Which is the best fly?

[Traditionalist]

That is certainly true, Once you are obsessed with getting better you can't stop, and no matter what you do you will never find all the answers.If you spend enough time and effort you may find a few but even just a few can make you a much better angler. Whether you want to do this is another matter altogether.

The difference certain flies make only becomes obvious when you get everything else right.  This is very hard indeed to do. It will however then make a very big difference to your catch rate.  You wont always get everything right anyway no matter how much you practice.

If you fish general flies in a general manner then they are less effective than specific flies fished in a specific manner in the right circumstances  That is indeed a fact regardless of whether people agree with it or not.

There are lots of ways to catch fish. Which you choose to use is up to you.  There will always be differences between anglers. Some people regularly catch more than others even when using worms. Sometimes that may be just luck, but if it is consistent then there are other reasons for it, even if you can't see them.

[Traditionalist]

During that caenis hatch I aught a few on this

[attachimg=1]

Hugo Ross was out that same evening. He caught a few on a muddler.

Attempting to match the hatch under these circumstances is futile. Even if you have  a 100% perfect imitation and make it behave exactly like a natural, the chances of a fish selecting it from the millions of others are remote.

This is why caenis are there in such numbers in the first place. Safely in numbers is a very common survival strategy in nature. Millions are uneaten and  go on to breed.

Indeed, I would agree with that.  You also need to be lucky to some extent to find a fish which will take whatever you are offering. Many wont, they just keep slurping the small stuff and ignoring anything else.

But there are usually a few who can be persuaded to grab a muddler or something like that. Also, "exact imitation" with a lot of tiny stuff is pointless.  There are some who fish very tiny stuff on American tailwaters with some success. Personally I very rarely use flies on hooks below a size 16, very very occasionally an 18. There are also other reasons for that, tippet size, tippet drag, ( a small fly is much more heavily influenced by leader drag than a larger one), hook holding capability and presentation problems generally. Some are of course also much more difficult to dress.

[Malcolm]

My usual fly size on rivers - except when fishing during hatches of bif flies like March browns etc is a s14 3x short hank - i.e size 17 for BWOs, large spurwings etc or a s16 3x short shank - i.e a size 19. This is my standard for iron blues , small dark olives, pale wateries, small spurwings etc. This is also the size I use on highland lochs for my CDC buzzers, snipe and purple and partridge and orange which I fish on the bob above a larger fly on the tail (often a hopper).

Works for me.

On the chalkstreams the flies were often even smaller jassids were on size 20s and 22s and so were reed smuts

[Fishtales]

When I read all this from experienced anglers who are obviously, in their own way, better anglers than I am, it amazes me how I manage to catch any fish at all That isn't a disparaging remark but a serious observation. Why? You are probably asking.

It is because..

A) I seldom fish a static fly, either on river or loch, preferring to give them some movement. I do fish static on occasions but only in specific situations and those aren't the obvious like flat calms.

B) I have very few flies I use either bigger than a 12 or smaller than a 14. I have one or two on LS12 and 14's and a few 16 and 18's but these are again for a few specific situations. Nothing specific that I can site I just know when they are needed.

C) I always fish with 5 Lb Maxima Chameleon nylon. I have used others but never liked them. I have also tried lighter nylon, even going down to 2.5 Lbs, but had too many tangles and never really got on with them.

D) I use a 10 ft rod with a #7 WF line. I always have done because I am comfortable with it. I have used lighter lines but never felt happy with them. A shorter rod, down to 9 ft, is alright , the one I use as a spare is also a #7 but is seldom used.

Reading through all that it will be seen I come from a totally opposite end of angling spectrum. I have great respect for those that take the time to hone their skills and have the patience to stalk and stand and watch the water for hours waiting for that right moment, but that isn't for me. I just get on with it and hope for the best.

[Wildfisher]

Sandy,  fishing is mystified beyond any necessity. Either by individuals who would like to make it appear far more complicated than it actually is and therefore how wonderful they themselves must be in order  to catch fish at all, or by others trying to empty your pocket with the latest "must have"  such as convincing you that a fly line they buy in for a fiver is astonishing value at 25 quid just because they have stuck it in a box and got their pals to write glowing "reviews"  about it. (the line that is, not the box  :lol:)

You have to cut through the crap

Allow me to repeat, yet again my infallible step-by-step to catching big trout.


Step 1. Go to where the big trout live

Step 2. Do not scare the big trout

Step 3. Start fishing -  continuing not to scare the big trout

Step 4. Wind in big trout

If you never each Step 4, check for errors in Steps 1 to 3.   

[Traditionalist]

When I read all this from experienced anglers who are obviously, in their own way, better anglers than I am, it amazes me how I manage to catch any fish at all That isn't a disparaging remark but a serious observation. Why? You are probably asking.

It is because..

A) I seldom fish a static fly, either on river or loch, preferring to give them some movement. I do fish static on occasions but only in specific situations and those aren't the obvious like flat calms.

B) I have very few flies I use either bigger than a 12 or smaller than a 14. I have one or two on LS12 and 14's and a few 16 and 18's but these are again for a few specific situations. Nothing specific that I can site I just know when they are needed.

C) I always fish with 5 Lb Maxima Chameleon nylon. I have used others but never liked them. I have also tried lighter nylon, even going down to 2.5 Lbs, but had too many tangles and never really got on with them.

