Importance of Caddis Flies to us.

Let me be clear. I probably use various stages of caddis fly imitations more than I do mayflies. I probably fish some stage of the caddis fly much more often than I do mayflies. Obviously, what I use depends upon what is happening on the water. If there is a good mayfly hatch in progress, I use matching mayflies. But, if there is not a mayfly/stonefly hatch in progress, I usually turn to some stage of the near-ubiquitous caddis.

I have mentioned here, in the past, that the caddis fly, I believe, has historically been underrated by early fly fishermen in the US. Some of the oldest books on fly fishing I have suggested that the caddis fly is not very important to the fly fisherman.....particularly compared to mayflies.

Anyway, I was re-reading a couple books recently and came across a couple statements which I believe are absolutely wrong, but do reflect some of the earlier thinking amongst some, I believe.

First, a quote from a chapter in a book entitled "Masters on the Nymph", which is a book of "articles" by many famous fly fishers. The book was edited by J. Michael Migel and Leonard M. Wright, Jr. and was published in 1979. In the book, one of the contributors is the duo of Al Caucci and Bob Nastasi who are a couple of my heroes.

The quote on page 44:

http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/...pst2qy0ppf.jpg

The book itself:

http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/...psanlfkw5k.jpg



Then, there is this quote from the book "A Book of Trout Flies" by Preston Jennings, published in 1970, in which he states, on page 8:

http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/...psg9aaacxt.jpg

On the rare times I trout fish I always start with a caddis.
Read someplace that caddis hatch all through the day so fish look for them.

Rick

I would agree with your thoughts. My experience has been that an Elk-Hair caddis, while not always the best pattern for a given setting, will nearly always catch fish regardless. And throughout the day. That tells me the adults are a steady part of their diet, and they know them quite well.

My local river is a caddis river
About the time that the river drops to a comfortable wading depth, the alder flies (actually zebra caddis, not true alderflies) are emerging.
Green Drakes and BWOs are both available to the trout at the same time but the fish could care less. I've never seen one taken.
These trout are only interested in the caddis.
Fishing a dry is usually a waste of time when this hatch is on, it's always the emergers or egg laying divers that draw interest

I think that was Gary LaFontaine that said that about the caddis always being available because they drift around all the time.

I think Gary is the author that Caucci and Nastasi were referring to when they said: "....should be aware of the recent exaggerated importance of caddis flies in the trouts' diet"

And, if you read Gary's book "Caddisflies" you will find that he too says that the caddis fly has historically been underrated by fly fishermen which is the point I was trying to make. It's hard for us, now, to understand that during the first 75 years or so of fly fishing history in the US, the caddis fly was so underrated, but I believe it was!

Considering that I cannot tell what the trout are taking my nymphs for, very hard to say which is more important when fishing subsurface. When on top, clearly mayflies are more important, which is different than saying caddis are unimportant.

Fished the Gunnison one spring during some excellent caddis hatches, several dozen fish a day on dries fished against the banks, river pretty much to myself.

And then one day there were salmonflies everywhere. So I dug out that box, caught a bunch of fish, had fun.

Next day, showed up to the river, people everywhere. Word had got out. And they were all fishing salmonflies, and nobody was catching fish on them. As trout rose to caddis around them. In the spaces between other anglers, I fished the same caddis I had been using two days prior, and was catching fish just fine.

If the trout want to eat caddis, feed them caddis. If not, use what they want to eat. I try not to make it any harder than that.

DG

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DG

If the trout want to eat caddis, feed them caddis. If not, use what they want to eat. I try not to make it any harder than that.

DG

---

I could not agree more Dennis.
Brad

Great idea. It's determining what they want that is the never-ending challenge.

I find it hard to even believe that Leonard Wright would have allowed that in the book, given that he's probably best remembered for advocating giving his Fluttering Caddis a "sudden inch" of movement. In fact, I sort of believe one of the contributors is directly challenging him on the subject, not LaFontaine, since Caddisflies hadn't been published yet.

As to the importance of caddisflies, I think they're probably just as important as mayflies; it's just that it's easier to tell one mayfly from another at a glance, so we obsess more over them. And of course, it varies from river to river and time to time.

I will point out, however, that just because we use an Elk Hair "Caddis" and catch a bunch of fish, doesn't mean that the fish were taking them as caddis flies. I've had some very memorable evenings fishing an X-caddis over a sulfur hatch/spinner fall. (There's really not much difference between an X-caddis and a Sparkle Dun.) An EHC could reasonably represent a number of different terrestrials (like a small hopper, e.g.) They're pretty generic flies, and caddis are just one thing they can represent.

I do agree with Byron that caddis were under-estimated in the past.

Redietz,
Very interesting post. I think Gary had published articles about caddis flies before his book was published. Could be wrong, but I think his ideas were publicized before he wrote the book Caddisflies.
Would appreciate information about this from some who know the dates of Gary's writings.

