The Wild Fishing Forum

Obviously there is quite a lot of interest in this.  These are my ideas on the matter. They are not indisputable. They work for me.

> so how do you know it's the best fly in that case?

Well, actually you never really do. There is no reliable empirical data on what is the best fly for any particuar situation. What people use is determined by their knowledge and experience and their ideas on what might work.  Other angler's experiences may also be useful, but only if they are reliable and sensible.  If people exaggerate or even lie outright then such information is obviously useless.  Also, the data on which you base any assumptions has to be logical and sensible if you want things to work well. If you choose flies on the basis of them being the best sellers in a fishing shop, or because some magazine does a big piece on some fly or other, then they may or may not work, it depends on why people bought them or why the inventor of the fly made it like that or even if they are the same flies at all!  Large numbers of artificial flies are not very reliable for a whole host of reasons. Virtually all of them will eventually catch a fish in some situation or other, but you have no way of knowing what that situation might be, you want flies that catch consistently and reliably in the situations which you find on your waters if you want to catch a lot of fish.

Fishing for stocked rainbows in still water is not generally reliable experience for fishing for wild fish in rivers or other wild waters although of course there are some similarities and some assumptions are fairly reliable wherever you fish.

If you use a particular fly in a particular situation and it works then that was a good fly. If it works repeatedly in simiar situations then it is a good fly for that situation.  The problem is that some flies work pretty often, some only work sometimes and some very rarely work at all. Also, a very great deal depends on how they are used. Some people maintain that is the only real criterion, but that is an illogical conclusion.

All you can do is try to learn as much as possible about what is happening and choose the fly you think will work best based on whatever criteria are known to you. It doesn't really matter "why" it works, as long as it works, although people are always trying to explain why something works. In many cases there is no way to know why it works. One can of course surmise a great deal, and that surmise may or may not be accurate.

In the final analysis it is the fish that determine whether a fly is good or not. If it catches fish for you then it is a good fly. Of course a fly that only catches one fish under some circumstance or other is less desirable than a fly which has caught a hundred fish in various situations. Simply because such a fly has worked often makes it more likely that it will work again.

People's experience and knowledge varies massively, and the approaches they use also vary.  I have a set of criteria I use when developing or dressing flies, and I have found that these criteria are pretty reliable, but they are not infallible.  Sometimes, quite often in fact, a fly which I have developed does not work very well for the purpose it was designed. Indeed, it is only now and again that one manages to come up with a really good fly.

The matter is further complicated by variations and substitutions, styles of dressing and fishing, the types of water you fish, how many fish are in there and how they behave. Over the years I have found that some flies only work well for me when dressed in a specific manner using specific materials and also fished in a very specific manner. Some only on specific waters in specific circumstances. If I deviate from any of those things the flies invariably work less well or in many cases not at all. The gear you use and how well you can use it also determines to a considerable degree whether some things will work well or not.

Finally, a lot depends on your expectations, enthusiasm, and the amount of time and effort you can put in. There is no substitute for experience. The more you have the better you will be able to fish. There are also no substitutes for logic and common sense.

With regard to "triggers", for over half a century I have read loads of stuff on this. Up to now nobody has been able to demonstrate a single one. My usual,( but not my only), approach is to make my artificials look and behave as much like a natural I am trying to imitate as I possibly can. It obviously works.

Much the same applies to a lot of other ideas and theories which abound.  They are often the result of completely unfounded assumptions, many based on various anthropomorphic attributions to fish which they simply don't have. If they don't make sense, or somebody can not explain or demonstrate them then I simply ignore them. They wont catch me any more fish, not least because even in the unlikely event that some of them might work I have no logical way to use them.

I think we covered all of this in the other thread Mike, which is now closed.

The one thing though that does catch me a lot of fish is moving the fly. Doesn't matter what fly whether surface, wet or nymph I very seldom fish them static. I do if the situation seems to justify it but for most of the time I retrieve them. It has to be at the right pace though not too fast or slow and that depends on the conditions. The less surface water movement the slower the retrieve but only up to a certain speed. I know when I reach that maximum speed by instinct or maybe just by having done it for so many years it just becomes instinctive. Too fast and nothing happens, get it right and I start catching. It could be to any fly on the cast; sometimes the dry, or the wet or it might be the nymph. On the right day it could be all three, but always retrieved.

I agree, movement is the only thing that will "trigger" fish to take, but as you say, it has to be the right movement in the right circumstances.

I was not trying to circumvent a closed thread. I got a couple of e-mails on the matter and I thought the subject matter was actually somewhat different but obviously of interest.  If you feel it is inappropriate then just delete it.

I always find this to be very effective when all else fails!

[attachimg=1]

Fly made from parts of broken IPhone!

Sorry Mike,  :lol:

I prefer this;

http://www.rasmushansen.com/index.php?l=uk&t=pdv&s=2&p=pdv (http://www.rasmushansen.com/index.php?l=uk&t=pdv&s=2&p=pdv)

but I don't suppose it matters much.............

Does it have to be an iPhone, or might one use bits from a Nexus instead?

Nice one, but not sure it would work in really cold water!

Never tied or tried  a Nexus, but the IPhone CDC is a real trigger!

Quote from: Alan on February 11, 2013, 12:20:21 AM
depends when you fish it surely, if i had to fish one fly for ever more it would be either a dhe or a smallish elk hair caddis.

Regardless of what you use, how successful it is is always going to depend on when, where, and how you fish it.  If you only use one fly then you will probably catch fewer fish because there will be occasions when it doesn't work. There are one or two people who are fairly successful who only use a couple of flies, and I have known two who only used one.  Nothing wrong with that it if suits you but part of the experience for me is trying to find a fly that suits the conditions, matches the prey at the time, and works well. There are some flies which work a great deal better than the "run of the mill standards".  I also use other approaches on occasion, but that is my basic "bread and butter" approach.  I just find it more interesting in general.  I do only normally use a few dry flies, but that has as much to do with the waters I mostly fish as much as anything else. There are more than a few occasions when two or three dry flies will suffice for a large proportion of the fish.  In some places you need more, but even there you will likely catch most of your fish on just a few patterns.

I don't like to limit myself, but at the same time I don't want to carry huge numbers of flies to suit every possible occasion so I choose my flies with very great care. I still try other stuff now and again but my core selection is always what I depend on.  Also, although I like to use different gear and different methods there are some methods I don't use much. I don't much like deep nymphing for instance, as although it is very successful I usually find it a bit boring after a fairly short time. I don't use bead heads at all. Sometimes I will have a day or part of a day streamer fishing, and often a day of upstream wet fly. Depends on my whim at the time mostly, although sometimes of course conditions dictate or preclude some methods.  If I was limited to only one fly or method I would probably pack it in altogether.

This was the fly one gent used. He was in his sixties when I knew him in Yorkshire many years ago. He only used this fly and he caught a lot of fish both trout and grayling. He usually just retrieved it slowly along the bottom. He fished two rivers and used the same method on both;

"The "creeper" was the name used for large stoneflies, which were often used as bait. I knew a couple of people who used very rough imitations of these flies, and caught a lot of fish on them. Indeed, I think this may have been the forerunner of the woolly bugger! The flies are quite simple, a long shank hook ( Size 8 LS Hook shown here ) about an inch long is wound with lead, and then overwound with wool of the appropriate colour, and then ribbed with tinsel or wire. Often dark green was used, but I have also seen brown and black variations. These flies were also used in various sizes as "sheet anchors" on various working rigs.

(http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/3123/creeperi.jpg) (http://img706.imageshack.us/i/creeperi.jpg/)

This is a well used example from one of my boxes. As you can see, it looks very much like a very simple Woolly bugger! When I dress these things now, I brush the wool ( it is mohair wool) out well, after dressing the fly. These flies are quite deadly on grayling. But will of course also take trout. I knew one old guy who used nothing else, and he caught a huge number of fish! On reflection, I recollect that this is why I made the Green Tailed Woolly Bugger!

The other "one fly man" only used hare's ears, but he did have them in various types and sizes and he did use different methods. He also caught a lot of fish.

Reading through that and various other threads where it has been discussed it all comes down to ..

a) the angler

b) the style or technique used

c) whether the fish are feeding or not

The fly would appear to be well down the list of being successful.

Matching the hatch may catch fish, or it may not as has also been stated in previous threads, if the angler isn't up to it; he is using the wrong technique; or is matching the wrong part of the hatch, he still wont succeed as often as someone using all his knowledge and technique while using a non-descript fly.

