged wets are usually very poor, and as you quite rightly say it's just not logical to use them for this purpose.
I now seldom fish anything larger than a #12. Having fished everything from small fast flowing highland streams to the Clyde, Spey and Tay with winged wets and fishing them in all directions, at all speeds and at all depths and consistently catching fish I see no reason to doubt there ability to catch fish. I have said already as soon as I see duns on the water on a loch I know the winged Iron Blue will start taking fish, when it loses the wing it stops taking until I replace it with a winged one. At the same time I catch fish on both the nymph and dry so they can't be taking it for any of those. I can only assume it is being taken for a drowning adult.
Cutcliffe's flies were actually designed for "dragging". They do work on some streams, but poorly or not at all on slower streams, and they catch a lot of small fish.
http://www.archive.org/download/http://archive.org/details/arttroutfishing00cutcgoog (http://www.archive.org/download/http://archive.org/details/arttroutfishing00cutcgoog)
As I have said before Mike, I don't drag my flies. I move them yes but only at a speed that I feel suitable for the occasion and that can change from cast to cast never mind from location to location. I do have a retrieve for lochs that works consistently and that is the one I use most of the time. I know when I am doing it wrong, either too fast or too slow, as the takes aren't there. As soon as I concentrate on the retrieve I usually start getting at least offers if not actual fish :) That is on all three flies on the cast including the dry, but the winged wet only takes consistently when adult duns are about.
Quote from: fishtales on October 30, 2012, 05:36:10 PM
As I have said before Mike, I don't drag my flies. I move them yes but only at a speed that I feel suitable for the occasion and that can change from cast to cast never mind from location to location. I do have a retrieve for lochs that works consistently and that is the one I use most of the time. I know when I am doing it wrong, either too fast or too slow, as the takes aren't there. As soon as I concentrate on the retrieve I usually start getting at least offers if not actual fish :) That is on all three flies on the cast including the dry, but the winged wet only takes consistently when adult duns are about.
That was an answer to the post before yours.
The main point here is that upstream wet fly invariably catches more and better fish than down and across fishing. Also,the vast majority of traditional winged flies ( apart from pure "fancy" creations), were designed and dressed to imitate drowned adults, and drowned adults can not swim, so winged flies which swim against the current or across it are poor imitations per se. They do work quite often but not nearly as well as when dressed and fished correctly, they also tend to catch a lot of small fish. I know one or two people who only fish hackled flies, and they catch fish as well also far better upstream.
Obviously the degree of movement is very important with a lot of flies.
A severe problem with a subject like this is that it is extremely complex and full of all sorts of exceptions and variables. You can not generalise about any of it to any appreciable extent, too much is dependent on circumstances.
On the loch, as the boat drifts towards the cast, the line must be shortened to remain in contact. Get that exactly right and the fly is static in the water, just sinking under its own weight. Air trapped by wings slow this process, and even wet flies remain in sight. Get it wrong and the fly is either being "dragged" towards the boat (and against the wind and the sub-surface current the the wind produces) or the line is slack.
The use of a weighted fly on the point and a dry at the tail and you know where the winged wet sits.
Three depths of water are being "covered".
My meagre catches are pretty much equally spred amongst all three flees. Change to three wets, dries or nymphs on the basis that "that's what caught the last one" and takes dry up.
Quote from: Inchlaggan on October 30, 2012, 05:50:02 PM
On the loch, as the boat drifts towards the cast, the line must be shortened to remain in contact. Get that exactly right and the fly is static in the water, just sinking under its own weight. Air trapped by wings slow this process, and even wet flies remain in sight. Get it wrong and the fly is either being "dragged" towards the boat (and against the wind and the sub-surface current the the wind produces) or the line is slack.
The use of a weighted fly on the point and a dry at the tail and you know where the winged wet sits.
Three depths of water are being "covered".
My meagre catches are pretty much equally spred amongst all three flees. Change to three wets, dries or nymphs on the basis that "that's what caught the last one" and takes dry up.
A lot of people like to "dibble" the top dropper along the surface, this can be very successful indeed. The rig you describe is a typical "tactical" rig, and it only works well if all the required elements are present. If you remove the "sheet anchor" or the bob fly, or use a team of the same wets instead of the wet you have been using on the dropper, or a team of nymphs etc, the whole rig works differently and invariably far less well. The anchor and the bob are basically control elements.
Comparing still water fishing techniques to stream fishing techniques is also problematic, the conditions are completely different. On still waters it is more or less essential to provide movement to various flies or they wont work very well. On streams providing too much movement is often detrimental.
The question of "Movemnet vs No Movement" and if so how much and under what circumstances has always been a controversial matter, as the literature illustrates.
Sometimes I wish I had wings.
For example, right now, if I did I'd be flying south for the winter
In May of this year my mate and I fished both a river and lochs. We fished the river on two days fishing down stream and then back up. We fished all ways in whatever direction seemed the easiest to cover the river. We didn't see any difference in catch rate between any of the methods and we both caught fish on all types of fly. I had my usual three but George used a big dry on the top dropper, #10 I think, both pulled and dead drift. We went directly onto the loch with the same flies and the same tactics and still consistently caught fish. I consistently caught fish on the winged Iron Blue both as it hit the water, static as I waited for the cast to settle, as I always do, and retrieved using my normal retrieve. It didn't seem to matter whether it was slack pool, rough water, flat calm, ripple or wave. Either the fish we were covering weren't typical or else we were doing something right.
