Matching the Hatch

So is the concept of matching the hatch just so much crap? If brown trout are readily taking the #6 Parmacheene Belle or a #6 Rich Widow, why do we bother? It's obvious that at that point, these trout will take ANYTHING. I'm amazed they're not eating sticks and rocks. If it looks alive, they go for it? Man, not on the Mad River here in Ohio. I couldn't get fish to take anything bigger than a #22 griffiths gnat last fall. Does size not matter one whit to these fish? I thought size was everything to these picky, fished over browns. You guys catching all these fish on #6 wets are not fishing the same spring creeks I do. I'm dumbfounded. Not saying these flies don't have a place, not at all. I'm sure in fast water where fish have to react to anything that floats by they're a real attention getter. But there are good reasons that the #6 flies don't sell any more, and the number one reason is, nobody buys them.
Eric

Don Bastian sells them at the shows but most people just collect his flies. He does all the Bergman flies and some Helen Shaws. I'll use a wet fly once in a while but usually a March Brown and a size 10 at that. I have seen Donnie catch fish with them in a Lake in SW Pa.

My post sounds like an attack on #6 wet flies, and I don't mean it to be. What I'm really trying to get at here is whether or not matching the hatch is all it's cracked up to be. If all these guys are catching fish on #6 wets, why am I spending so much time and energy trying to tie just what they're eating? I should just tie the old Bergman flies and let it go. Or fish a banjo minnow or something. I like the idea of fly fishing being something of a science, but I might just be kidding myself.
Eric

I'd say I spend 70% of my fishing time w/ tiny dries, nymphs or midges. I wouldn't even consider a #6 wet on most rivers/streams I fish, though I'd be willing to give it a shot. I do fish larger attractor dries on smallstreams for hungry opportunistic trout rather often; it seems they're not picky.

tough fishing situations, though, most often call for tiny flies and I'm ok w/ that, but I struggle to see them more and more these daze.

mgj

Don't forget a lot of those colorful flies were created in another era . Used to be a lot more Brook Trout around then then there are now. It's the only native trout in NY (okay, I know it's a Char), and Brookies will hit anything.

Right, I think of those flies as brook trout flies mostly, or flies for lake fishing. Many were created in Maine, some in the Adirondacs, back in a day when the brookies were in abundance. I think that these flies deserve more of a place now than they currently enjoy, but that said, I can't imagine using these for my day in, day out fishing as some have suggested. But the real thrust of my comments here is this: If we're not trying to match the hatch, or make flies that look generally like the food the fish are eating, then what's the point? Why would you want to fish with a fly that looks totally UNLIKE anything the fish are eating? I know that under certain circumstances fish will eat anything you throw out there. My friend caught a brookie on a Doublemint gum wrapper on a hook when we were young. But those days are mostly gone. Now bass and bluegill, that's a whole different matter, and these flies will work well for them. And I know Gary LaFontaine caught a trout on a Polka. But even Ray Bergman himself, talking about the March Brown, a big fly here, says sizes 10,12,14, sometimes 8. Olive Dun and Olive Quill, 10,12,14. Pale Sulphur 12,14,16. The flies that are listed as #6 are largely for brookies, and he says this: "On the whole I'd recommend the large sizes for lake and pond fishing, for heavy fast water, or water that is discolored. I'd consider sizes 10,12, and 14 most generally useful for ordinary stream fishing, with 18 excellent for some clear water and wary trout conditions, particularly in the late season."
I think Ray says it even better than I do.
Eric

[This message has been edited by eaustin (edited 05 November 2005).]

There's a local guy here in Jersey that does TU presentations using underwater video that he shoots himself. They are very enlightening. His videos and commentary have convinced me that trout pick non-food items out of the drift all the time.

I think there's a couple of reasons for this. First of all, distinguishing food and non-food items in the drift is probably a difficult detection problem. Likely trout are genetically biased to favor taking an item rather than not take. Obviously, brook trout are great examples of this because they evolved in a rather infertile environment, and therefore had to "take more chances" in order to survive.

Second, I think all biologically successful creatures are genetically programmed to experiment regarding food sources. Otherwise, they would be unable to adapt.

My bottom line is that matching the hatch is over-rated, but that your fly has to exhibit certain triggering features in order to be effective. Those triggering features might differ depending on what actually appears in the drift. Nothing with a hook sticking out of it can "match the hatch" anyway.

