Which is the best fly?

[bushy palmer]

Many Scientist believe that our brains are nothing more than pattern recognizing machines and that our brains take meaning from patterns that we see (or think that we see) in nature. From these patterns we make predictions that help us to survive. Whether it is the rhythmic pattern of our mothers heart beat when we are still in the womb or learning to recognize the patterns in our loved ones voices and facial expressions through to learning the alphabet- pattern recognition is the very foundation of our learning and it is what we use to make sense of and to survive in the world around us. It is for this reason that we need to see the patterns of cause and effect, action and reaction and to dismiss chaos or chance as "exceptions to the rule".
Pattern recognition is why we can see a face when we look at the moon, or see shapes in the clouds, it is why we have named constellations or even why our lord Jesus Christ can appear on someone's breakfast toast- Our brains see patterns whether they are real or simply there by chance.
 
Really, it's not a bad survival skill to have, even if we see a pattern that isn't there and draw a false conclusion it is often less bad than if we had not seen a pattern at all.
For example:
You're walking along and you hear a loud noise. Recognising the pattern between loud noise and danger you assume you are in danger and run out of the way. It turns out that you weren't in danger at all but the cost for being incorrect was simply expending a little extra energy.
However, if you did not recognise the pattern between loud noise and danger which in turn meant that you did not run away when in actual fact you were in danger- the cost for being incorrect may be your life.
 
This reluctance as a species to accept chance and to see patterns even when they are manifestations of chance is the foundation of many of our superstitions. From a fisherman's perspective this can manifest itself in many ways. For some of us it could be attributing our failure to not having brought our lucky hat. For others it could be that we are using the wrong fly even when the angler sitting right next to us in a boat or standing nearby on the riverbank is using the same fly to deadly effect. Only when we are once again adorned with our lucky hat or have tied on one of our favourite flies do we "find our groove" and start catching fish. In psychological terms this phenomenon is known as "The illusion of control" – the belief that personal skill, choice, familiarity or involvement can influence matters that are determined by chance.
 
In 1975, Ellen J Langer of Yale University conducted several studies into the illusion of control. In one of her studies she hypothesised that when a chance situation mimics a skill situation people will behave as if they have control over the uncontrollable.
In her study which has been emulated many times since by other researchers, people were asked to participate in a lottery. Without knowing, half of the participants were allowed to choose their own lottery card whilst the other half were given no choice in the matter and were issued with their card. On the morning that the lottery was due to take place all participants were told they must sell their tickets. Those who had picked their own cards (perceiving their cards to be more likely to win and hence have a greater value) expected at least four times more money than those participants who had not picked their cards. In other words, by taking control and picking our own lottery cards we believe we can manipulate the outcome of the lottery despite it being a matter of chance.
 
When it comes to fly fishing for trout, the chance situation of catching a fish mimics a skill situation and hence as anglers we can make ourselves believe that we have control over the uncontrollable. In truth there are many real skills involved such as the skill of stealth, identifying the areas where the fish will be feeding or resting as well as casting and presenting the fly. Knowing whether or not your choice of fly will induce a take however, is a matter of chance and any "pattern" we may perceive is a manifestation of said chance. It is through these perceived patterns that we develop favourite flies and fishing destinations or superstitions such as lucky hats. We establish "rules" to which the trout must conform and dismiss non correlation as "exceptions to the rule". We attempt to quantify the unquantifiable or control the uncontrollable.

I love reading others theories why fish behave the way they do and why a certain fly works for them but it is just that- a theory. Until the day comes when we can interview the trout to find the definitive answer- fishing will remain fun and a deeply personal journey. For this reason when Mike presented his personal opinion as an infallible scientific fact on Malcolms thread, I got a bit shirty and for that  Mike I apologise

[Fishtales]

Following on from bushy palmers post.

I find I fish more with my eyes and 'instict' than with analytical thought. I fish with the same three flies, but I wont go over that again. When fishing my eyes are never still. They scan and take in as much information as I can. Eventually I become accustomed to the wind, wave and surface patterns around me and the slightest difference initiates a response in my brain that draws my attention to that spot. The difference can be quite subtle. I don't know how many times I have perceived a darkened spot in my peripheral vision, which, when covered, turns out to have been a fish. When I turn to look at the spot square on it doesn't look any different from the rest of the dark spots, if I see it in my peripheral vision it immediately gets a response. I also see subtle differences in the waves. We have all seen the small ripple effect in the trough caused by the crest breaking, a hundred times that is what it is but there is a very slight difference to it if it is a fish moving just under the surface. I can't tell you what it looks like I just know it is there and a fish is the usual outcome when I cover it. I don't know how many times I have talked to people fishing the same loch and have them say they haven't seen a fish move yet I have been seeing fish all over the place.

Improving your observation skills and allowing you instinctive brain to take over is just as important as casting ability, or fly choice.

[Traditionalist]

No problem.

People can often become quite annoyed when something they firmly believe is challenged in some way, it's a normal reaction for many. 

