News:

The Best Fishing Forum In The UK.
Do You Have What It Takes To Be A Member?

Main Menu
Please consider a donation to help with the running costs of this forum.

What flies?

Started by Traditionalist, October 03, 2011, 10:26:15 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Traditionalist

Quote from: scotfly on October 04, 2011, 01:19:30 AM
But surely the standards are reasoned, not arbitrary. Most, if not all, insects in each order are proportionally identical, are they not?

If that were the case, then you would only need one basic pattern to imitate them all. This can be done to a limited  extent with some patterns under specific circumstances, but as soon as the circumstances change it no longer works well if at all. If you want to use different methods under different conditions, then you need the flies to suit.  No single set of criteria will function in varying circumstances.

For the most part one is most successful with good imitations of various flies under various circumstances. This suggests very strongly that trout perceive these things much as we do.  There are circumstances when almost anything will work, but "almost anything" or random choices of artificial "fantasy flies" or "attractors" etc  will never be as consistently successful as good imitations well presented.  I consider it a given that virtually all practical artificials are basically caricatures. 

Assuming that various "standards" are reasoned is not reasonable! :)  A lot of them are the result of all sorts of things.

TL
MC

Traditionalist

By the way, the definition of a "trigger" here is something that causes an instinctive reaction. I don't know of any way to trigger an instinctive feeding or other reaction in a trout which will make it take a fly, except by way of movement.   

One trigger which works well is just to stand up and wave your (fishing) rod at the trout. Nine times out of ten you will trigger it into buggering off at speed.  I can't see any way to use this trigger to help me catch any trout, apart from using a net and scaring them into it. 

TL
MC

scotfly

Quote from: Traditionalist on October 04, 2011, 01:30:56 AM
If that were the case, then you would only need one basic pattern to imitate them all. This can be done to a limited  extent with some patterns under specific circumstances, but as soon as the circumstances change it no longer works well if at all. If you want to use different methods under different conditions, then you need the flies to suit.  No single set of criteria will function in varying circumstances.

We weren't talking about patterns Mike, we were talking about the proportional similarities between insects within an order.
But, if you want to reference patterns then yes one basic pattern is all you need to imitate a specific order of insect at a specific stage of its development and at each stage they will all be proportionally equal. So if you are imitating a LDO or a BWO or a Danica dun the pattern will be a different size, but proportionally identical.

Inchlaggan

I tie flies and fish with them.
I am also a professional model-maker, specialising in ships and boats.
Flies are full-size models, but nothing I tie at the vice would be considered even "representative" of the original in any model-making sense.
No natural fly (in any stage) has a hook eye forward of the head, or a 180 degree bend extending from below the tail and ending in a point.
A natural fly would also articulate at the joints between head and thorax, thorax and abdomen, and between the segments of the abdomen.
Model ships and boats are ballasted to float exactly on the waterline of the original, but, in flies, the weight of the hook itself greatly exceeds that of the original.
To model a fly, the first thing to discard is the hook. As the object of the exercise is to catch fish, a means of holding the fish and attaching a line will be required. This is much like including radio control in a model- it would be done in such a matter that it remains unseen.
Next to be discarded are materials, natural flies are not made of thread, fur and feathers, nor are steel ships made of glass reinforced plastic, but in model-making great lengths are taken to ensure that the materials used appear exactly as the original. In flies they only represent and add the missing buoyancy.
At very best, the shape and proportions of a fly may be imitative of a natural, and the colours close, but the articulation is absent, and the position in the water surface generally incorrect.
All this before the point of view of the fish has been considered.
Fly-tying and fly-fishing have produced their own vernacular, habits, traditions and concepts but do not kid yourselves that you are producing/using anything other than a caricature of a natural insect.
And don't get me started on lures.


'til a voice as bad as conscience,
rang interminable changes,
on an everlasting whisper,
day and night repeated so-
"Something hidden, go and find it,
Go and look beyond the ranges,
Something lost beyond the ranges,
Lost and waiting for you,
Go."