By the way, I also think there is no such thing as "natural drift" -- just various approximations to it. The currents in moving water are just too complex for anything connected to a fly line to really drift naturally.

That's a fascinating theory BigFlatBrook. So Rene Harrop is just chasing his tail studying all those insects and trying to imitate their look and behavior. Somebody should let him know. And all that underwater research Gary LaFontaine did, Vince Marinaro's observations, Art Flick's work, just a waste of time. It really doesn't matter a bit what we put on the end of a hook. The fish will take it anyway.

And forget about getting a good drag free drift, THAT doesn't even matter. Well I've got news. If I sit you down on Milesnick's Spring Creek in Montana and you drag a #6 Parmacheene Belle through that water, which is teeming with big trout, you'll scare half of them to death, and the other half will be laughing in your face. How do I know this? I saw a guy from England one day doing just this. He had been in Montana for two weeks and hadn't caught a fish. He was using big wet flies just not suited for the SELECTIVE trout there. So there are some times at least where you'd better match the hatch, and do it without drag.
Eric

Huh??
Reguarding Gary LaFontaine, his underwater research resulted in his theories about triggers. If fact all his ties that I can think of were all about triggers, not "match the hatch".
Exactly the same thing you just flamed BFB for.

------------------
Support politicians who support the environment

[This message has been edited by dudley (edited 05 November 2005).]

I'm not arguing about triggers or impressionistic flies. They still are imitative of insect behavior. I'm arguing about #6 wet flies that are five times the size of the naturals. But ok, if you don't want to match the hatch, it's fine with me. I've always been a match the hatch fisherman, it just makes sense to me. Each to his own. As far as wet flies go, I'm more in the Sylvester Nemes camp I guess. The biggest fly in "Soft Hackled Fly Imitations" is a #10 Green Drake. He's done a very scientific investigation of Montana wet fly fishing in this book, and his average size fly is about a 16.
Eric

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.

Eric,

No need to apologize. This past April I went on a three day trip with one of the Jersey TU chapters. Don B. guided that trip. The chapter runs the trip every year specifically to teach guys how to nymph.

Don's got a lot of great ideas about nymphing as well as wet fly fishing and I really learned a lot on that trip. I even caught a few fish on dry flies. He is definitely not a wet fly purist. It's always risky quoting people, but I believe he told me that a #20 flashback PT was one of his standards on Spring Creek in and around Bellefonte.

We talked about Ray Bergman and wet fly fishing a bit, but he wasn't pushing it, though I know it's one of his passions.

BTW, don't blame anyone else for any bizzare ideas you might hear from me. I have a tendency to take an idea and run with it over the edge. Oh well. Best!

Ursus,

That makes a lot of sense to me -- maybe the secret behind the wolly bugger -- a fly that doesn't really look like anything but has a lot of movement. I'm a real believer in woolly buggers.

I also have to throw out another idea that I think is important. I read somewhere that the comparadun is an effective dry fly because it has a low profile in the water and therefore appears vulnerable (meaning not about to fly off, I guess).

All predators respond to vulnerability. Big predators (like big cats and wolves and such) don't want to take on prey that will fight back -- so they choose the young, old, and/or sick if they can. If a predator is injured while subdueing prey, it becomes a less effective hunter and therefore less able to survive. Of course, the word "want" is misleading, it's really just a preference shaped by genetic history.

In the trout's case, a vulnerable insect is not as likely to escape, so the expenditure of energy chasing the insect is more likely to be rewarded. So I think part of what makes a fly effective is the extent to which it gives the appearance of vulnerability.

The idea that trout instinctively trade off the effort required to take an insect with the calories the insect provides is another idea I got from reading Tom Rosenbauer. In other words, they'll go a long ways for a stonefly nymph, but maybe just a few inches for a midge pupa.

[This message has been edited by BigFlatBrook (edited 06 November 2005).]

Fish in natural conditions will hit anything without too much hesitation. Generally speaking, competition results in survival for those who eat first and ask questions later. For these fish, the most effective patterns are bold attractors (or "searching patterns" in fly fish speak).

At the other extreme, are trout, especially brown trout, in blue ribbon, C&R fly fishing areas. Once they've been caught a handful of times, even fish start to wonder about that "attractive food item". I've heard of some browns actually starving to death because they're too traumatized to eat but the ones that survive generally tend to do so by avoiding "typical fly fisher fare". This is not natural fish behavior. These fish have been domesticated/shell shocked. Any "knowledge and wisdom" concerning these fish is as artificial as a gold fish bowl.