This isn't just a one off. I always fish that way and I taught the mate I was with to fish many years ago and he fishes the same way, although he tends to change flies as he thinks that will help him catch more fish. It doesn't seem to matter what he puts on though, spiders, dries, winged wets or nymphs, as his catch rate never seems to change.
Quote from: fishtales on October 30, 2012, 06:29:19 PM
In May of this year my mate and I fished both a river and lochs. We fished the river on two days fishing down stream and then back up. We fished all ways in whatever direction seemed the easiest to cover the river. We didn't see any difference in catch rate between any of the methods and we both caught fish on all types of fly. I had my usual three but George used a big dry on the top dropper, #10 I think, both pulled and dead drift. We went directly onto the loch with the same flies and the same tactics and still consistently caught fish. I consistently caught fish on the winged Iron Blue both as it hit the water, static as I waited for the cast to settle, as I always do, and retrieved using my normal retrieve. It didn't seem to matter whether it was slack pool, rough water, flat calm, ripple or wave. Either the fish we were covering weren't typical or else we were doing something right.
This isn't just a one off. I always fish that way and I taught the mate I was with to fish many years ago and he fishes the same way, although he tends to change flies as he thinks that will help him catch more fish. It doesn't seem to matter what he puts on though, spiders, dries, winged wets or nymphs, as his catch rate never seems to change.
It's not just the flies you use, but how you use them, when you use them, and where you use them. Most beginners have trouble catching anything at all regardless of what they use. If you don't know how to use them it makes virtually no difference what you use. One can only optimise flies once one knows how and why. This does make a huge difference but it may not be everybody's cup of tea. If what you do works well for you and you are satisfied with your catch rates then there is no reason to do it at all.
In much the same way as Halford thought dry fly was superior to Skues nymph fishing so upstream is seen to be superior to down stream. The argument usually put forward is that it A) only catches small fish and B) is un-natural.
Quote from: Alan on October 31, 2012, 05:40:17 PM
the upstream versus downstream this is really puzzling me, there is no logical reason why a winged or wet fly would work better cast upstream and pulled back, and dead drift it becomes a nymph(that looks unlike any nymph or drowned fly)
downstream does work, but because its on the swing drawing a predatory response it is considered a lesser method?
Upstream flies are either dead drifted or on occasion given very little movement. Winged flies can't swim, they always move downstream. The logical argument being that as they can not swim moving them against the current is unnatural.
Upstream flies invariably catch more and better fish, when dressed and fished properly.
Quote from: fishtales on October 31, 2012, 05:53:08 PM
In much the same way as Halford thought dry fly was superior to Skues nymph fishing so upstream is seen to be superior to down stream. The argument usually put forward is that it A) only catches small fish and B) is un-natural.
That is not the argument at all. There is no argument in fact. The simple fact is that upstream fishing catches more and better fish. There are a number of reasons for that.
Winged flies swimming upstream or against the current is not only very unnatural. It is an impossibility.
It is not a case of anything being "superior" as in the dry-fly vs nymph arguments of the Halford school.
Quote from: Mike Connor on October 31, 2012, 06:04:23 PM
The simple fact is that upstream fishing catches more and better fish. There are a number of reasons for that.
Winged flies swimming upstream or against the current is not only very unnatural. It is an impossibility.
It is not a case of anything being "superior" as in the dry-fly vs nymph arguments of the Halford school.
If that is the case then why do downstream anglers dispute this all the time? Halford thought nymph fishing as chuck and chance it as dry fly was targeting feeding fish, as he saw it. The upstream anglers use the same or similar reasons for their method. I never said I pulled a winged fly upstream when fishing down and across, I do retrieve, but not to move it upstream until the line is directly downstream of me and then still only slowly, by that time I am fishing along the slow moving margins. There are very few organisms that have the speed to swim against a current that is greater than their capabilities, but there are some that can accelerate for a few millimetres at a time and others that can maintain there position on a stream bed in greater currents than they should be able too. The winged wet doesn't necessarily have to imitate a dead winged fly they can be used and imitate a few of these organisms quite easily. My experience of seeing the mating shrimp brought that home to me like nothing else before, it was one of those eureka moments :)
Quote from: fishtales on October 31, 2012, 06:31:15 PM
If that is the case then why do downstream anglers dispute this all the time?
I have no idea why they dispute it. It is nevertheless true.
QUOTE
Halford thought nymph fishing as chuck and chance it as dry fly was targeting feeding fish, as he saw it. The upstream anglers use the same or similar reasons for their method. I never said I pulled a winged fly upstream when fishing down and across, I do retrieve, but not to move it upstream until the line is directly downstream of me and then still only slowly, by that time I am fishing along the slow moving margins. There are very few organisms that have the speed to swim against a current that is greater than their capabilities, but there are some that can accelerate for a few millimetres at a time and others that can maintain there position on a stream bed in greater currents than they should be able too. The winged wet doesn't necessarily have to imitate a dead winged fly they can be used and imitate a few of these organisms quite easily. My experience of seeing the mating shrimp brought that home to me like nothing else before, it was one of those eureka moments :)
UNQUOTE
I gave you my reasons and they have nothing to do with Halford or anybody else. I fish upstream because it catches more and better fish. That's all. It is a better method as far as catching fish goes, but no method is intrinsically "superior" to any other.
