Do we fishermen/fly tiers rely too much on horizontal views of our flies?

A fishing friend (and many others) suggest, for example, that the X-Caddis can be taken as much for a mayfly as a caddis fly.

I think, to the extent this happens, the trout are taking the fly as a caddis even though there may not be caddis on the water. Caddis are somewhat ubiquitous during most of the mayfly hatching season.

I think that while an X-Caddis, dressed like a particular mayfly, may look to us a bit like a mayfly............


http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/...ps1b0d9120.jpg


But, I think the telltale tent-like appearance from the trout's view pretty much identify it as a caddis pattern to the trout.


http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/...ps6168611b.jpg


I know many, including my fishing friend will disagree, it is my belief. If I remember to do so, I will try to test this out this June/July. Problem is, when I am fishing to a mayfly hatch, I get too excited to start experimenting..........Know what I mean?

The CDC&Elk has been my most successful mayfly imitation for the past twenty years :cool:

Cheers,
Hans W

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byron haugh

ut, I think the telltale tent-like appearance from the trout's view pretty much identify it as a caddis pattern to the trout.

---

Obviously, until a Trout learns English, nobody will know for sure....but.....

Is the look of the X-Caddis from below that much different from that of the Harrop Hair Wing Dun?
Do the trout even get that view? Don't they have to lead the fly (like a QB leading a wide receiver) in order to intercept it?

I think the best we can say conclusively is that the trout takes it for food. Even during selective feeding on hatches they will take the odd item that doesn't look like anything else on the water (IMHO). Having said that I think your fly would make a great mayfly substitute.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steven

Obviously, until a Trout learns English, nobody will know for sure....but.....

Is the look of the X-Caddis from below that much different from that of the Harrop Hair Wing Dun?
Do the trout even get that view? Don't they have to lead the fly (like a QB leading a wide receiver) in order to intercept it?

---

Steven, That is sort of my argument. All studies (that I am aware of) of what a trout sees in the water agree that they first sight wing tips of an insect or a fly coming into their "window" of vision. Then, they see the impression in the meniscus on the water of the body/legs; finally, when the object is close to them, the wings align with the body and show the entire insect/fly.

So, if fish are keying on mayflies I believe some sort of upwind is very important. When caddis are about, or were recently about, they don't need upright wings to be present.

As to the Harrop Hairwing Dun, most folks suggest it is sort of an all-purpose pattern, but not the best when fishing to picky feeding fish. When fish are actively feeding on a particular mayfly pattern, I don't think the Hairwing Dun would be the best choice and I suggests that Rene would agree. His most promoted/used patterns are more lifelike........the cripples and the more standard type upwind flies he and his family tie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byron haugh

All studies (that I am aware of) of what a trout sees in the water agree that they first sight wing tips of an insect or a fly coming into their "window" of vision. Then, they see the impression in the meniscus on the water of the body/legs; finally, when the object is close to them, the wings align with the body and show the entire insect/fly.

---

It's the last part that I'm not 100% sure of and have trouble visualizing. As I visualize it, if the trout is rising while the fly is coming down, it will never get a view of the fly from directly underneath. The trout has to be near the surface just before taking the fly.

I've seen fish in clear water come from the side and come forward as well to intercept. There's no way they had a direct underneath view.

This has been my experience, and those of many authors on the subject: When trout are keying on a specific hatch of mayflies, they often become "sippers". They lie in the feeding lanes, and, as those wings appear in their window floating toward them, they begin to rise up to "sip" the insect. So, it may not be directly below the fly, but it is under the water looking up through their window. Certainly not our vision.........viewing from perhaps 4ft. above the surface.

I guess a corollary might be: What convinces a trout, when caddis are on the water, to take a caddis pattern? Might it be the tent-like view from beneath?

My original post used the specific example of the X-Caddis fly pattern. Hans mentioned his success with the CDC&Elk in mayfly situations.
I would argue that the CDC&Elk is substantively different in that the "flowing" CDC fibers present a substantially different look than a dubbed X-Caddis.

I will probably be faulted for my version of Hans' pattern, but offer a view of it as a trout might see it (second photo). Granted, it is dry and not on the water, but I think this is representative.

