+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 26

Thread: 'Triggers'

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    1,505

    Default 'Triggers'

    No! Not the horse. The term that many fly tiers use to bolster their claim about a fly pattern or design that they have 'invented' (or whatever word you want to use) and causes the trout to hit that particular fly pattern. Now, do trout strike because: of 'triggers'; the 'impression' of the fly; the 'imitative' likeliness of the fly; the 'presentation'; color; size; shape; All of the above. None of the above. Some of the above?
    Why is it that at the same location, on the same river, on two succeeding days with almost the identical weather pattern and river conditions, at the same time, same hatch, same flies, etc. you have great success and then get skunked?
    I'd really like to hear if anyone really thinks that a particular 'something' works as a trigger. And if it does, why does it not work all the time. And lastly, if you're that sure about 'that 'trigger', then there's only 1 reason to have flies that are another design - you don't really have that much faith in that 'trigger' now do you?

    Sorry, but this is a subject I'm always interested in and have found it interesting to discuss, especially with fly fishers who strongly agree with the concept yet, have several hundred or more flies in their vest.
    All the above written in good humor and opinions are just that.

    Allan

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA, / Pullman, WA
    Posts
    702

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Allan View Post
    No! Not the horse. The term that many fly tiers use to bolster their claim about a fly pattern or design that they have 'invented' (or whatever word you want to use) and causes the trout to hit that particular fly pattern. Now, do trout strike because: of 'triggers'; the 'impression' of the fly; the 'imitative' likeliness of the fly; the 'presentation'; color; size; shape; All of the above. None of the above. Some of the above?
    Why is it that at the same location, on the same river, on two succeeding days with almost the identical weather pattern and river conditions, at the same time, same hatch, same flies, etc. you have great success and then get skunked?
    I'd really like to hear if anyone really thinks that a particular 'something' works as a trigger. And if it does, why does it not work all the time. And lastly, if you're that sure about 'that 'trigger', then there's only 1 reason to have flies that are another design - you don't really have that much faith in that 'trigger' now do you?

    Sorry, but this is a subject I'm always interested in and have found it interesting to discuss, especially with fly fishers who strongly agree with the concept yet, have several hundred or more flies in their vest.
    All the above written in good humor and opinions are just that.

    Allan
    Try some of these and maybe thy faith will be restored..."Subtle, yet definite sparkle is one of the keys to this fly. I really like this fly..."

    http://www.charliesflyboxinc.com/flybox/details.cfm?parentID=97


    P
    T/TB
    Daughter to Father, "How many arms do you have, how many fly rods do you need?"
    http://planettrout.wordpress.com/

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Rothschild (Wausau), Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,530

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Allan View Post
    No! Not the horse. The term that many fly tiers use to bolster their claim about a fly pattern or design that they have 'invented' (or whatever word you want to use) and causes the trout to hit that particular fly pattern.

    Now, do trout strike because: of 'triggers'; the 'impression' of the fly; the 'imitative' likeliness of the fly; the 'presentation'; color; size; shape; All of the above. None of the above. Some of the above?

    Why is it that at the same location, on the same river, on two succeeding days with almost the identical weather pattern and river conditions, at the same time, same hatch, same flies, etc. you have great success and then get skunked?

    I'd really like to hear if anyone really thinks that a particular 'something' works as a trigger. And if it does, why does it not work all the time. And lastly, if you're that sure about 'that 'trigger', then there's only 1 reason to have flies that are another design - you don't really have that much faith in that 'trigger' now do you?

    Sorry, but this is a subject I'm always interested in and have found it interesting to discuss, especially with fly fishers who strongly agree with the concept yet, have several hundred or more flies in their vest.

    All the above written in good humor and opinions are just that.

    Allan


    Allan,

    A member of this forum asked me to repost here, a post I made on another forum about how trout become selective feeders. The questions you are asking, for the most part are answered in the post below. You are basically asking why trout will at one time or in fact at one location with the same flies/hatch hit a particular fly and at another time not.

    The thing to remember is that trout are biologic organisms whose behavior is population based. Given a smorgasbord of food, not everyone on this forum would eat the same food, or in the same order, or in the same amount. And yet we seem surprised when trout that were hitting a fly one day will not on another. Although you say that the weather was the same, the flies were the same, and the time of day was the same, the behavior was NOT the same.