The best fly, is without a doubt, the one that catches you a fish!

Do you not think that the angler has a lot do do with it? Some have the "touch" and can feel the slightest touch of the fly when a fish "samples" it before spitting it out and can therefore strike in time and catches his fish while others don't. I can remember my dad telling me to keep in touch with your flies. An old pal of mine who is now no longer with us was a very keen and very good fisher winning the club championship on more than one occasion and he was blind!! He obviously required assistance with his tackle and various other things but he did the fishing. So perhaps our flies really only require the fish to be curious enough to taste them. When you look at fish in an aquarium they suck stuff in and if they don't fancy it they spit it out again all within a split second.... I'm only saying...

Moggie.

Absolutely Moggie!
I have been fishing in a boat with a partner many times. There have been occasions where one is consistently catching and the other is not, simple solution is that you are fishing different flies, right? Pass your rod to the boat partner and take a shot of theirs who catches then? The times I have tried this its the angler who was catching that continues to catch in spite of the rod swap. It seems to me that there are days when your style is just more tuned into the fish and it doesnt really matter whats on the business end. Of course there may be a bit more 'science' involved when matching the hatch on rivers but I'm not convinced. Any perceived need to match the hatch is in my opinion more likely to be down to angling pressure rather than the need to exactly match the hatch, though I'm sure haresear, Alan or Deergravy will probably have a different view, (thats why they are excellent river anglers and I am not!).
When I go to a loch, if I know there are fish, there I am pretty confident I can catch one - I usually do. However put me next to a river and I get the cold sweats, I know what I should be doing but dont feel confident in my abilities - I usually blank.

The one common denominator in it all is the angler. It is easy to blame the weather; the fish; or any one of a hundred things but the most blame is put on the wrong fly and yet if two people stand side by side fishing the same fly why can one catch and the other not? It has to be the way the angler fishes, there can't really be any other explanation.

Quote from: Moggie on February 11, 2013, 11:58:10 AM
Do you not think that the angler has a lot do do with it?

More than any other factor. I sometimes fish with anglers who are far better than I am:  haresear and  hopper to name but two, guest is a much better loch fisherman than I am. I could go on.

Fly choice is important but it is well down the list compared to other factors of which the absolute number 1 is not scaring the fish. Rivers and lochs are also a completely different style of challenge each with their own special requirements.

Quote from: fishtales on February 11, 2013, 09:44:29 AM
Reading through that and various other threads where it has been discussed it all comes down to ..

a) the angler

b) the style or technique used

c) whether the fish are feeding or not

The fly would appear to be well down the list of being successful.

Matching the hatch may catch fish, or it may not as has also been stated in previous threads, if the angler isn't up to it; he is using the wrong technique; or is matching the wrong part of the hatch, he still wont succeed as often as someone using all his knowledge and technique while using a non-descript fly.

Broadly speaking yes, however, under various circumstances the fly and the way it is being fished  become more and more important.  In quite a few cases, unless you have a really good matching artificial fished in a specific way you will catch less or often no fish at all.

March browns, Iron Blues, and Grannom are all examples of this.  Artificial duns are often useless, although you might get the odd fish on them.  For consistent success you need an emerger pattern or a nymph fished just below the surface in a particular way because that is where the fish are taking them, and they will usually completely ignore anything else.

Quote from: fishtales on February 11, 2013, 12:43:19 PM
The one common denominator in it all is the angler. It is easy to blame the weather; the fish; or any one of a hundred things but the most blame is put on the wrong fly and yet if two people stand side by side fishing the same fly why can one catch and the other not? It has to be the way the angler fishes, there can't really be any other explanation.

That off course is the logical conclusion and quite likely the correct conclusion in most circumstances.

I do not buy into any concept of best fly, best method,  best line, best anything.

To consistently catch a lot of trout all the various parameters over which you have control must come to-gether in unison and whilst you can look over your shoulder at others as long as you are consistently catching the only way you can only reach a tentative conclusion on anything is by comparing your results to your results when you make changes to any of the parameters.

You as an angler can only control certain things. you cannot control the water, the weather, the hatches or whether the water was flogged to death by a hatch of beginners half an hour earlier.

The biggest problem in discussing this sort of stuff is that everyone tends to have already made their minds up based on their own perception of where the goal posts are and these may be worlds apart from others as may the types of water they fish.

My own personal goal post is a belief that in MOST circumstances there is a limited number of possible options that will attain good results. Its about using intuition and experience operating within the limits of your ability to maximise that attainment for each situation. 

I believe that in many hatch situations on rivers, which after all is when the trout feed most agressively that their focus on self preservation is slightly diminished and  the pattern that we fish, the way we fish it is of paramount concern.  This is of course always important , but in a hatch its importance becomes more acute.

In my experience many anglers that consider matching the hatch as a load of nonsense do so for various personal reasons but that is poor reason for believing it to be a nonsense.  I prefer using different terminology from matching the hatch, "Taking best advantage of a hatch " is my only goal for whatever seasons I have left. To achieve that goal means been open minded and pretty focussed on certain things.

It is just as important , if not more so, to understand why certain things dont work in certain situations. Hatches on rivers can last as short as ten minutes so your decisions have to be well made to take advantage of the hatch. Why bother you may ask, well its simple really, thats when the better than average trout comes out to play.  :)

Quote from: Mike Connor on February 11, 2013, 01:18:01 PM
Broadly speaking yes, however, under various circumstances the fly and the way it is being fished  become more and more important.  In quite a few cases, unless you have a really good matching artificial fished in a specific way you will catch less.

The point is though you will still catch. Spending time repeatedly changing flies trying to find the 'exact match' when I could probably catch the odd fish by persevering with the flies I have isn't my idea of fishing. I do realise that there are a lot of other anglers who are quite prepared to do this and they do catch fish, whether they catch more or less than me is irrelevant as long as we are all enjoying ourselves. I don't go to a river or loch and stand about for hours waiting for a hatch or rising fish so I can find out what they are taking and then go through my fly box to match the hatch, I just pick a likely looking spot and start fishing :) As far as I am concerned I am already matching the hatch. I have a surface fly for any fish that is looking for surface food; a wet fly for those fish eating drowned or hatching flies under the surface; a nymph for those fish eating nymphs, grubs or beetles nearer the bottom.

During early spring when I see Claret Duns hatching I know the Iron Blue Dun wet fly and the HillLoch Nymph will catch. It happens too many times for it to be a coincidence. Those same flies will catch during a hatch of Olives throughout the year. They also catch in rivers as I have proven on numerous occasions over the years. I am not saying someone going through their fly box and matching the flies to what is hatching wont catch any more or less than I do but it isn't something I think about.

I don't spend any time at all changing flies. As soon as I realise a hatch is in progress, and often before, based on the likelihood, I have the right fly on. I have only found the right flies for some things after years of experimentation and trials. 

Quote from: otter on February 11, 2013, 01:36:50 PM

I believe that in many hatch situations on rivers, which after all is when the trout feed most agressively that their focus on self preservation is slightly diminished and  the pattern that we fish, the way we fish it is of paramount concern.

In my experience many anglers that consider matching the hatch as a load of nonsense do so for various personal reasons but that is poor reason for believing it to be a nonsense.  I prefer using different terminology from matching the hatch, "Taking best advantage of a hatch " is my only goal for whatever seasons I have left.

On the lochs and rivers I have fished if the fish are feeding aggressively then they will take just about anything that comes within range.

I don't consider matching the hatch as nonsense I just don't believe it is the main concern when I fish. In my eyes getting a fly over that feeding fish, as long as it is fished and presented the way the fish recognise it as a food item, is just as important. When I am fishing a loch or river and I see a fish rise my only concern is to get my flies into its feeding area. The last thing on my mind is standing about looking to see what it is eating so I can change my flies to match it exactly, by that time the fish could be at the other end of the loch or moved to another lie in the river.

That obviously works to some extent for you on the waters you fish. It wont work on some heavily fished waters of various types.  I have been watched often by various anglers in some places who have marvelled at my seeming to get a fish a cast,and usually good fish, while they could not even get one. On occasion I have given anglers one of the flies and quite a number of them then manage to catch a fish. By no means all though, with some it doesn't matter much because they do something else wrong, very often lack of stealth, or poor casting. However, there is no doubt at all in such circumstances that the right fly is essential. Of course there may be other possible "right flies" in such circumstances.

