-
Eric,
I'm not sure what I said above constitutes a theory. I am pretty convinced that trout take non-food items out of the drift frequently as I stated above. I believe that's a basic fact that has to be taken into account.
What I wrote above was my effort to try to explain that fact in combination with the fact that impressionistic flies work very well. And maybe a few other facts that I've tucked away somewhere.
I also think that there's a certain myth of selectivity operating in the sport. I'm not saying selectivity doesn't occur, but I sometimes wonder if it's overrated.
There are guys who claim to only fish an Adams or an Ausable Wulff and do well. And that suggests to me that some of us might be carrying a few too many patterns -- I include myself in that category.
Plus, you're going to find guys that will tell you can do well fishing those size 6 wet flies, and not just on Brookies. I don't think Don Bastian or Andy B have noticed this thread yet, because I've heard both of them (Andy online, Don in person) say exactly that. As for myself, I can't say because I've never fished 'em. But I'm curious about them.
Regarding the triggering theory, I wasn't aware it was Gary LaFontaine's. I got the idea originally from something I read by Tom Rosenbauer. I don't think he used the word "trigger". I couldn't remember the word he used. But I think it's a good idea that explains a lot.
-
I like to have a full arsenal of weapons in my fly boxes; ready for any situation.
Yes , I have fished some waters where you could throw in a bare hook, & the trout would hit like bluegill !!!! I have also fished waters where I couldn't hook a trout to save my life on an exact hatch match pattern, went to a radical pattern like a streamer & slayed'em !!!!! Then there are those situations where they are hitting a single hatch, & you better match & present the pattern perfectly if you have any hope
of catching anything !!!!! I enjoy tying & fishing in all forms (whatever works) !!!
-
Eaustin,
Why should we generalize the matter in black or white terms?
First, the usefulness of (un)matching the hatch may depend on the water types you are fishing in.
If trout are feeding in a freestone cafe, they will have to make a quick decision either to take or to pass a food item. Here, any acceptable imitation would work as there are not abundant enough food items. Sometimes, oversized fly patterns work better because they give trout better visibility in a foamy freestone stream.
On the other hand, if trout are eating in a spring creek cafe, then, they will have the ample time to inspect food items before they take them. Matching the hatch would be better here as spring creek trout are more likely to be locked in certain key triggering characteristics of food items. However, even in this situation, breaking the hatch with a royal wulff, a beetle, or an ant still works as it may get more attention from trout compared to hundreds of tiny insects carpeting the surface.
Second, would you like to define matching the hatch broadly or narrowly?
While attractor or fancy flies do not look like any naturals at all, I believe that thought precesses behind their creation are still linked - very broadly - to observing actual natural creatures and their visible characteristics. While overstretching the concept of matching the hatch this way to include attractor flies may be debatable, I think trout take them just because those flies belong to the range of acceptable food items and are recognized as such. Even fancy flies, I think, have triggering characteristics in a similar way. At the end of the day, fly fishing is doing a stimulus-response thing to trout at its core.
Lastly, there are simultaneously different ways to catching the same finicky trout, so someone else's success with a big fancy fly does not invalidate your own way of trouting. Does Rene Harrop have to care about Harrison Steeves terrorizing Idaho spring creek trout with his foam beetle or Scott Sanchez fishing a huge double bunny? I don't think so.
I am sorry for a boat load of words to say what you already have known.
[This message has been edited by adso4 (edited 05 November 2005).]
-
eaustin, RW here
Matching the Hatch is just a game within the game, and it doesn't occur often enough to suit me. Mainly because good hatches occur infrequently, sometimes not at all, and sometimes not on the whole stream at the same time. What time I have on the stream I don't want to waste til the evening hatch, etc. just so I can fish a dry fly. Most folks can't get away just when hatches are on, and have to fish when and where they can. Enter the wet flies, soft hackles, nymphs and streamers, etc.
Since fish feed 90 percent underwater and on the bottom, and only about 10 percent on the surface, I'd just as soon fish a wet fly and have more chance at success at all times of the day, at all times of the year, than wait around for a hatch that might never come.
Outdoor writers past and present have given too much credit and glamour to the dry fly in literature; so much so that many newcomers to the sport think it is the only way to truly fly fish.
Dry fly fishing is just a part of fly fishing; fun, but just one part nevertheless.