    My answer is that there had to be parameters that were not the same. When you read the post below, one possibility is that the fish where you were fishing were more selective and the fly and presentation that worked when the fish were less selective did not work with a population of fish that became more selective. The longer a hatch goes on and the denser the hatch, there is increasing probability of selective behavior for the reasons I explain in my main post.

    Another possibility is a masking hatch. Could there have been an event such a flying ants that was totally unexpected. Ants are extremely hard for an angler to detect and I have been fooled by them more than once. This happened to me just a few weeks ago on the Madison River when a fly that should have worked did not. There were size 22 flying ants in the drift.

    The term trigger in fly fishing to me means an attribute of the fly, without which the fish will not hit the fly. It may not even be how the fly looks. It can be the water column that the fly seeks, or the angle in that water column that the fly naturally assumes. It is something about the fly that causes the fish to "pull the trigger."

    With the introduction above here is my post on "How Trout Become Selective Feeders".

    Part 1:

    Please forgive me for this long post. I have posted on this subject on other BBs and I have found that most fly fishers do not understand the biologic basis of selectivity or matching the hatch.

    The underlying principle behind matching the hatch is selectivity as a feeding behavior. What is it and why does it occur? Why do fish sometime eat sticks and hit strike indicators, and at other times will ignore a well presented fly that imitates the current hatch?

    There are several principles that need to be understood.

    The first rule is that any behavior is population based. What I mean by that is that when we are fly fishing, it is our nature to assume that the behavior we see is the behavior of all the fish. It is not. Just because one fish takes a fly or refuses a fly, we cannot assume that all the fish will do the same thing.

    In fact, the behavior we observe may be an atypical one. This is called sampling error. When we fish, we are sampling the populations for those fish that are susceptible to the method we are using; and therefore, any success we have is based solely on statistical variation. We are more likely to be successful when using a method that targets a greater proportion of the population, but we often forget that fishing is a statistical sampling method.

    The second rule is that selectivity is a survival mechanism and is not based on intelligence.

    The third rule is that selectivity can only occur in fertile watersheds.

    The fourth rule is that larger fish must become more selective than smaller fish if they are to survive.


    So with those principle in mind, here is my view of selectivity.

    Selectivity occurs only in situations where there is abundant food. If the fish live in a stream where food is scarce, they will feed opportunistically. They cannot be selective to just a single food source because there is never a large or sustained hatch to become selective. So selective feeding occurs only in nutrient rich environments.

    Selectivity is the most efficient method of feeding. An organism can only survive if the energy it gets from food is greater than the energy it expends to catch and eat the food. Selectivity then is a biologic necessary method that optimizes survival. It is a biologic adaptation that gives the organism that uses it a survival advantage. That is the reason that the fish feed selectively. They cannot help themselves from becoming selective feeders.

    Another biological cause of selectivity is the size and age of the fish. As fish grow older and larger, their energy (calorie) requirements become relatively greater. A large fish requires more energy to chase food and yet gains fewer calories per body weight when it eats the food. Because larger fish expend relatively greater energy to catch food, but receives relatively less energy when it captures food; it must feed effectively if it is to survive. What is crucial then is not the total number of calories in a food item, it is the ratio of the calories spent vs the calories consumed per body weight.

    For large fish, selectivity is more important as a survival strategy than for smaller fish. That is why we see smaller fish chasing food and our flies but rarely do large fish chase a fly unless it is a large fly that promises a large reward in calories.

    Once a fish feeds selectively, it cannot help itself from feeding on our fly, if the fly meets the criteria for food.

    How then does a fish become selectivity? Well, they don't do it through intelligence. Trout cannot reason. What trout can do is sample; they sample what they think is food. If the item is food and it is abundant enough, the trout will feed on it often enough that the visual pattern of the food eventually becomes imprinted. Then the fish then begins to search for this food pattern exclusively and ignores most other items that could also be food. If the food is very abundant, the fish will begin to both narrow the area it searches ( the fish feeds only on food that is in a narrow "feeding" lane) and the fish will develop a feeding rhythm. The fish mechanically moves up and down, taking the food item that happens to be in its feeding window.

    The psychologist term for the development of selectivity is Operant Conditioning, Operant conditioning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia as first described by B. F. Skinner. The fish is rewarded when it feeds on an item that is food and if there is enough of this particular item, the fish becomes conditioned to feed only on that food. That conditioning is what we call selectivity.