When fish are actively  feeding on top or in midwater they are less wary of possible food but much more wary of their surroundings. One reason deep nymphing is often so successful, the fish are not so easily spooked.

What I consider the "right fly" in such circumstances is one that works about 80...90% of the time.  That means at least eight fish out of ten casts.

Where I fish it is often completely different.

As an example, at dusk last week of june into first/second week of August during normal conditions on my river the trout will be focussed on BWO's and Caddis. Experience has taught me what to expect and my preference at dusk is to fish a single fly as more than one causes problems I would rather avoid.  If I chose my preferred pattern for eitehr bWO's or Caddis on a preferred piece of water then I would without fail catch fish for at least an hour and a half. There would be periods where I caught few and then intense periods of regular hookups and all would be well. If however I recognised that the trout had switched from BWO to caddis then apart from the 1 minute to change pattern it would be pretty intense fishing.

Apart from proving that I am greedy   :roll:,  it certainly proves to me that if you match the trouts expectations they will respond in kind.

Many anglers that I know happily fish caddis all evening, catch some trout andgo home just as content as I do - simply their goal post are different, no big deal really.

Also an excellent example.  "Mixed" hatches can be very difficult as can determining the stage of the hatch, if you get it wrong you wont catch much.  On some lowland rivers I fish it can be very difficult to determine a hatch at all as there is so much stuff flying around, Sometimes the fish will take more or less anything in such circumstances, but most often they are keyed in to some specific fly and others will be far less successful. For maximum success you have to use the right fly. You might catch a few fish using any generally suitable seeming fly but you will catch the most with the right fly presented in the right manner.

It can take a long time before you have a selection of "right flies" for these circumstances, and of course you have to make the right choice at the right time in order to maximise your prospects.

There is nothing wrong with your approach as you are fishing a river that you know well and are prepared for what to expect. Most of my fishing is in lochs at all times of the year and in different places. There are some which I have fished more than once and not at the same time of year but the same flies are taken just the same. When fishing my local loch I know that in late June and into July the Large Red Sedge will be on the water accompanied by Caenis. In that situation I will remove the wet Iron Blue and put on my Caenis Nymph pattern, change the Dry Fly with the HillLoch nymph and fish them all at the surface. They will all catch fish at some point even during the day before the anything really starts hatching. It is the same with the Sepia Dun, Claret Dun and Olives, I am confident that at some point I will catch fish on the HillLoch Nymph or the wet Iron Blue Dun with the odd one taking the Dry Fly. I also know that those same flies will catch from April to September no matter what is hatching out on the water so I don't see the point in changing them.

Well, it seems to me you are basically doing the same thing, you are using flies that you know will work. You are not just using some random fly from a box full of them in the fervent hope that it might. Of course the circumstances on hill lochs are different to those on a rich lowland river.  Indeed, every type of water is different and different approaches will often work better or as well. On a fairly barren beck you can usually reckon on the fish taking more or less any suitable fly avidly as long as it is presented properly. In such cases a couple of terrestrials are often enough to ensure success.

Quote from: Mike Connor on February 11, 2013, 02:38:22 PM

It can take a long time before you have a selection of "right flies" for these circumstances, and of course you have to make the right choice at the right time in order to maximise your prospects.

Yep and I am running out of it too quickly  :D

Its important to be cognitive that each anglers expectations, their choices and their reasons for being on the river, what gives them pleasure, their skills sets and the types of waters they fish are as various as the flylife. 

Its good though to hear others views on such matters as things are rarely as black and white as we sometimes fool ouselves into believing they are.

The only absolute is that one can catch f all typing on a keyboard, cmon the first of march !!!

And to answer your question that started this thread, "Which is the best fly", .................. ask the bloody trout !!!!

True enough, but it might help plan some fishes downfall! :)

Time is indeed a major concern in these things. I was fortunate enough to be able to spend a great deal of it on my obsession. Not many are quite so fortunate.

Behold the winding, dancing, sparkling stream,
ethereal, enchanting, as in some joyous youthful dream,
beheld, and then, the all consuming wish,
to carry home the stream´s elusive fish.

But dreams fade rapidly at last,  like youth.
Advancing age, and weariness, reveal the truth,
all the battles, and the fish you caught,
mean nothing much, it was not fish you sought.

Peace, contentment, and a happy life,
free of troubles, sickness, and all other strife,
fishing may indeed these earthly woes transcend,
as angler makes his way around another river bend.

`Tis sad that one may not just simply fish one´s life away,
ignoring all the cares and problems, always bright and gay,
but life intrudes most rudely, and forces one´s attention,
sometimes overpowering, defying comprehension.

Dreams are scattered then, borne away on evil winds,
as humdrum life the once great hope and joy rescinds,
ambition dies, one sinks in mournful contemplation,
of how things were, of each and every revelation.

Knowledge gained, seems worthless on reflection,
one is enchained for hours and days by useless circumspection.
a rod, a box of flies, once source of magical enjoyment,
now sit ignored, unused, no point in their deployment.

"Hope springs eternal", or so ´tis often lightly said,
even when the wings of spirit,  have feet of lead.
I will yet take my rod and flies to some bright stream again,
I know I will, all I do not know, is when?

or perhaps...............;

Lord, grant that I may catch a fish, regardless of the fly,
I really do deserve it Lord, just look how hard I try.
Let my retrieve be perfect Lord, strip or figure eight,
It could be worse you know Lord, I might be using bait!

When I hook the fish Lord, one quite large and strong,
dont let it fall off again, when I do something wrong,
When I finally need the net Lord, let it be at hand,
not in the car, or folded up, and very badly jammed.

Send a plague of locusts Lord, to eat the bankside weed
that my flyline may not tangle, causing some misdeed,
This is not much to ask Lord, I pray thee grant my wish,
You may strike me with a lightning bolt, but first grant me a fish!

I very seldom ask Lord, indeed I hardly ever pray,
but this is a special case, not common every day,
If I get this fish Lord, I wont leave you in the lurch,
indeed if it´s a good one, I might even go to church!

Waht is the best fly? I must tie a Peter Ross emerger......that should cover all the bases.

Quote from: Malcolm on February 11, 2013, 03:15:02 PM
I must tie a Peter Ross emerger.

With a big pinch of marabou for a tail, now you are talking! 'The dancing Peter'  :D

Quote from: Malcolm on February 11, 2013, 03:15:02 PM
Waht is the best fly? I must tie a Peter Ross emerger......that should cover all the bases.

You might try this as well, all the flies there have caught fish.

(http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/6994/blaeblackvariations.gif) (http://img213.imageshack.us/i/blaeblackvariations.gif/)

The dressing is;

Materials List: Hook: From size 16 to 6.

Thread: Black silk. 

Tail: Golden pheasant tippet or blood red feather. 

Body and Head: Black silk.(Some of the flies have a pinch of dubbed black seal fur body )

Rib: Fine silver wire. 

Hackle: Black hen.   

Wing: Grey duck or starling. Starling is better on smaller patterns.

Quote from: Mike Connor on February 11, 2013, 03:36:31 PM
You might try this as well, all the flies there have caught fish.

and not a single black pennell in sight , so thats a hatch of pennellings

Quote from: otter on February 11, 2013, 03:49:26 PM
and not a single black pennell in sight , so thats a hatch of pennellings

Blae & Blacks, for every stage of the hatch! :)

Little known but there is really no such thing as a Black Pennell, Pennell only invented three Pennells which he maintained would catch fish anywhere under any circumstances, quite a few people laughed at him. Here are those Pennell's, the yellow, brown, and green;

http://www.wildfisher.co.uk/smf/index.php?topic=16985.msg181259#msg181259 (http://www.wildfisher.co.uk/smf/index.php?topic=16985.msg181259#msg181259)

He pissed Stewart off a lot with this nonsense as well. You can read about that here;

http://archive.org/search.php?query=Cholmondeley%20Pennell (http://archive.org/search.php?query=Cholmondeley%20Pennell)  have a look at " The Modern Practical Angler"

Some of Stewart's response;

http://archive.org/search.php?query=The%20practical%20angler%20stewart (http://archive.org/search.php?query=The%20practical%20angler%20stewart)  have  a look at "A caution to anglers"

Which or whether, a significant number of salmon and sea trout liked a black pennel enough to bend my rod many a time when I was but a pup.

Quote from: otter on February 11, 2013, 04:19:42 PM
Which or whether, a significant number of salmon and sea trout liked a black pennel enough to bend my rod many a time when I was but a pup.