ALL the traditional winged wet flies ( Excepting fancy stuff) were dressed to imitate drowned adult flies and they were designed to be fished dead drift. They were NOT designed to be dragged or swung across the stream. Although doing this will catch fish it is heavily biased towards small aggressive and unwary fish. Good fish will invariably either ignore or even shy away from such flies, and be put down altogether. There are also other reasons why upstream fishing is better.
This explains it quite well;
This is the only other piece that William Clouston Stewart wrote on fishing that was published. Some of you might enjoy it. It is from "Fishing Gossip" by H.Cholmondely Pennell H. (Henry), 1837-1915
Which you can find here;
http://www.archive.org/download/http://www.archive.org/details/fishinggossipors00choliala (http://www.archive.org/download/http://www.archive.org/details/fishinggossipors00choliala)
QUOTE
FLY-FISHING, AND HOW IT SHOULD BE DONE.
FLY-FISHING has always been, and we believe always will be, the favourite method of angling ; and deservedly so. Few who have once owned its sway are capable of resisting its attractions. What golden memories of the past it recalls ! What bright visions of the future it portrays ! And when May comes, that month pre-eminently the fly-fisher's, with its bright sunny mornings and soft southern breezes, once more, unencumbered with anything save a light rod and small box of flies, the angler wends his way to some favourite stream. Once more with elastic tread he climbs the mountain's brow, and having gained the summit, what a prospect meets his gaze ! There, far as the eye can reach, rises into the blue sky summit after summit of the heath-clad hills, while underneath lie the grassy slope and luxuriant meadow, the green cornfield and waving wood, and, glittering and circling among all like a silver thread, winds the far-stretching stream in its beauty. There is nothing to break the solitude save the plaintive bleating of the sheep or the cry of the moorcock.
As the angler descends, the music of the song-bird meets his ear from every bush, and the groves resound with the cooing of the wood-pigeon or the soft notes of the cuckoo. And now he approaches the scene of his anticipated triumph. There is the deep rocky pool and racing shallow, the whirling eddy and rippling stream now foaming over rocks, and now meandering slowly between green banks. Now it pauses as if to enjoy the glory of the pro spect, then rushes impetuously forward, eager to drink in the grandeur of some new scene. Everything seems endowed with life to welcome the return of summer, and the very river is alive with leaping trout. No wonder that with Sir Henry Watton he finds "fly-fishing" a "cheerer of the spirits, a tranquilliser of the mind, a calmer of unquiet thoughts, a diverter of sadness."
And then the art itself is lively and graceful. Look at the angler as he approaches some favourite spot. See him as he observes the monarch of the pool regaling himself on the incautious insect that sports in fancied security upon the surface. Inwardly he vows that it shall be avenged. Cautiously he approaches, concealing himself by kneeling, or keeping behind some bush, lest by any chance his expected prey should discover him and so be warned. Gracefully wheeling his long line behind, he lays his flies down softly as a snow-flake just above the desired spot. A moment of expectancy succeeds ; the flies approach the very place where the trout was last seen. Look at the angler how with keen eye he watches, to strike with alert hand the moment he either feels or sees the least movement. There is a stoppage of the line and an instantaneous movement of the angler's wrist, and the trout is fast. At first he shakes his head as if surprised and bewildered at the unwonted interference with his liberty, but gradually awakening to a sense of the danger of his position, he collects his scattered energies, and makes a gallant fight for liberty. Frequently he will leap in the air several times as if to ascertain the character of his opponent, and then make a frantic rush ; but the figure on the bank follows him like a shadow, and at last, strength and hope both exhausted, he turns on his side and becomes an easy prey, leaving the angler to congratulate himself on having achieved such a feat with a tiny hook and tackle like a gossamer.
The victory, however, is not always with the angler more frequently the other way. Often at the last moment, just as he is putting out his hand to secure his prize, the trout makes a bolt, and is gone, leaving the disappointed artist the picture of blank dismay, and in a very unenviable frame of mind ; indeed, of all the trials of the temper which occur in the ordinary course of life, there is none to compare with that of losing a good trout at the last moment, and anglers have various ways of giving vent to their pent-up feelings, depending upon their peculiar idiosyncrasy. But of all the different means of relief there is perhaps none at once so satisfactory and so reprehensible as that referred to by a late great humorist who, if not an angler, was the friend and associate of anglers :
" The flask frae my pocket
I poured into the socket,
For I was provokit unto the last degree ;
And to my way o' thinkin',
There's naething for 't but drinkin',
When a trout he lies winkin' and lauchin' at me."
Everything, we say, combines to render fly-fishing the most attractive of all the branches of the angler's art. The attempt to capture trout which are seen to rise at natural flies is in itself an excitement which no other method possesses. Then the smallness of the hook and the fineness of the tackle necessary for success increase the danger of escape, and consequently the excitement and pleasure of the capture ; and for our own part we would rather hook, play, and capture a trout of a pound weight with fly than one of a pound and half with minnow or worm, where the hooks being larger, there is less chance of their losing their hold, and the gut being stronger, there is less risk of its breaking. Fly-fishing is also the cleanest and most elegant and gentlemanly of all the methods of capturing trout. The angler who practises it is saved the trouble of working with worms, of catching, keeping alive, and salting minnows, or searching the river's bank for the natural insect. Armed with a light single-handed rod and a few flies he may wander from county to county, and kill trout wherever they are to be found.