While your post is correct, I don't believe it has the same far reaching effects as you propose.  Catching fish can be chance, but if you control as many factors as you can, which means you have to know about them, and preferably have an idea how they work, then you can influence the outcome very considerably.

That is one reason why I go to considerable trouble with various materials and flies, ( along with a lot of other things), because it does make a massive difference.  You can not guarantee the outcome in any specific instance, but the more you do actually control what you do the more likely that outcome will be successful overall. You can not control what fish or insects do, or even know why they do it, but you can observe their behaviour and try to emulate it as well as you can.  Fish are forced to feed, and if you can present something that emulates their food in a way that does not otherwise spook them you will be successful.  The better your imitations ( from the viewpoint of the fish, not yours), and the better your presentation the more successful you will be.  One can use a lot of surmise in these matters but it has to be based on something you know if it is going to be likely to work.

The less control you have, the less likely a successful outcome although chance itself will often give you a successful outcome anyway under many circumstances.

It has been speculated by scientists and philosophers that what we perceive as reality is merely a result of our interpretations of what we can not really grasp anyway. This is another reason we often "see"things as patterns as it helps us to survive among other things, the prime drive of course is survival. This has also been proven to an extent in various ways. We need various instruments and technology to be able to perceive some things at all. Examples of that are radio waves, other electromagnetic frequencies, radiation, magnetism, and a whole host of other things.

There has been a lot of discussion on colours, the effects of UV light, and a lot of other things, I largely ignore them ( although I have researched some things quite exhaustively), because they are based on groundless assumptions, and I can not see or use them anyway unless I have something to base that usage on.

What I can see is how insects and fish behave, and the majority of my efforts are in duplicating prey behaviour and appearance.  I can not know what a fish sees or perceives, but I can fairly easily know what I see. Trial and error and some surmise does the rest. One can guess at the reason a fish takes a particular pattern instead of another, ( perhaps a certain movement at a certain time), one chooses a material and dressing style  which one thinks may emulate that, and then one has to try it out. If it works consistently then one may assume that the surmise was correct. One has influenced the outcome by taking control of a particular aspect of something.

Using general patterns works, but it does not work as well as using specific patterns at the right time. This is admittedly quite difficult to do in many cases, and requires considerable time and effort. It is not everybody's cup of tea, but it is more effective in terms of catching fish. You can only know that to be true if you actually do it successfully.

It is often of very great importance to know what doesn't work. You don't need to know why, you just need to know that it is so.

With regard to "triggers"for instance, I don't think there are any usable visual triggers for fish in regard to artificial flies, excepting movement. There are however many "negative" triggers which will prevent a fish from taking a fly. I strive to avoid these.  Most fish will sometimes take flies that have loads of "negative triggers", but still far less often than  those without. Hooks, Line, large bushy hackles, and a host of other things can be negative triggers in many cases. Many tend to work fairly well anyway, but those without work a lot better.

[bushy palmer]

Using general patterns works, but it does not work as well as using specific patterns at the right time. This is admittedly quite difficult to do in many cases, and requires considerable time and effort. It is not everybody's cup of tea, but it is more effective in terms of catching fish. You can only know that to be true if you actually do it successfully.

Exactly my point Mike and a very pertinent example of illusion of control or more specifically the illusion of correlation

Only someone who is consistently doing it this way and getting the results they expect to see will "know" this to be true.

Only someone who is consistently doing it their way and getting the results they expect to see will "know" their method to be correct.

You and I it seems have fine tuned our arts in slightly different ways to great success as have other members of the forum. We have done so as a subtotal of our own observations and translations of the patterns that we have seem.

For this reason we consistently get the results we expect to see and "know" our methods to be correct.

Now equally neither of us could persuade the guy with the four inch long spinner that he is doing it wrong if he consistently gets the results that he expects to see and "knows" his method to be correct.

[Traditionalist]

Just another point on that, I think a lot of flies work overall because at some point or other they make a certain movement or present a particular aspect to the fish which causes the fish to take them, usually as food. This is controlled by chance to the extent that the fly only works like this in certain circumstances and it has to be in the right place at the right time as well for it to work. All of my specific patterns concentrate on imitating a certain appearance and behaviour as often as possible, under very specific circumstances, thus eliminating the chance aspect to a large extent. Many of these flies will not work very well at all under other circumstances.  They HAVE to be in the right place at the right time for them to work well.

[Traditionalist]

Exactly my point Mike and a very pertinent example of illusion of control or more specifically the illusion of correlation

Only someone who is consistently doing it this way and getting the results they expect to see will "know" this to be true.

Only someone who is consistently doing it their way and getting the results they expect to see will "know" their method to be correct.

You and I it seems have fine tuned our arts in slightly different ways to great success as have other members of the forum. We have done so as a subtotal of our own observations and translations of the patterns that we have seem.

For this reason we consistently get the results we expect to see and "know" our methods to be correct.

Now equally neither of us could persuade the guy with the four inch long spinner that he is doing it wrong if he consistently gets the results that he expects to see and "knows" his method to be correct.