Oh, the fly generally referred to as a Black Pennell often works quite well. it just has nothing at all to do with Pennell.

Quote from: otter on February 11, 2013, 04:19:42 PM
Which or whether, a significant number of salmon and sea trout liked a black pennel enough to bend my rod many a time when I was but a pup.

Personal best brownie 4.75lbs caught on a size 10 black Pennel. Not a go to fly for me but it certainly did the trick on that occasion.

Quote from: Mike Connor on February 11, 2013, 04:50:42 PM

Oh, the fly generally referred to as a Black Pennell often works quite well. it just has nothing at all to do with Pennell.

Okay, just looked at the plate -  they must have UV properties or some other magic ?,  he must have been some angler, they make bob wyatts flies look like full dressed salmon flies in comparison.

He was an idiot, as you will see if you read some of his books. He wasn't a very nice person at all.

UV properties!!!!   Are you trying to get me going?  :)

The flies were largely useless, as many anglers of the day noted. Most of what Pennell wrote regarding them was absolute rubbish.  He was also caught a few times lying about it.

Just read Malcolms thread, which obviously is very similar to this one. Bear in mind my experiences are largely river based.

I have a theory as to why discussions about these matters can become very argumentative and that is when ever one mentions hatch matching it immediatley  evokes a negative response from many anglers simply because their concept of the term matching the hatch is largely based on the volumious dribble that has emanated from english chalkstreams and other such enclaves of piscatorial eloquence.  " The trout was taking every 6th dun " comes to mind here. It also evokes an irrational but understandable  belief that matching the hatch must refer to fishing very specific dries with three and three quarter turns of a almost medium dun  or very very specific nymph imitations etc....    No offense intended to any fine upstanding or not englishman here, but since much of literature and magazines emanated from england it is fair to say that much is based largely on the english establishments physche to label and box everything in to a very orderly way - keeps the masses on a firm leash . 

Also much of the stuff is dribble handed down from one author to the next and any real sense of reality was long since lost. I bet you a fiver that when Bob Wyatts bones have long since turned to dust, the reasoning behind his flies will also be forgotten and his disciples in fifty years time will be marketing his flies and selling them with theories that will bear little resemblance to his.

Trout, yes even wild trout, can be as easily caught as mackarel at times for various reasons. A clear example of this is early season just as the first hatches begin very lighly. Trout can often be found shoaled up and on the bottom, competing for any nymph that dares show its ugly mug. On such occasions one may catch dozens upon dozens of trout with a basic nymph as long as it behaves reasonably correctly and is of a size and colour and profile that appeals to the trout.  Clearly you are taking advantage of the sparse hatch, presenting a suitable imitation in the right way and at a position in the water column that matches where the trout are taking the naturals.  You are matching the hatch or more precisely you are fishing in a manner that is providing a suitable fly in a manner that the trout percieves it to be food - ergo bent rod regularily.

As the season progresses, there is more food on the menu, trout become more spread out, taking very specific advantage of the food on offer. On some very flylife rich rivers they can settle  into quite complicated feeding patterns according to the prevailing conditions. Matching the hatch or taking advantage of the hatch now is all about knowing where the trout are likely to be actively feeding.  Whether your patterns and how you fish is optimum or not , it is a huge advantage to be in the right place at the right time. 

After that its all down to learning to read / anticipate how the trout GENERALLY react to various hatches on YOUR river. You dont need to be a rocket scientist to even by trial and error figure out 90% of it and catch quite a few trout.  Those anglers that do get loads of time on the water and if they so choose can really get into the nitty gritty of it all and possibly learn how to take ultimate advantage of each type of  hatch.

I have done so on my local river in certain situations, can replicate it season after season so that it is akin to mackarel fishing - I am sure many of you have done the same.  To achieve that level you will have learnt to take advantage of the particular hatch or in that god awful phrase you will have matched the hatch.

How we phrase things can cause a lot of negativity and headache.

That is an excellent post Norman.  :D

Very good analysis.

Otter,
Good summary, reasoned, clear, logical and concise!

A small addendum to what I posted above which is equally important.

Not all rivers are the same, even areas of the same river can vary quite dramatically and the precision required to take advantage of the hatches with reasonable sucess can also vary.  Generally speaking (there are execeptions) , the closer to form and behaviour that your fly matches the natural the more likely you are to succeed. This is really just common sense but even then it is not black and white, sometimes its a must , sometimes its not.

You will find many fine anglers that are not overly fussy in fly selction but either through knowlege. experience , simply working through their repetoire of sucessful presentation methods on any given situation will effectively start to take trout. Experience and time on the water are the real keys to success as long as the angler is capable of evolving.

For some anglers this simply does not happen, just as in golf and many other things, they don't have a natural ability for it and each season is another groudhog day - doesn't make them less an angler and doesn't make their enjoyment any less than those that catch more.

My local river is very heavily fished, is quite rich in fly life, is stuffed with trout in much of it.  I enjoy the challenges it presents and the nature of the river shapes me  the angler as will the nature of your waters shape you.

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

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.

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.

Quote from: Mike Connor on February 12, 2013, 12:56:25 PM


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.

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.

Quote from: bushy palmer on February 12, 2013, 01:24:38 PM

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.

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.

Quote from: bushy palmer on February 12, 2013, 11:51:27 AM

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  :D, 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.

Quote from: bushy palmer on February 12, 2013, 01:50:09 PM
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.

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". :D

Quote from: bushy palmer on February 12, 2013, 01:50:09 PM
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.

That is a very good point. In your opinion why is it so difficult to catch many trout when Caenis are hatching ?

Quote from: bushy palmer on February 12, 2013, 02:01:49 PM
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". :D

No I did not, that was how you perceived it and it apparently pissed you off.  I have no control over your perceptions, interpretations,  or expectations.  You should just read what people write and not base your reactions to it on what you think they might have meant or their possible motivations for writing it at all.

Also, if something is correct it is correct regardless of who writes it. You may not agree with it, but that is another matter entirely.

Anyway,  I think I have more or less covered my general views on these matters, and I don' t see much point in continuing this discussion. 

Have a nice day!

I can't prove this but I can give an answer.

The Caenis hatches on one of my local lochs used to be enormous. On a warm summer night and a flat calm there were literally hundreds of fish on the surface with only their noses, dorsal or tail fin showing. Admittedly they were all stocked rainbows but they were near impossible to catch and a lot of frustrated fly anglers :) I came up with a few patterns to try and get consistent returns without much success until I tyed this.

(http://www.ftscotland.co.uk/gallery/flies/caenis_nymph.628x380.jpg)

Fished in the middle of my usual setup but with the dry on the tail and the whole cast, except the droppers, covered in Muclin to float, I started to catch fish consistently. I passed the tying and flies on to others and it also emigrated to the big loch, of some 500 acres, and became the go to fly there too. I have since used it on other lochs during a Caenis hatch and have managed to catch more than my fair share of fish.

As I see it the fly is in the right place and looks the right shape so it is successful but a fly looking the same but a different colour would probably do just as well :)

Quote from: fishtales on February 12, 2013, 12:38:13 PM
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.

I cant prove what you say  :)  but I am convinced that some have a natural ability to tune into things better than others.  I have, i believe but a little natural ability in this area and occasionally can tune in as such. I have written about this before. I do not know what it is like for others but on the occasions that it has happened for me , I could hear a flea fart, see a flea take a pee and time seemed to slow down that what for me seemed like ten minutes was actually well over an hour. This is quite a common thing when you get absorbed in something, be it reading a book or whatever. Thing is, for some it seems to be a state of mind that comes naturally and regularly, others only occasionally. As you say, in this state of mind, everything is instinctive.

Quote from: otter on February 12, 2013, 02:04:50 PM
why is it so difficult to catch many trout when Caenis are hatching ?

sheer weight of numbers and small size?

Here is one of my sons on Loch Watten during a caenis hatch 

[attaching=1]

BP,

That post of yours (#41) is absolutely bang on the money, very clever and perceptive.. I read it twice to make sure I had picked up what you were saying. 

Our perceptions modified by experiences we have certainly seem to be the driving force behind how we fish and what we percieve as being right. I know very few genuinely very good river fishermen and the surprising thing is that I know that the fly for them is much less important than stealth and drag. My experience is that drag is the biggest turn-off of fish. With the "wrong" pattern we may still be successful unless the trout are on that aggravating and picky mode of feeding which thankfully doesn't happen all the time.   