By the way Redietz, here is an interesting question and answer with Gary Lafontaine by Weber State College (Now University?) which was published on the internet..

Do you think caddisflies are still an underutilized group of insects, or do you think people are aware of how valuable they are?
I think there's been an amazing amount of education going on since Caddisflies was written. You cannot realize how far in the dark ages people were about caddisflies before that book was written. We took scuba gear, went underwater, and were the ones who actually realized what was happening with emerging caddisflies. We saw the bright air bubbles created by the caddisfly and discovered the Antron that would match that insect. We developed the emerging sparkle pupa of the diving caddis.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure as well that Gary L. had published on the subject, but Wright's 1972 book, Fishing the Dry Fly as a Living Insect, really brought the subject into the foreground.

I've seen the quote from LaFontaine before. I'm not trying to take anything away from him; it was a giant leap forward.

How many times have you seen caddis on the surface of the water? Usually I see the shucks and realize the fish are eating caddis. I fish the Catskills and I find it kind of strange, but some years caddis seem as important as mayflies then I'll go 2 or 3 years without hardly ever using one especially early in the season. Later in the fall caddis seem to be more consistent and I'll fish a tan, brown and of course the October caddis. Eric Leiser and Larry Solomon said in the Caddis and the Angler that a gentleman named Ernie Maltz had it figured out on the Beaverkill in the 60's. Not sure if he had specific caddis imitations other than a Henryville Special, or twitched other flies to imitate the caddis.

Gene

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gene

How many times have you seen caddis on the surface of the water? Usually I see the shucks and realize the fish are eating caddis. I fish the Catskills and I find it kind of strange, but some years caddis seem as important as mayflies then I'll go 2 or 3 years without hardly ever using one especially early in the season. Later in the fall caddis seem to be more consistent and I'll fish a tan, brown and of course the October caddis. Eric Leiser and Larry Solomon said in the Caddis and the Angler that a gentleman named Ernie Maltz had it figured out on the Beaverkill in the 60's. Not sure if he had specific caddis imitations other than a Henryville Special, or twitched other flies to imitate the caddis.

Gene

---

I agree, I've never seen many caddis on the surface other than emergers, on or near it. In PA, shades of olive, tan, brown are pretty much what you need in the Fall, at least where I fish.

Of course LaFontaine and others stressed the importance of the pupal stage of the caddis....much more than the adult stage.
Where you fish, when you turn rocks over do you find cased caddis?

Where I usually fish, you rarely see adult caddis on the water. But, there are millions and millions of cased caddis underneath the rocks. Fishing a pupal imitation works well. And, I often use an adult caddis when there is nothing hatching as sort of a searching pattern and often get those "tell tale" slashing strikes.

Almost never just cast a dry if no fish are actively feeding. I will fish nymphs at that time, and yes one will be a caddis imitation of some sort.

My favorite caddis dry imitations are the X Caddis, the Iris Caddis, and this one.......supposed to be an X2 Caddis.

I find that, during the time of year in which caddis are actively hatching, the fish tend to remember them.....whether a hatch is in progress.......whether females are returning to lay eggs......or not.

I have found they will often strike a dry caddis as opportunist as they are in their feeding.


http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/...psjvrxr9az.jpg

No you're right, an EHC is not definitive in itself. And an x-caddis can easily be taken as a mayfly emerger or cripple. But an EHC provides a distinct downwing profile, leading me to think it is taken predominantly as a spent or fluttering caddis. It could just as well be taken as a general tan moth as well. Who's to say the only moth like bug they eat is a caddis fly? ;)

The trailing shuck on an X caddis, the X2 Caddis, or others was developed by Craig Matthews and John Juracek when they noticed crippled caddis with a glistening trailing shuck.
The trailing shuck (not on an EHC) was added to offer the trout the "trigger" of a caddis which wasn't able to cleanly leave its pupal shuck....thus an inviting target. Made important due to the fact that non-crippled caddis, unlike mayflies, exit the surface so quickly as not to offer much of a target to the trout in feeding. This is why you see the slashing rises to Caddis as opposed to sipping strikes with mayflies which are on the surface floating so long after emergence while drying their wings.

A trailing shuck is hardly a distinguishing feature. I believe there are one or two other popular mayfly patterns that have the same features (sic.). Cripples/emergers are not unique to a particular insect. Ultimately, we never really know with absolute certainty when a fish takes a fly what it thought it really was, other than food. Sure we can make assumptions based on behavior, hatch, conditions, etc., but one expects varying amounts of opportunism in any hatch.

Yes, mayfly cripples have a trailing shuck as well.....and it is, therefore, copied in patterns.
The EHC mentioned above, however, does not.......and I believe the Caddis patterns with a trailing shuck are very distinguishable from it.

Perhaps. Perhaps the fact that the X-caddis variants ride in the film is their distinguishing characteristic versus the EHC? Impossible to determine definitively.

Certainly.....the crippled caddis, with shuck, are trapped in the film.

