Do we really need wings.

[Traditionalist]

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.

[Fishtales]

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

[Traditionalist]

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

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.

[Traditionalist]

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.

[Traditionalist]

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.

[Fishtales]

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

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, 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://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/332064.pdf

http://www.lter.uaf.edu/synvol/Chap10AquaticFinal.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://www.famu.org/mayfly/pubs/pub_s/pubstatznerb1982p290.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

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.

[Fishtales]

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.

[Traditionalist]

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.

[Traditionalist]

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.

[otter]

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.