I get really thick caenis hatches on my local reservoir. To this day I have never found a method that will work night in night out so will try these this year if I make it up Sandy.
Some nights I've found success using a massive size eight bushy thing to get them out of their apparent hypnosis, others times i've tied every tiny thing in the box.
Davefromtheattic sometimes gets them on a static greenwells

The main reason in rivers is the sheer volume of flies extant. Even if you have a more or less perfect imitation it wont do you much good because the fish just tend to hoover them up. The more fish there are the better your chances, but you are relying on a fish hoovering up your artificial.  Trout don't inspect individual caenis, they just swallow them.  Caenis dont do much they just lie there so any movement you might impart is as likely to scare a fish off as anything else.

In such cases I usually fish a dogsbody or similar, based not least on the assumption that the fish might like a change. It works quite often.  Sometimes a griffiths gnat will work, especially when clumps of dead flies are floating around eddies, quiet bays etc.

It is one of those things where more or less any approach may well be as good as another. There are a few things you can not find a specific consistent solution for. Just how it is.

Sandy's method is probably as good as you can get on still waters, but it will probably be less successful on wild waters simply because there are fewer fish. The fewer fish there are the less chance they will take a tiny artificial, and the more chance that they will ignore or reject something that is not quite right to them. If that fly does ANYTHING wrong then it is likely to be ignored or rejected while the fish slurp up mouthfuls of naturals.

Quote from: Malcolm on February 12, 2013, 02:35:44 PM
BP,
I know very few genuinely very good river fishermen and the surprising thing is that I know that the fly for them is much less important than stealth and drag. My experience is that drag is the biggest turn-off of fish. With the "wrong" pattern we may still be successful unless the trout are on that aggravating and picky mode of feeding which thankfully doesn't happen all the time.   

Malcolm , I know a few and the thing is they put them all on an equal footing and constantly try to evolve their skills on everthing over which they have control and that includes their fly choices. No doubt it can reach the point of splitting hairs but it was that attitude that got them good in the first place and most cannot stop the wagon.

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.

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.

Quote from: admin on February 12, 2013, 02:46:57 PM
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.

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

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.

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.   

Quote from: fishtales on February 12, 2013, 04:36:37 PM
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. 

Quote from: admin on February 12, 2013, 05:07:50 PM
Sandy,  fishing is mystified beyond any necessity.

Couldn't agree more.

Quote from: admin on February 12, 2013, 05:07:50 PM
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.

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

Quote from: admin on February 12, 2013, 06:13:19 PM
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.

Quote from: admin on February 12, 2013, 06:13:19 PM
Lighten up Mike, the post is a joke.  Why did you assume it had anything to do with you?   

I did not actually assume anything of the sort. Although it is a fair assumption in this case. Constantly telling people that they don't need to know anything in order to be better anglers is not going to help anybody.  Many things only seem "mystical" because people don't understand them. Not least because they don't want to spend the time and effort involved in doing so.

What is even worse is that many decry all sorts of things they quite obviously know virtually nothing about.

It makes no difference at all to me how other people fish, and I am only really interested in other people's ideas and methods insofar as I can learn something from them. I am certainly not interested in pointless disputes that become ever more personal because somebody happens to disagree with what I write or how I write it. That doesn't help anybody either.

Your infallible step by step, even though it is obviously somewhat tongue in cheek and meant basically as a joke,  is not going to help any beginners or people who actually do want to catch more and better fish at all.

If you constantly tell people they don't need to know much to be successful,they just need to follow simple steps, grab a few flies more or less at random, and go and do it, they believe you. One major reason that many anglers go on doing the same thing and using the same gear and flies all their lives even though it is not very successful at all and defending such mediocrity against all comers.

Quote from: otter on February 12, 2013, 06:40:42 PM
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.

Thanks for the kudos, and I am always pleased to hear that I may have helped somebody in some way.

People will generally believe what they want to believe, regardless of the facts, even if they know them. Just how it is. One has to accept that. Any divergent view is often seen as a personal attack on their dearly held beliefs, and the response is more or less preprogrammed.  You will be ridiculed, attacked personally and generally be made uncomfortable by such people. Also just how it is.

Nobody likes a clevershite, and there is no denying I am one. Lots of people don't like it when somebody is usually right, or better at something or other. Just how it is. I am used to it by now. Doesn't mean I like it much but there are lots of things I don't like and can't change. I still prefer being knowledgeable about something to wallowing in ignorance and moaning that things don't work as I might like them to.

Quote from: Mike Connor on February 12, 2013, 06:58:58 PM
Your infallible step by step, even though it is obviously somewhat tongue in cheek and meant basically as a joke,  is not going to help any beginners or people who actually do want to catch more and better fish at all.

Indeed, but a bit of light hardheartedness is one of the reasons this forum is such a success and has been enjoyed by so many people for so long. We have a good mix of good information and friendly banter. It's not Sexyloops and thankfully never will be.

That said, I still say the first 2 steps on my infallible step by step are the most important.  Go where the  fish are and don't scare them. Fish can be scared in many ways and scared fish do not take. Clumsiness, sloppy casting for example and I will certainly agree that a bad choice of fly can and does sometimes scare fish. I have seen this with my own eyes in the crystal clear water of Larry's Creek in New Zealand. The matched hatch nymph came past the fish's nose and the fish freaked out. Perhaps it had been caught recently on a nymph. I'll bet this happens a lot and many anglers don't even know it.

I do agree that the logical first step should be to try to imitate what you see, or what you think you see is being taken.  This is what most anglers do, including myself, but it does not always work. You have to be flexible.

Only 31 days to go, hang on in there :8)

Various steps are moot points My advice on first steps invariably involves getting the right gear to start with. Most people don't and have terrible problems as a result.

Otherwise I would also agree that stealth is of major importance as is being where there are some fish. If there are none there you wont catch any.  Something a lot of people apparently fail to realise. If you fish in the wrong place it doesn't matter what you use or how you use it you simply wont catch anything.

I have nothing at all against some lighthearted banter, quite the reverse, but it is often not at all obvious that something is meant as banter, and getting personal about some opinion or other is just bloody pointless. It is easy enough to disagree with something without insulting or deliberately trying to upset the person offering such an opinion. Of course if you disagree with something it is sensible to explain why you disagree. If you can't explain that then it is better not to disagree at all.

If you want to be successful you have to offer something that will work reliably and often. How you go about that is a matter for endless discussion. Also depends a lot on what you think is successful. That opinions differ there is perfectly normal. I quite purposely avoid giving figures for some things because many would not believe them anyway, and many would assume I was simply boasting or lying outright for some reason, not least because it is too far outside their own experiences.

Whatever, some of the stuff in this thread was very interesting.

Quote from: Mike Connor on February 12, 2013, 06:58:58 PM
One major reason that many anglers go on doing the same thing and using the same gear and flies all their lives even though it is not very successful at all and defending such mediocrity against all comers.

I could get stroppy about that and think it was aimed at me, it wouldn't be the first time it has been said to me although not by you, I wont though I'm way above that.

Quote from: Mike Connor on February 12, 2013, 07:39:20 PM
I quite purposely avoid giving figures for some things because many would not believe them anyway, and many would assume I was simply boasting or lying outright for some reason, not least because it is too far outside their own experiences.

I could give figures too of two people using the same method as me but using different flies. Would I be believed? Probably not by everyone but maybe enough that try it and if it works for them become believers. Not that it makes the slightest bit of difference to how I fish.

Quote
Whatever, some of the stuff in this thread was very interesting.

Agreed and if just one person finds something worthwhile in all the drivel our task is done :)

Quote from: Alan on February 12, 2013, 08:56:18 PM
i quite like those steps, they look simple but each one is reliant on the previous to get the the next, takes years to realise these simple steps are all you needed in the first place,

Each step can be broken down further of course. For example, not scaring fish depends on the ability to cast sensibly and not galloping  along the banks  like a wild Findus lasagne in heat.  :lol:   Perhaps  the greatest single part of my fishing education came in New Zealand and being able to observe how fish react. That was an eye opener. The same thing happens here, it's just you can't  see it, so you are almost always unaware of it.

Quote from: fishtales on February 12, 2013, 08:59:43 PM
I could get stroppy about that and think it was aimed at me, it wouldn't be the first time it has been said to me although not by you, I wont though I'm way above that.

I could give figures too of two people using the same method as me but using different flies. Would I be believed? Probably not by everyone but maybe enough that try it and if it works for them become believers. Not that it makes the slightest bit of difference to how I fish.