There are two effective strategies to deal with these fish. One is to go with small flys or fish at night. The other is to simply use something different that they have not seen. Since I don't like small flys for many reasons, and I don't like to fish at night, I like to show them something different every time I'm out fishing the same location for the same fish. It works like a charm, even if I just change colours.

Between these extremes, ideas like caloric tradeoffs, etc. may be worthwhile.

If I had a two swing leaf fly boxes with clips to hold flies and filled one with fly patterns and the other with theories on fly patterns; which would fill up first?

I'd bet on the latter...

...it sure keeps fly fishing interesting http://www.flyanglersonline.com/bb/wink.gif.

I have a friend who swears that NO trout takes ANY dry fly for a natural; but instead for a cripple. So I guess I'm a CCCCC: A Catcher of Creek Critters who Crave Cripples.

In any case despite the theories that abound; I advocate the "Scratch the Hatch" or Presentationalist theory on all flies. How else can you explain the evidence presented in a previous thread about flies that never worked for us? Some fly fishers have great success with certain patterns and others can't buy a fish on one?

...anybody want to buy some Prince Nymphs?

It does make it interesting. But ... Prince nymphs don't work for you?

BFB:

About the only way I think I might catch a trout on a Prince Nymph is if I knock one unconscious with one of my bead-head versions http://www.flyanglersonline.com/bb/smile.gif.

eaustin;

I look at it this way. Them big browns and bows sure did like to hit the red and white and orange with black spot daredevils that I used to throw. They also would hammer many different colors of Panther Martins for me too. One year I used a fl orange bladed red bodied panther martin to get me a rather tasty brown out of the Bow in Montana. That WAS about 1984, but I'll bet many of them would still work.

Which hatch was I matching? I think I was probably triggering their desire for a big bite of minnow. I am thinking that most of the wets tied in a size six would probably cause the same trigger to fire. Ooooh, big minnow, injured, looks tasty, WHAM! I would think it would even do a better job at matching the minnow hatch than wolly buggers do.

Just my thoughts.

Don

Don, you might just have touched on my inherent bias. I never caught a darned thing on those Daredevils.
Eric

Hi Eric!
Not counting streamers, the largest fly I tie for my area is a size 12. And, as a fly tier, why not match the hatch for the area your fishing. When I tie flis for my local streams, I always approach it with matching the insects that inhabit those streams. It just makes sense to me. On the other hand, one of my most effective dry attractors is a #14 Hair Wing Royal Trude. [url=http://www.fishingwithflies.com/Hare-wingRoyalTrude.htm:d2f7d]http://www.fishingwithflies.com/Hare-wingRoyalTrude.htm[/url:d2f7d]
Capn' Bob

Eric;

I spent many more days NOT catching anything with those daredevils than catching with them. I remember one trip when I had either three different three pound rainbows, or the same one three times, follow my stinking lure all the way to the bank and then swim away slowly after I let it drop to the bottom. Man was THAT frustrating. (I estimate it at 3 pounds, cause I caught a fish that looked the same in the next pool on that same daredevil.)

Don

Since taking up flyfishing, I have almost never been skunked. With spin fishing, I got skunked more than not.

eaustin-

Quote:

---

I'm amazed they're not eating sticks and rocks.

---

Well, they actually are, and quite intentionally when they are feeding on cased caddis. Of course, there is a morsel inside that does make it worthwhile.

------------------
Taxon
[url=http://FlyfishingEntomology.com:ee36f]FlyfishingEntomology.com[/url:ee36f]

E on the mad I've caught fish on damn near everything I've tied on the tippet. My thing is with nymphs that the saying is 1 1/2 the depth if using an indicator which I don't follow and have had better luch most of the brownes I've caught up there were on 14's and smaller. But then I don't fish real big flies. Later Matt

------------------
To each there own !

I went to the Fly Tying Symposium in Somerset, NJ today and dropped by Don Bastian's booth. It seems that when Don was recovering from cancer surgery this summer a bunch of guys tied and framed some classic Ray Bergman wet flies and gave them as a get well present. I think I saw the name Eric Austin on the list. That was a nice thing to do.