Chicken or Egg

[tie2fish]

A fascinating thread altogether! I've enjoyed it very much, as a number of experienced and knowledeable folks have put some real thought behind their comments. Valuable info herein. As for the P&O, I've found that it and my Enhanced Orange Fishhawk are more effective in the fall of the year on my home stream. I believe there is an October caddis that has an orangish body, but have no proof that this is why those patterns seem to catch better for me late in the year.

[Otter]

Hi Otter,
It sounds like a lot of your pleasure from fly fishing comes from the application of the scientific method, and there's nowt wrong with that. Personally, I think there are two many variables to have too much faith in that method, and you can find patterns in anything if you look hard enough. But, if you and your mates keep records like that you presumably fish a lot, and if you fish a lot you are going to gather a lot of experience, and if you have a lot of experience you are going to catch more fish, otherwise you would presumably have changed to a different pastime!

So it depends to what you attribute your success.

Andrew

As always your posts make me smile Andrew.

No I dont keep records and I am about as scientific as Donald Duck but I do try at the end of each season look back and analyse the multitude of blunders so that next season I can move forward. Maybe I take it all a little too serious but I do admit to enjoying recognising the many challenges and enjoy attempting to find solutions. I do not get anywhere as much time on the water as would be required to learn by myself and so I look to others that have done the donkey work and pick the brains of those that are willing to share.

I agree with with you that the challenges can be as different as chalk and cheese from one river to the next. My local river has a prolific head of Wild Trout and really good fly life by modern standards. Quite often the fishing is extremely easy for me, but that was not always the case - hard graft is required to unlock the keys to anything other than modest success. At times the fishing can be extremely tricky and trial and error may help, as will experience - the problem with that type of approach on this type of river is that without being out a few days a week the problems to be solved to-day may not occur again until next season or the season after. This kiddo is running out of seasons and so I have simply looked at how the more successful anglers approach their fishing and I take on board what I see.

"Success" is a many sided coin, different for each individual. For me fly fishing my local river is all about solving a multi-dimensional jigsaw whose pieces constantly change and evolve and I consider susccess as both catching trout and evolving as an angler as the puzzle changes. I know many anglers that garner as much enjoyment from our sport as I do, yet their approach is very rigid, very one dimensional and they continually fish in the same regimented way content that eventually a trout will grab their fly. To be honest this would bore me to death. Their choice is theirs, my choice is mine and both are equal.

So back to my little puzzler , Which came first .... I guess that part of the answer will largely depend on where you fish and what you seek.

As to Pete, I bet a fiver that next time he spoons a trout and finds an orange micro sedge he will do the scientific thing, reach for a P&O and enjoy all the more telling you about it

[GlassJet]

="Otter"

As always your posts make me smile Andrew.

Well I am very pleased to hear it! lol

As to Pete, I bet a fiver that next time he spoons a trout and finds an orange micro sedge he will do the scientific thing, reach for a P&O and enjoy all the more telling you about it

Ain't that the truth! lol You know him too?

All good points btw....

[Otter]

I am intrigued Andrew as to you being an advocate of the non scientific approach, I think there may yet be method in your madness.

http://www.flymphforum.com/phpBB3/viewt ... 6730#p6730

If they be arbitrary attempts at illusion then I am indeed Donald Duck

[GlassJet]

I am intrigued Andrew as to you being an advocate of the non scientific approach, I think there may yet be method in your madness.

http://www.flymphforum.com/phpBB3/viewt ... 6730#p6730

If they be arbitrary attempts at illusion then I am indeed Donald Duck

Dear Donald,
Was it Mr Wilde who once said something along the lines of: "I am far too imaginative to be consistent." !

Anyway, that was ages ago - I was young and naive back then

And besides, you know what? Those blighters never really did do the business for me! And you'd swear they'd be killers looking at them, wouldn't you?
Yours,
Oscar

[Otter]

you must have tried them during a hatch of olives

[GlassJet]

You cheeky git!

[William Anderson]

Otter, you've opened an enourmous can of worms. This thread is really interesting. I know I have always tried to tie flies based on species, or at least I've made the stretch to say...this could be a sulpher, maybe.

this is a cahill.

flymph - light cahill PA 01a.jpg

flymph - light cahill softhackle PICa.jpg

[redietz]

William -

I really like the two tone effect on that Light Cahill. It's gotta be a killer pattern.

[Otter]

Otter, you've opened an enourmous can of worms. This thread is really interesting. I know I have always tried to tie flies based on species, or at least I've made the stretch to say...this could be a sulpher, maybe.

Having reflected a bit on all of this I have to agree William, it is an enormous can of worms that one could ponder on for a lifetime and still be unable to prove anything.

My main river trout experience is on a single river, wild trout and abundant fly life. Water levels are controlled by a dam and are therfore pretty consistent for most of the season.

Let me outline a scenario last July, dusk on a single pool.

10pm : Trout rising in riffle. Some taking BWO emergers and adults, others taking caddis pupa and emergers some taking both. I throat pumped each one I caught and can verify that the predomiance of fly life in each trout varied from a right mix to definable concentrations of BWO's and of Caddis. More had concentrations than mixes. Several trout were caught after fly type switch, some notably on first drift after change.

10:30pm Riffle: Bwo dun and emerger imitations being ignored, riffle gone quiet except for odd trout slashing at Caddis.
30 yards downstream, large trout , some in 3lb bracket sipping a huge concentration of Sherry Spinners in very slack water- impossible to cover with
even a reasonable chance of success - a more skilful caster and angler may have been able to tempt one or two.
Slightly slower water at end of riffle far bank, a few risers - couldnt tempt them and could not identify what they were taking - it wasnt BWO's or
Caddis, supspect some smaller olives/spinners.

10:45pm Sherry Spinner sippers have nearly all stopped rising.

11pm: Riffle comes slightly alive again, numerous fish taken on caddis emergers, notable here is that some good fish , probably some of the sherry sippers that had moved up to riffle.

11:45 Bats are out, river is quiet - time to go home.

This type of scenario is very common on my river, the actors will change but the trout will apply themselves accordingly.

Trout are IMHO very much creatures of habit, pre-programmed to generally react in quite specific ways to the floatsam of food that comes their way. In the above example only a small number of the larger trout moved to the riffle, on other nights when a fall of spinners did not occur a lot more would have moved to the riffle and probably sooner. To maximise the effeciency of their food intake, they will at times key into specific food items, why one trout does this and another a few yards away is not quite so keyed in can only be a matter of conjecture though I suspect it may be part of their evolution to ensure maximum intake of available food for the species and not just the individual.

Had I fished a P&O for example I have no doubt I would have taken trout but not near as many as I did by switching between caddis pupa, caddis emergers, BWO emergers, BWO duns and egg laying caddis. Certain suggestive patterns may also have worked well and taken quite a few trout but once again would have failed to entice many many more. I suspect on that night though I cannot prove it to be so that a suggestive pattern would mainly have enticed trout that were happy to take a mixed bag of food.

A really important point in all of this is at times, that certain trout require a fly that is pretty precise in its design and presentation, anything less than that and it will be at worst ignored , at best snatched at with few hookups. The real interesting thing here is that within a relatively small section of water, when there are many food items available different trout can at times choose to dine in different ways.

If you fish with the belief that the water in front of you will possibly require several presentations of different food forms then you allow yourself to the oppurtunity to catch a lot more fish than a less open minded angler fishing the same water.

Once you accept that the best fly to fish is the one that the trout want and not the one you want to fish then your catch rate will really improve - I know mine has. Now how do you know which one they really want - he he , thats the fun bit !!!!!!!!!!!!