Agreed and if just one person finds something worthwhile in all the drivel our task is done :)

It wasn't aimed at you. It was a general comment.  Indeed I read from your posts that you are pretty happy with how things work out for you. You obviously enjoy yourself and that's what it's all about.

What often gets to me is people whingeing that their flies don't work but they keep on using them in the same way. I can never figure that out at all.

Quote from: Alan on February 12, 2013, 08:56:18 PM
i quite like those steps, they look simple but each one is reliant on the previous to get the the next, takes years to realise these simple steps are all you needed in the first place,
also understand Sandy's approach, i like the learning more than the knowing, its not just that analysis of whats in front of you is invariably more useful than reading things on a tuesday evening, its that learning in the situation is why we go fishing, the challenge of doing precisely that.

on the 'best fly' thing, i'm not sure if there is one but i'm fed up reading forum posts saying 'i'm going to .............. what flies should i use?' bit like asking 'i'm off to buy a lottery ticket, what is the winning number?'

It only takes a few minutes to outline a workable approach.  Implementing it takes a lot longer.

That only applies if you think that flies are chosen by blind chance.  It's a fair enough question if somebody is going to a strange water where some flies might be known to work quite well.






> could you condense that in any way for a beginner?

Well, my views on various thngs may differ somewhat to other views and trying to condense all that stuff into a page or two of "tips" is simply impossible, there are too many factors involved, also people will often disagree about every single factor!

You can post to the board, nobody will bite you, or at least not badly! :) . They are all usually very friendly to beginners and will try to help if they can. Of course you will get a lot of different views on various things. You have to pick the ones you think will suit you best. The ony way to know if some will work is to try them and see what happens.

There are lots of things. I have never broken a fish off for instance, and I don't really know how people manage it. They must be doing something wrong but I don't know what without seeing it. Maybe using old nylon,bad knots, the wrong gear, techniques, etc. I really don't know. I have seen plenty of people lose fish for various reasons, some obvious some less so. It very rarely happens to me so I don't worry about it. If you are losing fish reguarly then you must be doing somethimg wrong.

I never blank. It is many years since I had a blank day. One reason for obtaining as much knowledge as you can is so that you can catch when others can't. There are conditions where catching fish is quite easy and there are conditions  where it is extremely difficult. A really good angler can catch in any conditions. It is not a case of beating others it is a case of beating the conditions. Of course you will invariably catch a lot fewer fish in poor conditions.

I try to keep my gear simple and effective but I check everything very carefully. I test knots and stuff like that very thoroughly. No use hooking a good fish if it falls off with your fly because your knot was rubbish.

I only use a couple of hook patterns for more or less everything. I can't see the point in having loads of different types. I have a couple that work well and I stick with them. I prefer short shank hooks for most things.  I don't worry at all about hook sizes but take a lot of care with regard to fly sizes. By that I mean the size of the dressing should be close to the size of the natural fly in most cases.

Yes, I sometimes "play around at the vice" but the majority of my flies are the result of accurate observation, often long research into materials and possible styles, and considerable trials.  Some still don't work as well as I would like but one has to accept some inherent limitations. As mentioned elsewhere in the thread I consider it pointless trying to imitate caenis and a lot of other small stuff. Simply because it is not likely to prove very successful. I have tried it on occasion without much success and saw no good reason for continuing. If you notice something is not workimg well then the only sensible alternative is to stop doing it and try something else. There is some stuff which is very difficult indeed to imitate either in terms of materials or in terms of presentation. I just ignore a lot of stuff like that. If I don't think I have a very good chance of managing it I will often not bother trying. It just wastes time and effort best devoted to something else.

I fish less now than I ever did. I used to be on the water 6 or 7 times a week and for weeks or months at a time so I got to know some things very well indeed. My personal circumstances have changed and I no longer have access to many waters and my burning enthusiasm for some things has cooled somewhat.  I am still pretty good, but yes you do lose the "edge" if you don't go as often. I occasionally find myself missing a fish I would once have got, missing the start of a hatch, not "guessing" ( or deducing from accurate observation if you prefer! :)  ) the reason for a change in fish behaviour quickly enough, or fluffing a cast I would easily have managed once, my eyesight is not as good as it was, and I am generally getting old so am less prepared to do some things I would once not have thought twice about doing. Adventurous wading being one example, it's just too dangerous. If I fell in some circumstances now I might not get up again, or would possibly suffer lasting damnage. It's not worth the risk.

It's not just experience, although experience is valuable, it has to be the right kind of experience. You have to keep learning, observing, and trying things. If you just keep swinging various random wet flies downstream every time you go fishing you wont learn much and you wont catch many fish. The quality of the experience is important. It's not the length of time you spend on something which makes you better, it is how you go about it. Also, you have to enjoy doing it. If you find a lot of things too much bother then you might be better off taking up golf. The only person who can improve your angling is you. You have to want to and you have to find an approach that works. You can get useful tips and advice from others, but you have to implement then. Everything is down to you. If something doesnt work then it is your fault, it is no good blaming the flies you are using, or the weather, or the canoes that just went downstream!  These things may indeed influence your success of course. If a horde of anglers has just been stampimg all over the stretch you want to fish then you are much less likely to catch many fish there. If you use poor flies or make poor choices you will catch less, etc etc. There are lots of factors involved. You have to pull them all together amd make the best of what you have or change it if necessary.  Also if you only have access to poor water you can not expect to catch a lot. In a lot of places access to good water can cost you serious money.

Also, I believe that to really excel at some things you need a talent for them. The talent alone is not enough however, you need all the other things as well, like practice and experience, to excel, but without the talent you will probably never become as good as you would like to be.

To my eternal regret fishing is the only thing I have a real talent for. I would lke to be a good guitar player, but I just dont have the talent for it. I can practice until my fingers bleed and I still don't seem to improve much and I admit to being envious of those who can do it so well. You have to realise your own limitations. if you find you just can not succeed at something as you would like to, there is no point in punishing yourself, all you can do is your best. If that is not enough for you, or you can not be satsfied with it then it may sometimes be better to try something else. A very large number of people enjoy fishing without ever becoming experts at it. All comes down to what you want and expect and how much you are prepared to put into it. If you really do feel angry amd frustrated all the time then I would have thought it would be better to try something else.  Some frustration is perfectly normal in the beginning but if you are still feeling angry and frustrated with everything after a couple of years and have still never caught a decent fish then perhaps it is not for you? Personally I always feel great when I am fishing, and usually for quite a a whie afterwards. I have always loved everything to do with it.  If I didn't I wouldn't do it.

I think it's way worse than that. Some quite frustrated anglers I meet have even after many seasons dont even have a rudimentary clue on the fly life in their river and how the trout behave throughout the season.

Every angler needs a helping hand along the way and preferably help untainted by coin and not the blind leading the blind

Any season that allows a few new things to be learned or understood is a good season. And this season is two weeks three days away.  Thank f. I can go back to being an average angler and not an online expert

Yes, quite a few don't seem to think it's necessary to know much about fly life, much less how it behaves.  They often have massive boxes of all sorts of stuff and no clue at all what to use.This is so common that it's a joke with some here. I never found it particularly funny myself!

An angler went a fishing, with hopes exceeding high,
reaching the stream, he grabbed his gear, and tried to choose a fly.
First he looked at pheasant tails, in every shade and hue,
but then his eye caught woolly worms, of which he had a few,
From dry flies back to wet flies, and sorting through his nymphs,
he chopped and changed and hesitated, at every single glimpse.
The fish were rising madly, taking everything that flew,
but still the angler sought in vain, he did not have a clue.

"Well met my brother piscator", another angler hailed,
"How are you faring? Well I hope". "No, up to now I´ve failed.
My casting it is perfect, I have trained for many a year,
and the stream I know it well of course, I often fish it here,
the ways of fish and insects, are also quite well known,
and I have a copy of every one, that here has ever flown,
all this avails me nought I fear, of little use my constant muse,
out of all my large filled boxes, a fly I can not choose".


"That really is a problem, should I then have a look?,
out of all the lovely flies you have, one must bring you luck".
"I know, I know", the angler wailed, his anguish giving voice,
"but now I have so many flies, that I am spoilt for choice.
How have you done then, my friend, how many have you caught?
or has your day been lost as well, in long and useless thought?".
"Oh my creel is full", the angler said, "with good fish as you see,
I have no problems choosing flies, I only possess three".