Ever fish the X-caddis without the shuck? It fishes just fine.

Yes sir, and I agree. It fishes very well, crossing over between hatches as well.

What is the fly called in all the fly shops?

I'm referring to clipping the chuck on the water.

I understand that can be done. But, under what name is this effective pattern sold in fly shops?

Well without the shuck it should be called a "Neff caddis". A gentleman by the name of Sid Neff was tying a caddis as far as I know back in the 60's. Craig Mathews added a z-lon shuck and you have the x-caddis. Byron if you have the book "The Caddis and the Angler" by Leiser and Solomon you will see a fly in there called a Neff hairwing. An x-caddis without a trailing shuck.

Gene,
Thanks for the information. Odd, but I don't recall seeing any in the shops in the Yellowstone Area, but all have the X-Caddis. I will look further into the Neff pattern, but wonder why I haven't seen it in shops or with guides?
Will look into it.

Byron, you probably won't find any, I think like anything else you have the new and improved version with the x-caddis series. Probably why Mathews came out with the X2 caddis, always trying to improve on a good thing. I personally think the fly works both ways, with or without the shuck.

Thanks Gene,
Would you consider basically a hackleless EHC more of an imitation of an ovipositing female rather than a crippled rising Caddis?
If so, would you use an egg sack colored butt to the fly?

Not necessarily Byron, but I do put a bright green z-lon butt on a few just to have in my box. I fish few elk hair caddis, most are just old simple x-caddis, shuck, body and deerhair. If I fish a palmered body fly it is a Henryville in different colors. My other caddis patterns are the LaFontaine series of pupa and emergers. Most of the waters I fish here in Ct and catskills are much slower with long flat pools. Sparse patterns seem to be prefered.

Gene

Gene,
What I meant was: if you fish the "Neff Caddis", do you consider it to represent an ovipositing female, as opposed to a crippled riser, If so, do you dub an egg sack at the butt?
Thanks

Byron,

The answer to your question on fly shops is more on the lines of what is being tied by the producing companies.

Most fly fisherman know you can adjust a pattern on the water to suit the conditions. Clipping the hackle bottom flush on an EHC is the ticket at times, sometimes removing a trailing shuck is better on a given day. I've removed the tailing from a Haystack to fish over fish chasing caddis with great results. Same with a sparkle or comparadun.

But you'll never see those patterns stocked in a proshop.

You may have a guide do it for you on the water though. :)

Byron, I consider it an adult, but as I said I do tie some with a shuck as an x-caddis and a few with a bright green stub of z-lon. Kind of a universal place to start. So until I add the shuck, it then becomes an emerger/cripple, or egg sack an egg layer. Just want to make it clear the Neff caddis has been around for a long time, other than Leiser and Solomon's book it wasn't written up to my knowledge. It probably was but I never heard or read about it until the book came out. When Leiser owned the Rivergate fly shop he had a card set up with different caddis colored dubbing and assorted deerhair. That takes me back a few years.

Gene

Gene: thanks

NJ: I've often "adjusted" flies while on stream, although, more often than not, I will switch patterns.

My experience has been that the most effective (thus generally popular) patterns are available in shops. Just my observation over 45 years or so of fly fishing. Others may have different observations.

Well, I think you have the pro shop and "most popular" right. But aside from a few local patterns that end up in some shops, the "effective" parts starts to die off. The most effective flies are in the boxes of guides and knowledgable local fishermen. And most of them tie their own. Shop bins get filled with whatever Orvis, Umpqua or the likes has contracted and marketed. Some are very effective patterns proven over time. But I would fall short of saying that what fills proshop bins are the defining patterns for a given water.

I

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

I find it hard to even believe that Leonard Wright would have allowed that in the book, given that he's probably best remembered for advocating giving his Fluttering Caddis a "sudden inch" of movement. In fact, I sort of believe one of the contributors is directly challenging him on the subject, not LaFontaine, since Caddisflies hadn't been published yet.

As to the importance of caddisflies, I think they're probably just as important as mayflies; it's just that it's easier to tell one mayfly from another at a glance, so we obsess more over them. And of course, it varies from river to river and time to time.

I will point out, however, that just because we use an Elk Hair "Caddis" and catch a bunch of fish, doesn't mean that the fish were taking them as caddis flies. I've had some very memorable evenings fishing an X-caddis over a sulfur hatch/spinner fall. (There's really not much difference between an X-caddis and a Sparkle Dun.) An EHC could reasonably represent a number of different terrestrials (like a small hopper, e.g.) They're pretty generic flies, and caddis are just one thing they can represent.

I do agree with Byron that caddis were under-estimated in the past.

---

Reidetz,
I finally found it, I believe. Gary published "Challenge of the Trout" I believe it was called....in 1976. His ideas about the importance were in that publication at about the right time to have been one of the ones promoting Caddis flies as referred to by Wright in that quote. Especially since he was sort of a "newcomer" to the field.