First the fly as we might see it.

http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/...ps43a27230.jpg






Then the fly as the trout might see it. I think it is dramatically different from an X-Caddis from below/looking up..............


http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/...psfa411ad4.jpg

A slightly different approach. Often, especially in the waters I fish, the energy expended / energy returned ratio in obtaining food is not hugely in favour of the trout. They can't afford to pass up a possible meal. If something drifts past them, that could be food, then they will grab it. At times I have found myself watching the rise form to my fly and comparing it to the rise form to the natural. Unless they are the same I am not convinced that I have imitated the natural, just offered the fish something that could be food.

In the Ring of the Rise Marinarno explains that sometimes a fish will hand under a fly as it drifts on the current. On one of the richer waters I have fished, (the River Aire, just below Malham in North Yorkshire, where T.E. Pritt, and Edmonds and Lea fished) I have encountered this. Sometimes with a positive result, but often not. This made me totally convinced that presentation is far more important than pattern, when fish become more selective.

There is, of course, a cross over between pattern and presentation. This has caused me to reject parachutes as adult dun imitations (I still use them for emergers). There have been time when the fish would take a thorax dun with the hackle clipped flat below the shank, but will not take a parachute fly tied using the same materials. The difference being the former sits one body width higher on the water than the latter. Is that a difference in pattern or presentation?

Of course most of the time I am just happy that a fish has taken the fly!

As for a horizontal view of the fly, I tie low so am looking down at about 45 degrees at the fly I am tying. If you have seen Chris Helm tie, that is the position. (Not the same result, but the same position). I have considered buying one of the C&F Fish Eye boxes that you fill with water to photograph flies, However, my budget will not run to it just now.

Cheers,
A.

Very interesting AlanB. I think we are not far apart in our thinking.

What I say about the way we see our flies applies when they are in the vise and while fishing. We see them from above or from the side.
Fish rarely jump out of the water for a look at our flies. They see them from below in their "window of vision".

The X-caddis when tied with a shorter wing (no longer than the thorax) is more a mayfly emerger/cripple than any caddis stage IMO.

Cock that wing up higher and it has a great mayfly profile. I have used EHC this way...during a mayfly hatch. Too lazy to tie on a new fly. Worked well.

I get that we do all this introspection and discussion about the minutiae of stuff like this to spend time and intellect in our chosen way. It's fun, kills time, and makes us feel good about what we believe.

But I often wonder if we are seriously overthinking all of this.

We have no clue what trout see. We don't even know with certainty if a trout's brain perceives shapes and colors as ours does.

Things like light levels, surface turbulence and water clarity all effect what can be seen. Light refraction through water itself, and the whole reflective issues with the surface of the water make any level of certainty about how a particular dry fly 'looks' from below impossible.

Our only accurate method of figuring this out is success. What works and what does not work on the fish.

We've all caught trout on something that seemed absolutely inappropriate for the conditions, and for all of us there have been times when we've been certain we've got it figured out and had no success at all.

All I can say is that I have no clue as to what any fish 'sees' or what it 'believes' my flies to be. I don't really care anyway. I just know that when I figure out what works and I can catch a few fish, I'm happy. If I can't figure it out and i don't catch a few fish, then I'm still happy because I got to go fishing.

Buddy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Buddy Sanders

We have no clue what trout see. We don't even know with certainty if a trout's brain perceives shapes and colors as ours does.

---

I agree 100%.

Joe

Marine biologists and other scientists have studied the trout's optics and know how their vision works.

I really enjoy reading these debates to get others perspective. I like others have no idea what the fish see of why they feed on certain imitations, selective. I like to tye and fish Catskill style flies and fish them in the south, west and northeast on all types of water with success. About three years ago I started to tye Hans CDC and elk, though I use deer. I tye them with a wrapped CDC body in various colors the same for the wings. I use them to imitate, caddis.mayflies and ants from size 10 to 22's. To me it is one of the best and consistent patterns I have ever fished. Why they take that style I have no idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Buddy Sanders

I get that we do all this introspection and discussion about the minutiae of stuff like this to spend time and intellect in our chosen way. It's fun, kills time, and makes us feel good about what we believe.

But I often wonder if we are seriously overthinking all of this.

We have no clue what trout see. We don't even know with certainty if a trout's brain perceives shapes and colors as ours does.

Things like light levels, surface turbulence and water clarity all effect what can be seen. Light refraction through water itself, and the whole reflective issues with the surface of the water make any level of certainty about how a particular dry fly 'looks' from below impossible.

Our only accurate method of figuring this out is success. What works and what does not work on the fish.

We've all caught trout on something that seemed absolutely inappropriate for the conditions, and for all of us there have been times when we've been certain we've got it figured out and had no success at all.