"I started with a black one, and then used green and brown,
I don´t know what they imitate, but the fish just gulped them down".
"What patterns then?" Our angler cried, frustrated, full of anguish,
"Tell me the names of these great flies, let me not in ignorance languish,
I am fairly certain if I knew, that lovely fish then, I would also catch,
please tell me what the patterns are, so I may match the hatch".
"I would really like to help you, but to my everlasting shame,
I don´t know what the things are called, they may even have no name".


"I always use the same ones, and with considerable success,
but I know not what these things are called, what they imitate? much less.
You may try one if you like though, you can even use my gear,
see, a lovely fish is rising, under the weeping willow here".
"I thank you brother angler, I would most gratefully essay a cast,
I would so like to catch a fish, before the opportunity is past"
No sooner said, than done, the gear was handed out,
and angler then essayed his cast, to the large and wary trout.


A perfect rise! A perfect strike! and battle then commenced,
and anglers blood went rushing, as the old rod strongly tensed,
the line sang loudly in the wind, as did the old and creaking reel,
as angler plied them with the greatest skill, the mighty fish to creel.
Long minutes passed, though time stood still, the fish made one last run,
with the greatest care the net was readied, as the fish was not yet done.
Shaking with excitement, but still with perfect nerves, and icy calm,
the fish was landed then at last, and lay there cradled in the anglers palm.


"My friend I thank you heartily, capturing such a prize has made my day,
Do me the honour of your company a while, as we wander on our way.
Your gear is old but solid, and your flies are perfect works of art,
tell me something of yourself, or better yet come sup with me, before we part".
"Right gladly will I do so Sir, congratulations on your lovely fish,
I am glad that I could help a little, in helping you to gain your fervent wish".
The sun sinks ever lower in the summer sky, and at last the day then ends,
its final rays, illuminating strangers of the morning, now forever friends.

Quote from: Alan on February 12, 2013, 11:32:27 PM
do you really believe in talent Mike? the thing i do most is teach drawing, many say you need talent to do this, which is a bit odd since i make a living teaching people that often say that :D
i think of talent as a confidence to learn, totally external, created as much by others and the persons environment as it is by themselves, talented kids come from talented parents that encouraged inquisitive engagement sort of thing.

Yes, but what makes you ask?

I think talent is absolutely essential for a whole host of things if you really want to excel at them. You can learn a lot of things, but no matter what you do you will never be as good as somebody who has the talent AND puts in the work. Some very talented people don't even need to put in much work in order to excel. What is talent?  A particular affinity and aptitude for something. Nobody has ever really explained how or why it occurs.  It may be partially hereditary and partially environmental. I really don't know, but I know it exists.

Quote from: Alan on February 12, 2013, 11:54:14 PM
not sure you got my point, i teach what most people consider 'talent', the word is a real stumbling block for me, should those that believe it even try?
could you draw like picasso? sure, takes about 1 year, 2 years for Dega :D

You may well teach people how to do something well but you can't teach talent, it is an innate natural ability.

You couldn't teach me to draw in ten years, I have absolutely no talent at all for it, quite the reverse. My brother was a very talented artist, but he was quite unable to explain how he did things. He could draw easily recognisable faces and make first class sketches of animals etc when he was six years old, before he had any training at all.  I am quite good at technical drawing  ( Drafting), but absolutely useless at freehand sketching, although I can draw some flies pretty well! :) 

Those with innate natural abilities will always be better than those without. Does that mean one should not even bother trying?  No, I don't think so, but it can be very frustrating indeed trying to do something for which you have no talent,

Quote from: Alan on February 13, 2013, 12:06:53 AM
each year on the first day i tell students this is precisely not the case, its my very first principle, has to be, if there was only innate natural ability there would be little faith in learning.

I did not say there was ONLY innate natural ability. Some people learn to do things very well indeed. It is just that those with innate natural ability learn a lot faster and become better, often with far less effort.  Much the same for geniuses, you can't learn to become a genius, either you are or you aren't.

It's the same for a lot of things, some people  are "natural" casters, or can shoot extremely well as a result of innate natural ability. You can teach people to cast but you can't give them talent, the vast majority will never be more than average however much they learn or how much time they spend on it. Same for shooters and many athletes. It is indeed the same for a whole host of things.

Been a long winter , time we went fishing ! Will be happy to  fish with any of the posters on this thread as i think your all good fishers. Competition should be fun lads.... Ian

Competition was the wrong word :) make it just fishing ;)

Quote from: Alan on February 13, 2013, 12:28:13 AM
forgive me for going on but i am fascinated, one of the big debates in education is the old nurture versus nature thing, very similar to 'where does talent come from'
the latest on this is that 'smart' people became this way in very early child hood through interaction with their environment(being allowed and encouraged to basically), i'm not aware of any evidence for genetic advantage whatsoever, which is odd because our culture supports it fiercely, it pans out as 'i can't' in school which is an obvious extension of the belief that some can't and some just can,

i dont care much if genetic talent exists or not, its the belief in it that i feel is very harmful for young people.

Well, I don't know where talent comes from and I don't think anybody else does either, I have read quite a bit about it and it is all very inconclusive. There can be no doubt that it exists.

It is a fact that some can and some can't in regard to all sorts of things. The problems arise because this society insists that everybody should be "equal"  and that children should be forced into certain moulds. Even though this is patently nonsense it is still propagated.  The ills of society are a result of that society.  You can blame the government for a lot of things but they are also only a part of society. The dishonesty and criminality is a result of failing values in society and that is undoubtedly due in large part to the failure of education. It doesn't work well but still people cling to it.  Whole generations have been brought up to learn that exploiting others is good, various criminal behaviour is acceptable or at least unavoidable, and that dishonesty is the norm.

Just how it is, nothing much I can do about it. I can only control my own behaviour and perhaps exert a little influence on a few people. I might just as well try to piss up a rope.

Money is the only thing that talks nowadays. It doesn't matter how you acquire it or how many people or amount of the environment you destroy in the process, if you make money you can do more or less anything you like and will even be honoured for it. Film stars and footballers are literally  worshipped while those doing sensible everyday jobs are held more or less in contempt. Druggies, wasters and arseholes cost people untold amounts of money that they have earned by dint of hard work, and even more money is then poured in to "solve the problems". It doesn't of course. You want to know how to solve a lot of problems?  Stop the money.

Whats the best fly

Got the vice out , ready to tie a few lads ;)

Quote from: sinbad on February 13, 2013, 12:49:01 AM
Whats the best fly

Very generally speaking, a hare's ear. If that doesn't work, then a black woolly bugger. One or the other of them will always work eventually, and often very effectively indeed.

Thanks , i consider myself a not bad/good fisher but got more to learn lads. Most of us have ? Sb

Quote from: sinbad on February 13, 2013, 01:07:40 AM
Thanks , i consider myself a not bad/good fisher but got more to learn lads. Most of us have ? Sb

There is always more to learn.

Ah, I see what happened there, I pasted my clipboard when adding a reply and there was already a reply to somebody else in there.

Sorry about that.

It would appear that we are all agreed that presenting a suitable pattern that matches the natural in form , movement and location is probably over the course of a season a very  effective method and a sound premise on which to base your approach. Whether you think long and hard, investigate rigorously or not or get there by trial and error or intuition, that is a personal choice and has no bearing on the fact that  the premise would appear to be a strong one.

The interesting thing is that very many river anglers of average knowledge and experience are now able to catch many more fish due to the strong marketing  of  nymphing (french, czech,spanish , whatever names u like to use) and the fashionable but effective methods of fishing nymphs and other subsurface patterns under a dry such as a klinkhammer or simple indicator yarn.  Whats happening here is quite interesting.  Flys are being presented that will with regularity ,  at some point each cast, fish in a way that mimics the natural even if the angler has little control over his team.  So in essence we have an effective method that will on many occasions allow the angler to catch quite a nymber of fish without even understanding either the mechanics or the nuances of why they are catching.

I know many good anglers that are extremely good at this, they, through trial and error allied by experience have worked out how to fish such rigs effectively. Do they know precisely whats going on ,I don't know.  Do they fish general nymphs, beadheads etc, yes, are they more precise, some are.