But besides being the most attractive and valuable, artificial fly-fishing is the most difficult branch of the angler's art ; and this is another reason of the prefer ence accorded to it, since there is more merit, and therefore more pleasure, in excelling in what is difficult.
But there is one great error in fly-fishing, as usually practised, and as recommended to be practised by books, and that is, that the angler " fishes down " stream, whereas he should " fish up."
We believe we are not beyond the mark in stating that ninety-nine anglers out of a hundred fish down with the artificial fly ; they never think of fishing in any other way, and never dream of attributing their want of success to it. Yet we are prepared to prove, both in theory and practice, that this is the greatest reason of their want of success in clear waters. In all our angling excursions we have met only one or two amateurs, and a few professionals, who fished up stream with the fly, and used it in a really artistic manner. If the wind is blowing up, anglers will occasionally fish up the pools (as for fishing up a strong stream they never think of it) but even then they do not do it properly, and meet with little better success than if they had followed their usual method. They will also, if going to some place up a river, walk up, not fish up to it, their plan being to go to the top of a pool and then fish it down, never casting their line above them at all.
We shall now mention in detail the advantages of fishing up, in order to show its superiority over the old method.
The first and great advantage is, that the angler is unseen by the trout. Trout, as is well known, keep their heads up stream ; they cannot remain stationary in any other position. This being the case, they see objects above and on both sides of them, but cannot discern anything behind them, so that the angler fishing down will be seen by them twenty yards off; whereas the angler fishing up will be unseen, although he be but a few yards in their rear. The advantages of this it is impossible to over-estimate. No creatures are more easily scared than trout ; if they see any object moving on the river's bank, they run into deep water, or beneath banks and stones, from which they will not stir for some time. A bird flying across the water, or the shadow of a rod, will sometimes alarm them ; and nothing connected with angling is more certain than this, that if the trout see the angler, they will not take his lure. He may ply his minnow in the most captivating manner, may throw his worm with consummate skill, or make his flies light softly as a gossamer all will be unavailing if he is seen by his intended victim.
The next advantage of fishing up we shall notice, is the much greater probability of hooking a trout when it rises. In angling down stream, if a trout rises and the angler strikes, he runs a great risk of pulling the flies straight out of its mouth ; whereas, in fishing up, its back is to him, and he has every chance of bringing the hook into contact with its jaws. This, although it may not seem of great importance to the uninitiated, tells considerably when the contents of the basket come to be examined at the close of the day's sport ; indeed no angler would believe the difference unless he himself proved it.
Another advantage of fishing up is, that it does not disturb the water so much. Let us suppose the angler is fishing down a fine pool. He, of course, commences at the top, the place where the best trout, and those most inclined to feed, invariably lie. After a few casts he hooks one, which immediately runs down, and by its vagaries leaping in the air, and plunging in all directions alarms all its neighbours, and it is ten to one if he gets another rise in that pool. Fishing up saves all this. The angler commences at the foot, and when he hooks a trout, pulls it down, and the remaining portions of the pool are undisturbed. This is a matter of great importance, and we have frequently, in small streams, taken a dozen trout out of a pool, from which, had we been fishing down, we could not possibly have got more than two or three.
The last advantage of fishing up is, that by it the angler can much better adapt the motions of his flies to those of the natural insect. And here it may be mentioned as a rule, that the nearer the motions of the artificial flies resemble those of the natural ones under similar circumstances, the greater will be the prospects of success. Whatever trout take the artificial fly for, it is obvious they are much more likely to be deceived by a natural than by an unnatural motion.
No method of angling can imitate the hovering flight of an insect along the surface of the water now just touching it, then flying a short distance, and so on ; and for the angler to attempt by any motion of his hand to give his flies a living appearance, is mere absurdity. The only moment when trout may mistake the angler's fly for a real one in its flight is the moment it first touches the water ; and in this respect fishing down possesses equal advantages with fishing up. But this is the only respect, and in order to illustrate this, we shall give a brief description of fly-fishing as usually practised down stream.
The angler, then, we shall suppose, commences operations at the head of a pool or stream, and, throwing his flies as far as he can across from where he is standing, raises his rod and brings them gradually to his own side of the water. He then steps down a yard or two, repeats the process, and so on. Having dismissed the idea that the angler can imitate the flight of a living fly along the surface of the water, we must suppose that the trout take the artificial fly for a dead one, or one which has fairly got into the stream and lost all power of resisting. A feeble motion of the wings or legs would be the only attempt at escape which a live fly in such a case could make. What then must be the astonishment of the trout, when they see the tiny insect which they are accustomed to seize, as it is carried by the current towards them, crossing the stream with the strength and agility of an otter? Is it not much more natural to throw the flies up, and let them come gently down, as any real insect would do ?