The point in this case is that anybody and everybody can see the results. The results are not influenced by my expectations. If I catch twenty fish or more in difficult conditions, and other anglers catch none, that is not  a result of my expectations. It means my methods worked better. 

I can see what you are getting at, but you are reaching conclusions based on your own expectations.

If you catch what you expect to catch using your methods, then you may well be satisfied with the results. That is not at all the same thing as getting better results per se.

By the way I have never ever stated anywhere that I consider my methods "correcter" than anybody elses.  Although they are generally more successful in terms of fish caught. I do catch large numbers of fish, far more than most, using my methods, but I do not expect other people to use my methods instead of their own.

It's not something you can do quickly anyway. I have spent many years devising and refining some approaches and a lot of flies.  They work very well for me but that is not to say they will work as well for anybody else.

The results speak for themselves and are not dependent on expectations.

To quote Leisenring;

"We fish for pleasure; I for mine,you for yours"

As long as you enjoy what you do it is immaterial how you do it. The main reason I started writing about any of this was because people asked me to. They were unhappy with the results they were getting, saw or heard that I was getting much better results and asked about my methods.

Even after I have explained and demonstrated a lot of things, both to individuals and groups, few actually adopt the methods. Many will simply give up saying "That's too difficult". One major example is upstream fishing. Many wont do it because they find downstream fishing easier. Entirely up to them. It is nowhere near as successful though.

[bushy palmer]

No my point is Mike that we have only found different ways to overcome a problem. Ways that will work for us but not necessarily the next guy. Neither has proven anything. Neither will have their results published in a scientific paper entitled man finally gets in heid of fish. If mimicing a hatch works for you then good luck but you will need that luck should you ever wish to "prove" it with results- especially when the caenis are hatching.

[otter]

I love reading others theories why fish behave the way they do and why a certain fly works for them but it is just that- a theory. Until the day comes when we can interview the trout to find the definitive answer- fishing will remain fun and a deeply personal journey. For this reason when Mike presented his personal opinion as an infallible scientific fact on Malcolms thread, I got a bit shirty and for that  Mike I apologise

He he he  , we can all get a bit shirty ,  after all we are all experts in our own right. It is as clear as mud, that if someone puts an awful lot of time into investigating something it is very likely that same person will often seem EXTREMELY self opinionated, to the point of beligerent when what that person has proved as indisputable in their own head is challenged by arguments that they have long since proven to themselves as being irrelevant or untrue - its human nature and theres not much any of us can do about that.

Your post is apt and very accurate in its analysis of many perceptions of many anglers and on various dogmas passed down through the generations.

There is no hard and fast rules here, simply opinions of individuals based on their own experiences, opinions that are often self fulfilling prophesies because they seem  to match  "patterns" that others have opinionated on. 

We can but prove things to our own satisfaction and when it comes to fishing we can only really prove that in particular circumstances some things work well and other things tend not to.

Since angling is a lifetime experience , for some way beyond a simple pastime,  its interesting to discuss, listen, interpret and even argue.

If everytime you spend hours on the river and try as you might you only catch a few trout, then if you wish to catch a few more then maybe "patterns" identified by others may help, and if you catch loads, share the "patterns"  - and i dont mean fly patterns 

Each time you bend into a fish, you are either lucky or doing something right, bend regularly and you are either very lucky or doing a lot right.  If luck is at play, some anglers are extremely lucky all the time. I like to think that they are skewing the odds in some way that makes them lucky and it is to these anglers that I trun to in order to make myself luckier.     Maybe its just luck, but doing so has made me luckier and I can prove that scientifically if so required.

[Traditionalist]

No my point is Mike that we have only found different ways to overcome a problem. Ways that will work for us but not necessarily the next guy. Neither has proven anything. Neither will have their results published in a scientific paper entitled man finally gets in heid of fish. If mimicing a hatch works for you then good luck but you will need that luck should you ever wish to "prove" it with results- especially when the caenis are hatching.

I have been asked or "challenged"on numerous occasions to "prove"various things. Occasionally I have done so, but I don't have to prove anything at all and normally wont bother. I fish for myself, not for you or anybody else.

I do not depend on luck I prefer to depend on skill and logic.  What you think of that is immaterial to me.  If you are happy with the way you do things that's fine with me and I would not decry it under any circumstances at all.

My fishing is not dependent on what other people think, and I don't mind at all if you disagree with any of my ideas or approaches, It won't affect me at all.

Also, a large number of people over the years who have adopted some of my ideas and methods have become far more successful than they were before, and have thanked me for introducing them to some things. The methods themselves work better regardless of who uses them. Although of course skill levels, knowledge, and experience vary massively.

Also, many of these things are not my sole original ideas, they are for the most part developments and refinements of many things other people have written and said over the years. Practically all successful anglers.

[bushy palmer]

The ironic thing is Mike I don't disagree with most you have went on to say. I only originally got on my high horse because you presented it as "the word".