A club member that I know, a young lad of about thirty is extremley good at this and many other methods.  He was secretive enough in his ways but due to the recession has had to bugger off to Zew Zealand. Before he went and bear in mind many of his flies are beadheads,  I asked him what sort of nymphs he used.  His answer was refreshingly simple,  "ones that matched the naturals that the trout were taking".  Because he is a well skilled angler that catches many trout, fished a river that he knew inside out and plenty of time on the water, he knew the difference between a good fly and the right fly, in his own words, " good fly is 6 or 7  fish an hour, right fly can be as high as 20 fish an hour". 

Every time he fished, he used a throat pump on a few of the better trout, sampled using a sieve and  matched the results to his fly box, took his samples home and if necessary painstakingly tied up ones that closely matched the naturals.  Whether or not going to such lenghts is your cup of tea or not is irrelevant to whether this does matter if your desire is sometimes to catch as many trout as possible whilst on the water.  I have seen how consistently he catches large and I mean large numbers of trout and more often than not , well above average sized trout. He is adamant that with the right fly the results can quite often be quite dramatically different, not always, but often enough for him to believe that the effort was worthwhile for him to do what he does.

I know its not PC to talk numbers and I know numbers is not the be all and end all of fishing enjoyment, but in this instance as we are discussing effectiveness of flies and how you fish them , numbers cannot be avoided. 

Every year the home internationals rivers competition is  fished between Ireland,England,Scotland and Wales. I know competitive fishing is not everyones cup of tea and for obvious reasons, but please bear with me as I think you can learn some things from such anglers.
This competition is generally not the win at all costs like some others, its not a stockie bashing festival and is generally fished on wild rivers. Yes its flawed in that small fish can be targetted, 20cm is the minimum size, personally I think that is clearly wrong but thats another matter.

The Irish team qualifies firstly by qualifying from club, then in a provincial match and finally the top five from each province fight it out.  The club part of the equation is the important bit, these club competitions are based on usually the taking of four fish and size matters, usually minimum is 11 or 12 inches, which on say my river is above average size. To qualify from the club you will have shown that you are capable to catching better than average trout consistently over each month of the season, you cannot achive this using mediocre , small fish targetting methods. So in a nutshell, the bulk of the twenty or so club members fishing the provincial finals have got there the hard way.

Of the twenty there will be about ten hard core competition anglers, good at targetting anything that swims.  The intersting thing here from my point of view is that last year, in a provincial final the young lad I mentioned above and one other angler  came out on top with over 55 trout each in six hours of fishing and were a good 25 fish ahead of some very seasoned skilled  campaigners.   It transpired that both had done the same type of homework in sampling the week before hand, both had
tied up very precisely coloured olive nymphs using almost identical materials and to my eye, the flies were like peas from a pod.

Coincidence maybe,  but when you discover that those that do pay this sort of attention  to detail, be they competitive or not, catch more and better trout than anyone else it would be foolish to consider it as a nonsense.

Off course the efficacy of beadheads is a debate all by itself.

If this sort of thing is of no interest to you fair enough, if it is then useful debate is very interesting.

There is little doubt that more or less any deep fished "general" nymph will always work on rivers. Accurate imitations of what the fish are taking will always work better.

Bead heads do work fairly well in a lot of cases, as will Czech nymphs, even when"general" patterns are used.  I am not sure why bead heads work so well generally, they don't look or behave naturally, but they still catch fish. I have used them, also Czech nymphs, in the past, just to see what all the hoohah was about, and both methods work pretty well in many circumstances. One major reason in my opinion is that when fish are on the bottom they are harder to spook and so you are likely to hook more just because of that.  Indicator fishing can be fairly quickly learned and invariably works well. Still of course on the premise that the better your flies are the more fish you will get.

Neither method is quite so effective on still waters, primarily I think because the movement is critical and is different on rivers.  Very hard to get movement right on still waters. Fishing more or less any small stuff deep can be very difficult.

If I am using teams I always like to have at least one fly on the team which is a very good imitation, the other(s) being mainly control components. Invariably the vast majority of fish will take that fly, although of course they will sometimes take the others as well.

It is not just about catching more fish although that is a side effect, I find it is a lot more fun to catch fish on something I have worked out correctly. I would doubtless catch a fair number of fish using general patterns, but I catch a lot more on good imitations which also confirms that I got it right. I find that an important aspect of the matter.

Something else related to that. In order to catch large numbers of good fish you have to be on a water that actually contains them. If you are fishing some barren beck somewhere you will not be having many 100 fish days whatever you do. Indeed, on some streams really accurate imitations are often only marginally more successful than "general"patterns, if at all. I think this is because the fish will far more willingly take all sorts of things, and seldom "key in" on any particular food item. I would assume this is similar on many hill lochs but am unable to comment knowledgeably on that as my experience of such loch fishing is extremely limited.

Quote from: otter on February 13, 2013, 12:11:41 PM

If this sort of thing is of no interest to you fair enough, if it is then useful debate is very interesting.

You will probably find that the majority don't even read these threads. The more experienced angler has heard it all before and just skims over it or doesn't come back into the thread. That of course is their choice. Newer anglers generally find it interesting and then get put off when the discussion gets more intricate and goes into even more depth. There are the few who find these discussions interesting and, at times, helpful in that it broadens their understanding, but they are few and far between :)

Another few things that occurred to me. Where fish are present at all there are always a lot more than the majority of people imagine.  In some places there are populations of large fish which are virtually never seen or caught because of their specialised feeding methods. The large browns ( 3...4 lb plus) I have consistently caught on some rivers can only be caught using specialised tactics and you have to be in exactly the right place at the right time to do it.  The tactics are using large ( 3...4") baitfish imitations at night. You wont catch these fish on small flies, because they dont take them, and you wont catch them during the day either because they only feed at night.  They hunt for a few hours at most, take a few fish and lie doggo the rest of the time.

Quote from: Mike Connor on February 13, 2013, 12:50:45 PM
It is not just about catching more fish although that is a side effect, I find it is a lot more fun to catch fish on something I have worked out correctly. I would doubtless catch a fair number of fish using general patterns, but I catch a lot more on good imitations which also confirms that I got it right. I find that an important aspect of the matter.

I would agree with that entirely and it applies to everyone that fly fishes, if they work something out ( 100% correct or even 50% correct ) it is very satisfying and is what keepsmany anglers returning season after season.

Quote from: fishtales on February 13, 2013, 01:17:38 PM
You will probably find that the majority don't even read these threads. The more experienced angler has heard it all before and just skims over it or doesn't come back into the thread. That of course is their choice. Newer anglers generally find it interesting and then get put off when the discussion gets more intricate and goes into even more depth. There are the few who find these discussions interesting and, at times, helpful in that it broadens their understanding, but they are few and far between :)

Would agree with that. What we need here is someone with a video camera, Mike fishing a couple of common hatch situations over a season on decent trout water - showing his methods and thinking  for each hatch  -  now that would be interesting -  whats the expression , a picture is better than a thousand words...  :)

That is extremely difficult to set up, there is a great deal involved. Also, it is very difficult indeed to fish optimally with camera people clumping around. They always want to "arrange" things, or repeat shots. This is impossible, the fish wont cooperate. I have thought about it often, but invariably given up as being to difficult to set up.  One reason for my considerable admiration for some of Fred's and other people's video stuff.

It would have to be one strapped to your head , only u and the river. Off course editing would be a right pain in the arse.  I seen one recently which I enjoyed immensly because it was real, un-staged and unrehearsed. 


Salmon fishing at Sion Mills on River Mourne 26 July 2012 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-sCpkdV1Qg#ws)

mind u I think I would have removed the straightened fly and put on a new one.

There are some quite good ones extant. But you need to know what you are doing there as well.  The right gear, learning how to use it.  There are massive variables involved.

Thoroughly enjoyed that although I'm not a salmon fisher. What kind of camera would that have been do you think.

Unfortunately I can't ( easily) watch that. The music used requires a licence in this country so the video is not available here.  There are ways around that and I will maybe watch it later.

I have looked at various head-cams in the past and have used a couple.  Some are OK, but the best are expensive and still don't do what I want.  Trying to do anything else while fishing is a problem anyway, as you require absolute concentration a lot of the time. Anything else is just a distraction.  Trying to use any sort of hand held camera while fishing just doesn't work for me.  Even if you manage some good footage with a head cam, there is still a massive amount of time and effort involved in editing, adding explanations, stills where necessary to show flies etc etc etc. I don't really want to spend that sort of time and effort on it, even if I could manage it how I envisage it, not least as it would be detrimental to my fishing.

I've found this a very interesting thread- a great insight into the way we analyse things from a fishing point of view.