GlassJet wrote:Hi Bob,
Regarding P&O, my mate Pete, who is a far better fisher that I will ever be, says that most times he has little luck with the pattern, but just occasionally, when it works for him it really works. He just isn't sure why it does when it does!
Andrew
This is kind of what I am getting at. I have a view rightly or wrongly that certain flies have become classics for a number of reasons, and rated in order of importance.
1. They are extremely imitative of a particular prey item, when fished in the correct manner at the correct time on many waters they will perform extremely
Well.
2. They are secondly quite suggestive of a number of other prey items and will work quite when well those prey items are to be expected on the menu and are
fished in the correct way.
3. They are loosely suggestive of being simply food, and will at times take fish but not in a very reliable way , and their success may be more attributed to
the skills of the angler and maybe the confidence of the angler than the attributes of the fly.
It all really boils down to
The right fly , fished the right way at the right time will catch many fish.
The wrong fly, fished the right way at the right time will catch fish.
The wrong fly, fished the wrong way at the wrong time will catch very little.
When another angler gave me a fly saying its a great one, I generally gave it a try and generally committed it to the bin.
When that happens now before accepting the fly I ask where did it work, under what conditions did it work and what was happening visa ve hatches etc. - if the angler giving me the fly cannot put any meat on the bone then there is absolutely no point in accepting his offering as I would not know when to use it or how to use it. Sometimes its hard not to accept what is a generous offer in case you were seen to give offence, but I have found by being plain blunt about it most anglers once they get over what seems an insult - kinda go - hmmm you have a point there, that explains why many of my great flies never see the following season because I never had any understanding of why they might have worked when they did.
If when we tie our experimental flies we should do so with a purpose in mind. If we tweak a P&O then test that tweak at such times as when a P&O has proven to be an effective as a close imitation - testing it at other times is quite likely a waste of time unless u are definitively trying to ascertain whether or not a P&O with a certain tweak would make it a highly effective imitation for a particular hatch or a stage of a particular hatch.
I realise that this may not be everyones cup of tea, and that many of you enjoy tying and fishing suggestive flies and may well believe that suggestive is better that what is deemed to be more precise and indeed may be correct in that belief.
A friend of mine has become extremely precise in all his fishing, keeping a detailed diary of every day out, water tempeature, weather conditions, water height and a myriad of other details. He will throughout the course of a day take off whats working and completely change methods simply to garner more info. From several years of collating this data both mentally and by writing in his diary when I ask him how he fared yesterday he will simply answer with one of a few answers. They (the trout) were accepting (consistently) various food forms, they were locked onto nymphs all day, they were constantly switching between nymphs and emergers etc.... Of secondary though still of vital importance was what patterns actually worked. He reckons that because he has paid such close attention to every little detail over a large number of seasons that he almost fishes entirely relying on his sixth sense - he simply understands the river and the ways of its inhabitants at a level that can only be reached by countless hours of paying attention to every single detail. When he ties a new fly it is with purpose, and if it works he will tweak it constantly to see if it can be improved to fit in the premier league.
He categorises successful flies into two compartments, Flies that trout will accept and flies that are very close to what the trout want. Where this becomes really interesting is that he has found over a large number of seasons that patterns that he has developed or accuired elsewhere that fit into the category of "Flies that are close to what the trout really want" can for particular seasons be abject failures. He believes the answer to this may well be found in his diary where he has noted water height, weather conditions, light conditions ,water tempeature and prevalent hatches and what worked during these hatches.
There's always a reason, a lot of data is required to even surmise what that may be.
The more I talk to the more succesful anglers it has become very clear that the common demoninator between them all has been attention to detail and that includes how they go about adding fly patterns to their armoury.
As always, food for thought, and our own experiences on our chosen streams may differ, our approaches may differ and how we derive our enjoyment may differ.
Apologies for rabbiting on so much