In addition to drawing their flies across the stream, some anglers practise what is called playing their flies, which is done by a jerking motion of the wrist, which imparts a similar motion to the fly. Their object in doing this is to create an appearance of life, and thus render their flies more attractive. An appearance of life is certainly a great temptation to a trout, but it may be much better accomplished by dressing the flies of soft materials, which the water can agitate, and thus create a natural motion of the legs or wings of the fly, than by dragging them by jumps of a foot at a time across and up a roaring stream. Trout are not accustomed to see minute insects making such gigantic efforts at escape, and therefore it is calculated to awaken their suspicions.
We believe that all fly-fishers fishing down must have noticed that, apart from the moment of alighting, they get more rises from the first few yards of their flies' course than in the whole of the remainder ; and that when their flies fairly breast the stream they seldom get a rise at all. The reason of this is clear : for the first few feet after the angler throws his flies across the stream they swim with the current ; the moment, however, he begins to describe his semicircle across the water, they present an unnatural appearance, which the trout view with distrust. Experienced fly-fishers, following the old method, who have observed this, and are aware of the great importance of the moment their flies light, cast very frequently, only allowing their flies to float down a few feet, when they throw again. We have seen some Tweedside adepts fill capital baskets in this way ; but as we have before stated, it will only succeed when the water is coloured, or when there is a body of clear water sufficiently large to conceal the angler from view ; and even then he may have much better sport by fishing up. The angler drawing his flies across and up stream will catch trout, and this is the strongest evidence that trout are not such profound philosophers as the notions of some would lead us to suppose. But though he does catch trout, they are in general the very smallest. Indeed the advantages of fishing up are in nothing more apparent than in the superior size of the trout captured. We believe they will average nearly double the size of those caught with the same flies fishing down, and though generally not so large as those taken with the worm, they are not much behind them, and we almost invariably kill a few larger trout in a river with the fly than with the worm.
Though our remarks in this article have principally reference to angling in small rivers, where fishing up is essential to success, the same arguments hold good in every size or colour of water in a less degree, as even though the trout cannot see the angler, the other advantages which we have mentioned are still in his favour.
If we were fishing a large river when it was dark-coloured, and required to wade deep, we should fish down, because the fatigue of wading up would, under such circumstances, become a serious drawback. In such a case we fish in the following manner :Throwing our flies, partly up and partly across from where we are standing, we allow them to swim down a yard or two, when we cast again, never allowing them to go below that part of the stream opposite us. But though the angler gets over the ground as quickly this way, and casts as often, as if he were fishing up, yet he has not the same chance, because if a trout catches sight of his flies just as he is lifting them, their sudden abstraction may deter it from taking them on their again alighting ; whereas in fishing up the angler casts a yard or two further up every time, so that every trout may see his flies at the moment they alight.
The reader must not suppose, however, that fishing up is all that is necessary for success ; on the contrary, the angler may throw his flies up stream, and know less of the art of fly-fishing, and catch fewer trout, than his neighbour who is fishing down. The mere fact of an angler throwing his flies up stream is no proof that he is a fly-fisher. Of those who fish down stream, some catch more and some less, and in like manner with those fishing up, one may catch three times as many as another, depending upon the particular method they each adopt ; and unless the reader pays strict attention to the details referred to in our Practical Angler, we are afraid he will not derive much benefit. Fishing up is much more difficult than fishing down, requiring more practice, and a better acquaintance with the habits of the trout ; and we believe that a mere novice would, in a large water, catch more trout by fishing down than up, because the latter requires more nicety in casting. But to attain anything like eminence in fly-fishing, the angler must fish up, and all beginners should persevere in it, even though they meet with little success at first, and they will be amply rewarded for their trouble.
The only circumstances in which fishing down has the advantage of fishing up, is when the water is so dark or deep that the fish would not see, or if they did see, would not have time to seize the flies, unless they moved at a slower rate than the stream. We think that this rarely applies to angling for river trout, as when inclined to feed upon flies they are generally on the outlook for them, but it does apply to salmon and sea-trout fishing. Both these fish lie in strong deep water, and as they are not accustomed to feed upon flies, they are not on the outlook for them ; so that if the salmon-fisher were to throw his flies up stream, they would come down at such a rate that the salmon would never see them. Besides which, it is obvious that whatever salmon take the angler's fly for, they cannot take it for anything they have seen before, and therefore there is no reason for supposing they can detect anything unnatural in its motion.
We have devoted this article principally to the errors of fly-fishing as generally practised, and we hope we have succeeded in convincing the reader of the truth of our observations ; but as we have frequently endeavoured in vain by viva voce demonstration to persuade anglers to fish up, we have no doubt numbers will adhere to their own way. As no amount of mere argument will convince such, we offer to find two anglers, who, in a water suitable for showing the superiority of fishing up, will be more successful than any three anglers fishing down after the ordinary method.
We have just given the same reasons for fishing up stream as in the first edition of our Practical Angler, because upon this point there can be nothing new ; and we are as ready as ever to find anglers who are prepared to do battle in their behalf, on the terms just stated ; but while one or two have come forward to dispute the theory, none have accepted our challenge and come forward to dispute the practice.