So I would say that versatility in the sport will produce more successful days astream than a strictly "match the hatch" dry fly code.
Later, RW
------------------
"We fish for pleasure; I for mine, you for yours." -James Leisenring on fishing the wet fly-
[This message has been edited by Royal Wulff (edited 05 November 2005).]
-
Yep, I've seen underwater video as well of trout taking debris and then spitting it out. Just how do you think they learned how to spit out your hook so well????
Its rather presumptuous to say that anyone is actually matching the hatch. The best statement one can make is that the fish took a fly that the angler thought would be similar to what was hatching. Nobody so far has recieved word from the fish.
Fishing is a science and the subject is the fish, not insects. Look at it this way, streamer fishers do not read books on minnows. That's rather astute of them http://www.flyanglersonline.com/bb/wink.gif
-
OK, we've gone far afield, and that's fine. I'm not advocating a dry fly code, all I'm advocating is using flies that remotely look like what whatever it is the trout eat. If it's beetles, fish a beetle. If minnows, fish a minnow imitation. If it's an emerger, fish a flymph. Sculpin, fish a Muddler. Fish an IPW for the "worm hatch" after a rain. That's still matching the hatch to me. And if the insect is a large red and white striped one, fish a Parmacheene Belle (ok, I'm kidding). I know the Belle imitates a brookie fin by the way, so it's not a fair example. I just don't feel that #6 gaudy wet flies can by their nature be as successful as ones that more closely resemble the insects in size and color. I could be wrong, and am sure that under certain circumstances, I am. I'm not saying these flies never work, I'm just saying that if they did, on a regular basis, they'd still be selling.
Eric
-
There is a wet fly actually named 'Trout Fin' It is one of my favorites... (for collecting). I get your point though. Trout do seem to be more selective when taking flies on top than they do underwater.
-
On the topic of matching color, the FAOL feature "flies only" makes some points that have to be factored in. (Yep, I do read those other pages on FAOL.)
Here's a link: [url=http://www.flyanglersonline.com/features/fliesonly/:1e989]http://www.flyanglersonline.com/features/fliesonly/[/url:1e989]
Because of the silhouette factor when a trout views a dry fly from below, I no longer think color is as important as I used to. In fact, those Adams purists that are around sort of make sense to me now.
Also, as has been pointed out to me, the color of your fly line doesn't make too much difference either because of the way color is lost when it is viewed from below. So it's ok to choose one you can easily see.
-
This is something of an apology to BigFlatBrook. You do raise interesting points about trout picking out non food items out of the drift, and I over-reacted big time. I'm sorry, and appreciate your thoughtful response. I think the reason I started this thread is that I get the idea from Andy B. all the time that #6 wet flies are the end-all and be-all of fly fishing. I doubt that even Don Bastian himself uses these big flies in all situations. Could they be used more than they are now? Certainly. Will you catch more fish? Possibly in some places, but not the ones I fish. Do I think wet flies generally are very much underutilized today? Absolutely! I have threatened many times to use wets for a whole year and see how it goes. Maybe this year will be the one.
Eric
-
Interesting comments Eric.
First, I will in the future tie some night flies on Salmon style hooks after reading various chapters or articles on night fishing and its merits. I think it is something I would like to try atleast once just to say I've done it.
I suppose this is another one of those questions that will get responses, truly based on one's beliefs due in part to one's experiences astream.
As to hatch matching, I've seen anglers take fish on some pretty crude looking flies on one of North America's premier trout waters. I've seen them do so with equipment that was not high tech equipment of todays modern marketplace.
Even the guides I know for many of the premier shops around the landscape tie pretty crude flies, for many they are the go to flies.
From my perspective, I think what we tie onto the hook is over-rated at times. I also think we as anglers as a whole spend to much time dabbling into our vest of fancies that we don't spend enough time concentrating more on positioning ourselves and making a good presentation to the fish!
My scale down approach to flyfishing supports my beliefs. I've gotten rid of many of the books, videos etc. My tying bench look pityful compared to the bounties that adorn most. The number of rods, reels and lines are parred down to three. A 3,5 and 7 weight.
And lastly, I tie very few varying fly patterns or recipes (however, one would term it), opting to tie a select few to cover the hatches that catch fish, only taking the time to vary the color scheme to match the insect that is hatching.