D) I use a 10 ft rod with a #7 WF line. I always have done because I am comfortable with it. I have used lighter lines but never felt happy with them. A shorter rod, down to 9 ft, is alright , the one I use as a spare is also a #7 but is seldom used.

Reading through all that it will be seen I come from a totally opposite end of angling spectrum. I have great respect for those that take the time to hone their skills and have the patience to stalk and stand and watch the water for hours waiting for that right moment, but that isn't for me. I just get on with it and hope for the best.

Well, if you are happy with what you do and satisfied with the results then what is "better"? Nothing at all,  because you are satisfied with what you do. People only go to a lot of trouble with various hobbies because they want to. ( Commercial undertakings excepted ). There may be a few who want to impress others or something like that, but I should imagine these will be in the minority and not the best anglers anyway. 

The only sensible reason for discussion of specifics to this extent is that many people are not satisfied with their results or their experiences and would like to improve them. If you are already happy with what you do then more information is basically irrelevant to you because it has no effect at all on how you fish or what with.

I do a lot of "general" fishing as well, I don't just stand about waiting for various things to happen. I do some things because they work extremely well, some things because I want to learn something, or simply because it takes my fancy to do whatever it is I choose to do.

Hoping for the best is not going to catch you any fish and by your own admission that is not what you do, you do use a systematic approach. Obviously not as complex or involved as what I do but basically similar.

Having confidence in things, or various expectations ,wont catch you any fish either. You can have as much confidence as you like in half a brick, you wont catch many fish on it.  You can also expect whatever you like, but these expectations are only likely to be realised if they are close to reality and you work towards achieving them.

Long long ago I decided I wanted to catch a lot of fish and I went about finding the best ways to do it.  It has worked very well. If people ask me, or in angling discussions generally, I will try to explain how and why I do things the way I do. Whether people believe it, do it, disagree with it, stick to their own methods, or ignore it altogether is up to them.  I am not forcing you or anybody else to do anything at all, you can simply do as you please, it makes no difference to me.  Over the years I have tried to help a lot of people, and been quite successful in many cases. Of course it only works as well as it does for me when the people concerned do as I suggest.

You may not like the methods, or consider them too complicated or attribute various motivations to my explaining them, none of that invalidates the methods.  In order to know whether a method or approach works or not, or works better or worse than something else you have to do it. If you don't do it then you can not possibly know why, how, or even if it works. 

[otter]

Sandy,  fishing is mystified beyond any necessity.

Couldn't agree more.

[Traditionalist]

Sandy,  fishing is mystified beyond any necessity. Either by individuals who would like to make it appear far more complicated than it actually is and therefore how wonderful they themselves must be in order  to catch fish at all, or by others trying to empty your pocket with the latest "must have"  such as convincing you that a fly line they buy in for a fiver is astonishing value at 25 quid just because they have stuck it in a box and got their pals to write glowing "reviews"  about it. (the line that is, not the box  :lol:)

You have to cut through the crap

Allow me to repeat, yet again my infallible step-by-step to catching big trout.


Step 1. Go to where the big trout live

Step 2. Do not scare the big trout

Step 3. Start fishing -  continuing not to scare the big trout

Step 4. Wind in big trout

If you never each Step 4, check for errors in Steps 1 to 3.

I don't much like what you are implying there.  I don't sell anything, never have, and I have never been interested in impressing people either, or in making things complicated.

Allow me to cut through some crap as well. People who are not very good at something will often try to belittle those who are because it makes them feel better or something.  No Big deal, but it is one reason really good anglers and others often simply avoid discussing it at all. Most anglers are mediocre at best and likely to remain that way.

[Wildfisher]

Lighten up Mike, the post is a joke.  Why did you assume it had anything to do with you?   

[otter]

Lighten up Mike, the post is a joke.  Why did you assume it had anything to do with you?   

I do not know why Mike assumed it was him, we all know he sells nothing and his approach is the least complicated that I have come across.  His explantions may seem complex,  some people say "long winded" but in essence when you boil it back to a basic understanding of a method that is sucessful in catching trout it is quite straightforward and as a foundation from which a beginner or imrpover can build I have not come across better.

Step 1: What could be more simple than a trout eats flylife, match your flies to the flylife that the trout eats, present those flies in a manner that convinces the trout that your fly is food at a time and a place when trout are prone to feed on that fly life.

If you aint catching, fine tune step 1

The long winded complex stuff are simply his interpretations of his findings in making step 1 work, one can choose to ignore some or all of these findings, one can use them or ignore them, it really boils down to that.

At least thats how I interpret what Mike is generally doing/saying and have found that implementing aspects of his approach as best I can has benefited my fishing and my enjoyment of it ten thousand fold.

Rather than try and wind him up as some seem to enjoy doing, I respect his efforts to FREELY share his ideas. Lets face it,  the crap is coming from the experts with a tenth of the knowledge and thousands of anglers worldwide buy the crappy books in the fervent hope that it will improve their angling and we all know that it will be another 200 pages of confusion to be added to the millions of pages of confusion that has preceedeth.

If you choose to do your own thing or try an approach like mikes then you are more likely to enjoy your angling than following the masses that follow the latest fashions.