One reviewer the only objector we can remember who gives a reason says, "that so long as streams run down, carrying the food of the fish with them, so long should anglers fish down." While, however, his premises are undeniably correct, we entirely dissent from his conclusions. Streams certainly run down and carry the food of the trout with them, but along with that food they do not carry an apparition in the shape of ail angler with rod and line upon the bank ; and as nothing will familiarise them to such an apparition, we draw the conclusion that that apparition had better keep out of sight and fish up stream. Moreover, the fact that the natural food floats down is anything but a reason that the artificial lure in imitation of that food should be pulled up.
We must confess, however, that fishing up stream with fly has not been adopted by a large portion of the angling community, and that for various reasons. In spite of the strong manner in which, in our Practical Angler, we cautioned our readers about the difficulties of fishing up stream, numbers who read the arguments for it, and were struck with the soundness of the theory, thought they saw at a glance the cause of their previous want of success, and that in future the result would be different. Having equipped themselves a la Practical Angler, and even taken a copy of that excellent work in their pockets, they started with high hopes on their new career, but the result was not different, and after one or two trials with no better success, not a few have condemned fishing up stream as erroneous and ourselves as impostors ; though we imagine the fault lies with themselves. We have met anglers fishing down stream and this is no suppositious case, but one which we have seen over and over again with a copy of this said volume in their pockets, who complained that they had got everything therein recommended, and were getting no sport. On pointing out to them that there was one important mistake they were committing, in fishing down stream instead of up, they stated that when they came to a pool they fished it up that is to say, they first walked down the pool and showed themselves to the trout and then commenced to fish for them.
" The trout within yon. wimplin' burn,
Glides swift, a silver dart :
And safe beneath the shady thorn,
Defies the angler's art."
John Younger objects to this as incorrect, but we rather think that Burns is right, and the angler wrong ; as it is evident the poet alludes to a trout that has caught sight of the angler, and safe he is, at least
pro tem, as our pupils who first frighten the fish by walking down a poolside, and then fish up it, will find to their cost.
Others object to fishing up stream, as requiring too frequent casting, being too fatiguing, and because they have been accustomed to fish down, and would prefer fishing in that way, even though they do not catch so many trout. If any angler prefers catching five pounds weight of trout, fishing down stream, to ten pounds weight, fishing up, we may wonder at his taste, but it is no concern of ours.
w. c. s.
UNQUOTE
There are plenty more references in the literature but that is a very good one.
By the way, Stewart also noted that he used winged flies because they often worked better than the spiders which he used mainly in low clear water. Of course he fished them upstream or with a variation of downstream ( not dragged or swung) in coloured water.
As far as catching fish goes deep nymphing upstream with a bead head nymph and an indicator will catch more than any other method, but I don't like doing it. I prefer to fish imitative wet flies.
I have read that and or similar and found it interesting and informative and a lot of my fishing is based on these and other pieces. In that way I have cobbled together a way of fishing that suits me, catches fish and gives me pleasure, if that is the word :)
QuoteI gave you my reasons and they have nothing to do with Halford or anybody else. I fish upstream because it catches more and better fish. That's all. It is a better method, but no method is intrinsically "superior" to any other.
In the same vein I have given my reasons why I think there is no real difference in how a river is fished and that all methods have their uses and will catch any fish small or otherwise.
Here are some bits and pieces I have accumulated. I don't profess to understand it all but enough to formulate an hypothesis on how I should be fishing my flies in both running and still water. I don't profess to being right but it does work.
http://jem.forrex.org/index.php/jem/article/viewFile/19/35 (http://jem.forrex.org/index.php/jem/article/viewFile/19/35)
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/332064.pdf (http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/332064.pdf)
http://www.lter.uaf.edu/synvol/Chap10AquaticFinal.pdf (http://www.lter.uaf.edu/synvol/Chap10AquaticFinal.pdf)
http://www.balancehydro.com/pdf/NRCCNRCfeeding.pdf (http://www.balancehydro.com/pdf/NRCCNRCfeeding.pdf)
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Jk0Hym1yF0cC&lpg=PA977&ots=TwZRl_E1qO&dq=insect%20speed%20linked%20to%20water%20speed&pg=PA973#v=onepage&q&f=true (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Jk0Hym1yF0cC&lpg=PA977&ots=TwZRl_E1qO&dq=insect%20speed%20linked%20to%20water%20speed&pg=PA973#v=onepage&q&f=true)
http://www.famu.org/mayfly/pubs/pub_s/pubstatznerb1982p290.pdf (http://www.famu.org/mayfly/pubs/pub_s/pubstatznerb1982p290.pdf)
http://www.borenv.net/BER/pdfs/ber14/ber14-272.pdf (http://www.borenv.net/BER/pdfs/ber14/ber14-272.pdf)
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4962?uid=3738032&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21101379192227 (http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4962?uid=3738032&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21101379192227)
https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/strlab1/www/JRS-PP/Gerritsen_and_Strickler_1977.pdf (https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/strlab1/www/JRS-PP/Gerritsen_and_Strickler_1977.pdf)
A lot of newer stuff that I have used with the older writings I have read over the years.
Quote from: Mike Connor on October 31, 2012, 07:07:28 PM
As far as catching fish goes deep nymphing upstream with a bead head nymph and an indicator will catch more than any other method, but I don't like doing it. I prefer to fish imitative wet flies.
I don't use weighted flies, never seen or felt the need. Just three flies, a dry, a winged wet and a nymph and vary where they go on the cast as conditions dictate.