All I can say is that I have no clue as to what any fish 'sees' or what it 'believes' my flies to be. I don't really care anyway. I just know that when I figure out what works and I can catch a few fish, I'm happy. If I can't figure it out and i don't catch a few fish, then I'm still happy because I got to go fishing.

Buddy

---

LIKE +1 :tieone:

Since we are discussing trout vision, I would like to point out a book by one of the FAOL forum members, Reed F. Curry, a.k.a. Overmywaders:

http://www.amazon.com/New-Scientific...s=reed+f+curry

I ordered this book and read it. It is interesting and I feel it was well worth the time and money invested in it.

Scientists can determine that trout have cone cells for the same three colors that we have and that they also have cone cells for UV. We cannot know how the trout's mind interprets the information received from those cells. Mr. Curry has made some good comments and some hypotheses/guesses that I tend to agree with, e.g. trout selectively ignoring some things which their eyes see. The book has good illustrations but is not a comprehensive study of the UV reflectivity of all of the materials used by fly-tyers.

Regards,
Ed

I believe that the founder of this site has a short explanation of how the trout "sees". Can't locate it now, but perhaps someone has a link to his summary? Caswell?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byron haugh

Marine biologists and other scientists have studied the trout's optics and know how their vision works.

---

So, I take it therefore, that "marine biologists and other scientists ..." are all in agreement about this topic. Right?
Oh, and the founders' nom de plume was 'Castwell'.

Not being one of those primary researchers I cannot speak for them, but it does not follow that researchers have to agree for at least a couple of reasons. First, the research might not be complete. Second, even if a certain stage, say structure of trouts' eyes, is complete, there are other factors. Perception is not merely a matter of the function of the eyes, but also of the brain. I suspect that's why it was taught in my intro psychology classes. That is one of the reasons why certain types of observers, such as snipers, are taught observation so rigorously. Perception involves both the physiology and the psychology of the perceiver.

I have omitted mentioning a third reason. Some of the researchers may be incompetent or have some reason to obfuscate the results. But then that is my own, potentially flawed, perception.

Regards,
Ed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byron haugh

Steven, That is sort of my argument. All studies (that I am aware of) of what a trout sees in the water agree that they first sight wing tips of an insect or a fly coming into their "window" of vision. Then, they see the impression in the meniscus on the water of the body/legs; finally, when the object is close to them, the wings align with the body and show the entire insect/fly.
.

---

Only if the insect or fly is sitting completely on top of the water, which only happens for a fully emerged adult. Since many of our flies imitate insects emerging with a lot of the pattern under the surface, fish see the underwater parts from a long way off with no interference from the water/air surface mirror. Notice how clear the hook is in the image below.

Back to your original question, good point - view from below is much better! To go one step further, we should look at how the fly looks floating in the water, so drop the fly in a clear glass and look at in from all sides.

I think you'll find that many flies show quite a bit under the surface. Unless you gink up the shuck, the X-Caddis is going to float with the abdomen and shuck beneath the surface. From that view it closely resembles a sparkle dun as others have said. Both resemble an emerging mayfly, since many mayfly nymphs float slanted close to horizontal just below the surface while the adult emerges. The wing may resemble the adult climbing out but looks pretty fuzzy from below the surface.

I'm amazed at how much a floating flies image changes from just ahead to directly below. Just float a few patterns in a glass. It's quite striking.

From this:

Attachment 12821

To this:
Attachment 12822

These images from J Castwell's wonderful series, "Flies Only" which is found in the Features section of this website.
Doesn't this explain many last second refusals?

And then you have the trout hitting cigarette butts and leaves floating along. Go figure.

Joe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byron haugh

I believe that the founder of this site has a short explanation of how the trout "sees". Can't locate it now, but perhaps someone has a link to his summary? Caswell?

---

You are correct. The explanation is a fine series of 12 articles called "Flies Only" by J Castwell himself. The Flies Only articles can be found in the Features Section in the left column of the FAOL home page.

It is hard to link to articles on this site because of the frame infrastructure, but here's a link to the series:

http://www.flyanglersonline.com/features/fliesonly/

Thanks Bruce
I think he covers it in sections 3-6 on that link.

Doesn't your original concern assume that we are considering only dry flies?
For dries, I agree completely. For subsurface flies I would think that all views would be important.

Ray, yes, I am talking about dries. Like the ones I photographed.