Wildfisher

Quote from: Alan on October 04, 2011, 07:43:10 PM
i'd go with movement being more important to draw a reaction than other stuff, which includes no movement,
On river, loch or both?


Quote from: Alan on October 04, 2011, 07:43:10 PM
cant see the reasoning behind the bizarre habit of trying fly after fly without realising it aint the fly.
A fly can be  the right or wrong choice for a number of reasons including shape, size, colour, weight, density of dressing to mention a few. Correct fly choice most certainly does matter most of the time.  One outing this year a Peter Ross actually out-fished most other patterns on a certain hill loch.


Wildfisher

Quote from: Alan on October 04, 2011, 08:02:36 PM
the sucess of the peter ross could also point to the worrying fact that the fly was not that critical, sticking it in the right place though is a must and moving it or not maybe what did it, knowing when to or not etc,

No it wasn't that. That day the fish wanted bright coloured flies and persistently ignored others fished on the same cast. Joe was hammering them on a Peter Ross, I only caught my first fish when I went back to basics and tied on a Butcher. I didn't have a Peter Ross.  :lol:

Peter Ross, Butcher, Dunkeld, Kingfisher Butcher, Gold Butcher, Silver Invicta and the like all caught fish. A Sedgehog was also tried and failed to catch. You are best to leave your options open and carry some regular well proven wets. Sometimes they work best. These flies did not get a reputation by not catching fish.

Over the past few weeks I have found old standards like the Butcher have caught me a lot of fish on lochs. Sometimes I think we over analyse. To over simplify and rationalise your box to one or two flies  is just another manifestation of over analysing.  Even Bob Wyatt, well known proponent of simplicity in fly choice has a dozen or so patterns in his box.


haresear

QuoteYou are best to leave your options open and carry some regular well proven wets.

I'd go further and say carry a little of everything. Tiny dries, nymphs, wets through to great big rubber legged things, short fat beetle/dung fly imitations etc.

I don't carry a lot of flies compared to many people, but I do like a selection of shapes and sizes. Some which sit on the surface, some that sit in it, some with sunk abdomens, some that sink and a few specials - like upside down dries for example. I will try to match the hatch with something I percieve as close to the natural as a first tactic, but will try anything if there is no hatch or the fish aren't rising.

This season in Scotland I have caught Clyde trout on flies from a size 22 dry klink (not my tying) and a 20 nymph up to a size 8 dry tarantula and a size 2 bright yellow zoocougar streamer.

Alex
Protect the edge.

Wildfisher

Quote from: haresear on October 04, 2011, 08:45:35 PM
I'd go further and say carry a little of everything.

I would agree with that. I carry three boxes, one with wets and nymphs, one with dries and one with huge flies, streamers and daft foamy and leggy things.

I was just considering Alan and not wishing to suggest anything too radical too quickly  Moving from 2 flies to a whole box might push him over the edge.  :lol:

Malcolm

If you keep a fishing diary and check the taking flies it's surprising just how many fish are taken just on a few patterns. When dry fly fishing on highland lochs two flies catch me about 90% of my fish - a size 10 hopper and a size 16 CDC. In fact add in just a snipe and purple, a muddler and a hares's ear then apart from the mayfly season I'd feel I had almost everything I needed everything for a highland loch.

Of course I take ombudsman, silver butcher, green peter, black gnats, copper bodied wickhams, taratulas etc etc - just in case. What is the point of having a fly box if it isn't full!
There's nocht sae sober as a man blin drunk.
I maun hae goat an unco bellyfu'
To jaw like this

Traditionalist

Quote from: scotfly on October 04, 2011, 05:19:07 PM
We weren't talking about patterns Mike, we were talking about the proportional similarities between insects within an order.
But, if you want to reference patterns then yes one basic pattern is all you need to imitate a specific order of insect at a specific stage of its development and at each stage they will all be proportionally equal. So if you are imitating a LDO or a BWO or a Danica dun the pattern will be a different size, but proportionally identical.


Sorry, I apparently misunderstood. 

TL
MC

Go To Front Page