Quote from: fishtales on October 31, 2012, 07:21:47 PM
I have read that and or similar and found it interesting and informative and a lot of my fishing is based on these and other pieces. In that way I have cobbled together a way of fishing that suits me, catches fish and gives me pleasure, if that is the word :)
In the same vein I have given my reasons why I think there is no real difference in how a river is fished and that all methods have their uses and will catch any fish small or otherwise.
Here are some bits and pieces I have accumulated. I don't profess to understand it all but enough to formulate an hypothesis on how I should be fishing my flies in both running and still water. I don't profess to being right but it does work.
<SNIP>
Whatever suits you is the best method ( or collection of methods ) for you. There is no disputing that. Halford ( and many others ) thought it was dry flies, and they were right as far as they were concerned. The main problem there was that they wanted everybody else to agree with them and not use any other methods.
The original question was "Do we really need wings". The answer is no, you could just use hackled flies ( although the hackles represent wings anyway), but in terms of extra strip feather wings you could do without them. You could just use nymphs, they have no wings, and some people do. There is no absolute need to use flies with feather slip wings at all. However, as you are well aware, some flies work a great deal better when they have wings.
It doesn't matter what methods or flies you use, but using some flies in some ways is less effective. This is particularly the case with winged flies fished downstream. There is nothing "superior" or "inferior" about any of it, they are just different methods. If you enjoy fishing winged wet flies downstream there is no reason at all you shouldn't. However, if you fished upstream you would catch more and better fish.
Quote from: fishtales on October 31, 2012, 07:25:06 PM
I don't use weighted flies, never seen or felt the need. Just three flies, a dry, a winged wet and a nymph and vary where they go on the cast as conditions dictate.
I will fish with anything anywhere. I have spent a lot of time researching teams for special purposes, and I have tried all the fly fishing ( and most other) methods I could find for half a century. I still use a lot of them now and again just to keep my hand in, but on rivers I primarily fish small imitative flies upstream. I realise that not everybody wants to do this ( or is even able to, takes a lot of time and effort). I do it to satisfy myself. I am not bothered at all what anybody else does, it is entirely up to them. Nor do I wish to "convert" anybody. However, if somebody asks, as in this case, I will try to explain why I think a method or fly is not optimal. That is all I have tried to do here.
Quote from: Mike Connor on October 31, 2012, 07:07:28 PM
As far as catching fish goes deep nymphing upstream with a bead head nymph and an indicator will catch more than any other method, but I don't like doing it. I prefer to fish imitative wet flies.
I do like doing it but when it works very well it becomes boring and when it doesnt work well it is also boring and that same logic applies to a myriad of techniques which is why I like to keep my options open and like to have a lot of options in the first instance. Life is too short to restrict ones approach and too long to only enjoy the pleasures of one or two :)
There is one very positive attribute to downstream wets and that is that it can be a very relaxing sort of fishing - if that is your cup of tea then it is indeed the best approach. As a catcher of fish as a generalised approach it is a poor relation to fishing rivers upstream in most circumstances.
I prefer not to be too dogmatic about these things for there are anglers of exceptional skill that do catch good fish whilst fishing downstream but no matter their skills , downstream causes the most disturbance and will put unseen fish down and that is one reason why I do not choose down if up is available on the water I want to fish. If down is the best option to present to a particular fish then down it is.
Quote from: Mike Connor on October 31, 2012, 07:35:27 PM
However, if you fished upstream you would catch more and better fish.
As I have said I do fish upstream, and across, dead drift, retrieved, high stick, short line, long line, on long slow flats, riffles, pocket water, above water falls and below them and have seen no difference in the fish that I catch from the same stretch of river as I fished down and across catching on the winged wet, the dry and the nymph in all situations.
I don't analyse what I do to any great extent, I just go and do what it needs at the time and whatever the conditions. I can't even explain why it works, it just does.
The wing on the dun seems to be important because when it goes it stops catching and only starts again when I replace it with one with a wing.
Quote from: Mike Connor on October 31, 2012, 08:01:25 PM
However, if somebody asks, as in this case, I will try to explain why I think a method or fly is not optimal. That is all I have tried to do here.
As I have done to give a balanced view as to why I think the wing does have a place on wet flies.
Quote from: fishtales on October 31, 2012, 08:03:33 PM
As I have said I do fish upstream, and across, dead drift, retrieved, high stick, short line, long line, on long slow flats, riffles, pocket water, above water falls and below them and have seen no difference in the fish that I catch from the same stretch of river as I fished down and across catching on the winged wet, the dry and the nymph in all situations.
I don't analyse what I do to any great extent, I just go and do what it needs at the time and whatever the conditions. I can't even explain why it works, it just does.
The wing on the dun seems to be important because when it goes it stops catching and only starts again when I replace it with one with a wing.
I analyse more or less everything as closely as I can. I always want to know why things work, and if possible improve them.
Also, most confirmed downstream wet fly anglers never do anything else, even when it is not working they keep on flogging away, and then often moan about the poor day they had! :)
Quote from: Mike Connor on October 31, 2012, 08:30:32 PM
I analyse more or less everything as closely as I can. I always want to know why things work, and if possible improve them.
I don't have time for deep analysis, I'm to busy fishing. I tend to fish on a wing (no pun intended) and prayer and just go on instinct.
Quote
Also, most confirmed downstream wet fly anglers never do anything else, even when it is not working they keep on flogging away, and then often moan about the poor day they had! :)
I generally blame the fish for that :)
( I meant to say you have mail, not about this though)
Quote from: Mike Connor on October 31, 2012, 08:30:32 PM
Also, most confirmed downstream wet fly anglers never do anything else, even when it is not working they keep on flogging away, and then often moan about the poor day they had! :)
Generalisations are problematic Mike, even if true :)
Quote from: otter on October 31, 2012, 08:49:21 PM
Generalisations are problematic Mike, even if true :)
Indeed! :)
So having read through the last couple of pages it seems to me that there is a skill set associated with down and across which, when mastered, allows the capture of identically sized fish to the uptream and across and up techniques. Seems fair enough to me.
Quote from: Malcolm on October 31, 2012, 09:04:49 PM
So having read through the last couple of pages it seems to me that there is a skill set associated with down and across which, when mastered, allows the capture of identically sized fish to the uptream and across and up techniques. Seems fair enough to me.
The way I do it works for me Malcolm. Whether I do it the same way as others I have no idea. Do I fish downstream as if I am fishing upstream and allow a dead drift and that is what catches? Again I don't know. I do it without thinking too much about what I am doing except to keep the flies fishing just that little bit faster or slower than the current.
Quote from: Malcolm on October 31, 2012, 09:04:49 PM
So having read through the last couple of pages it seems to me that there is a skill set associated with down and across which, when mastered, allows the capture of identically sized fish to the uptream and across and up techniques. Seems fair enough to me.
There are very definitely skill sets involved, but they are different. It is a very great deal harder to fish downstream successfully than it is to fish upstream successfully, although many people find acquiring the upstream skill set too onerous or too much trouble or whatever.
The "usual" technique of swinging wets downstream is a simple and easy method but not usually very successful. There are ways to improve downstream fishing somewhat, but they are very difficult indeed, for a number of reasons, and still not usually as successful as upstream methods. Various upstream methods take longer to learn well than just "swinging wets" does, but are generally more effective. A good upstream angler will invariably outfish even a good downstream angler and usually by a fair margin. Of course this is also dependent on the skill of the anglers involved. Just fishing upstream wont automatically get you any more fish than fishing downstream will, you need the skill to do it properly.
If all you want to do is catch a lot of fish then the easiest and most effective method is deep nymphing upstream and using an indicator. One can learn this pretty quickly and it is very effective indeed.
"Why should it make any difference?"
The main problems are matters of stealth and presentation. You will always catch more fish if they don't see you, ( or become aware of you through footfalls etc), and your presentation is stealthy. This is very difficult indeed to do when fishing downstream. Just about the only way to do it consistently well is to fish a long line "fine and far off". This is very difficult, even if you have cover on the bank, fishing a long line from cover is difficult in itself, you may not be able to get a long back cast in at all. If you are standing in the river it is easier to cast but more or less impossible to approach fish without them being alarmed. In the majority of cases they will be long gone before you even cast. Fishing downstream disturbs water you want to fish. The longer the line you use the less control you have and if you use a short line you are almost always in sight of the fish. Fish that have seen an angler or a rod waving or a line splashing down are very wary indeed, even if they are still there. When there is some colour on the water then fishing downstream works a lot better because it helps to hide you from the fish. In low clear water you are often in plain sight of the fish and consequently catch fewer of them.
Fishing upstream and using the available cover you can fish a short line stealthily and with good control. You are not disturbing water you want to fish and the fish don't see you before you cast.
Various problems with fly presentation are easier to solve when fishing upstream. Although it is admittedly more strenuous, you have to cast more often, and creeping and crawling about is more exhausting than just strolling down the river bank, and initially seems more difficult, it has the "built in" advantages that downstream fishing does not.
As anybody who fishes dry flies will tell you, fishing upstream is a great deal easier than fishing downstream, and basically for the same reasons noted above. You CAN fish dry flies downstream, it is just far more difficult to do it successfully. Dragging dry flies will occasionally catch fish but more often wont. The same applies to wet flies, but you can't see the effects of drag on wet flies or the effects it may be having on fish.
There are often occasions where the terrain only gives you limited possibilities to fish a particular area, you may be forced to fish down because it isn't possible to fish up. You just have to make the best of it, or skip such stretches.
Quote from: Alan on November 01, 2012, 09:55:17 AM
salmon?
All I have written here has been concerned with brown trout fishing using small imitative flies, it does not apply to other fish and other flies. I don't know of any reliable way to fish upstream for salmon except spinning. There are places where salmon are regularly caught on dry flies, but it is not a reliable method in most of Europe.
As fly fishing for salmon and seatrout relies on other criteria in rivers, as they don't normally feed on insects etc, other methods apply and principally downstream methods.
The Incomparable Ponoi, Fly-fishing, Kola, Russia, short version, Spring 2011 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1MfBrS1kB8#ws)
<iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/39620554" width="400" height="300" frameborder="0" webkitAllowFullScreen mozallowfullscreen allowFullScreen></iframe>
Big Salmon Dry Flyfishing - Up North 2010 Norway (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATrRgDocF38#ws)