    The fish does not reason, it takes whatever is in the window that meets its search pattern. It is all automatic and the fish cannot help itself from taking our fly if it meets the search pattern, and it is in the right place (feeding lane) at the right time (rhythm).

    The question then becomes, what are the fishes search criteria (triggers)? Everyone seems to agree that size, shape, behavior and color are search criteria. We know this, not because of positive evidence, but because when the fly does not meet all or most of these criteria, the selective fish refuses to take the pattern when it is in the right place at the right time.



    Last edited by Silver Creek; 08-25-2014 at 09:26 PM.
    Regards,

    Silver

    "Discovery consists of seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought"..........Szent-Gyorgy

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Rothschild (Wausau), Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,530

    Default

    Part 2 of "How Trout Become Selective Feeders".


    When discussing selectivity, or selective feeding, we must realize that we are discussing a biologic system. In any biologic system there is variation in the population and there will be a variation in behavior. So although the discussion above treats a population as a single unit of identical behavior, the reality is that there will be a variance in both behavior and timing, so that what we find is similar to a bell curve distribution. Although the majority of fish may be feeding on a given stage of emergence, some fish may be still feeding on an earlier stage or may have progressed to a later stage.

    Combine this variation in behavior with overlapping or simultaneous multiple hatches, and the possibilities become confounding to the angler who is trying to "match the hatch".

    This confounding behavior, however, is not a conscious attempt by the fish to fool the angler. It is just the result of an efficient feeding method superimposed on a fish population with biological variance.

    Why do some fish take other forms of food when most are selective? Again it is biological variance. Fish are not automatons. There is room for variance, and in fact, if there was no reported variance in a biologic system we would suspect that the data was flawed or manufactured. It would be too good to believe.

    So a fish breaking out of selectivity can mean either biologic variance in a large fish or a juvenile fish that has no need to feed as selectively to optimize its caloric intake.

    It is also apparent to me that selectivity is not an all or none proposition.

    What I mean by that, is that at any given moment you may have both selective and and non selective feeding. Even more confounding, the selective fish may be feeding on different stages of the hatch; or if there are multiple hatches, there may be trout that are feeding selectively on different stages of different hatches.

    If you fish in waters where multiple dense hatches occur often, you will find yourself in such a situation. To say that the theory of selectivity is not valid because a fish takes a Royal Wulff during a hatch does not disprove selectivity. What it proves is that some fish will take a Royal Wulff when some or most of the other fish are feeding selectively.

    Biological systems have variant behavior. To observe such behavior and state that that observation disproves a theory is simply not correct in my view. The question is not how a single individual trout may behave at a single instant in time, but how the average population behaves over a length time. An individual fish may break a selective feeding pattern to take a Royal Wulff. But my view is that this does not negate the overall behavior which is selective feeding.

    Here are two Venn diagrams that illustrate what happens during a hatch and how selectivity develops.

    The vertical Venn diagram below demonstrates what happens during a hatch with the nymphs turning into emergers and emergers into adults. Note that the size of each of the portions is relative to the timing of the hatch. In the diagram below, most of the nymphs that will emerge during that hatched have already turned into adults. At any given time the number of emergers is relatively small compared to the number of nymphs and adults BUT the emergers are trapped in the film so they may be small in absolute terms but they are huge relative to the number of the insects that can be taken by the fish. Most of the adults are already in the air and the majority of the remaining nymphs have not yet begun to emerge.








    The longitudinal Venn diagram below shows the development of selectivity in the fish as they go through a transition phase from opportunistic to selective feeding. Before the hatch they are feeding opportunistically and as the hatch develop they become selective.







    If we look at the population of trout as a population distribution of feeding behavior and graph the number of fish in the Y Axis and selectivity along the X axis we get an approximation of a bell curve. The blue curve is when most of the population is feeding opportunistically and the center of the curve gradually moves to the right to the pink scale as they become selective.






    The graph below demonstrates what happens if the hatch last a long time and is regular and heavy. The population begins to cluster and feed more alike as virtually all the fish center around a core of selective behavior. There are relatively fewer and fewer outlier fish that exhibit no selective behavior. Again they move from a wide spread blue distribution to a more consistent pink bell distribution where the behavior is more uniform across all the feeding fish.







    What the graphs demonstrate is an idealized situation. For this to occur in the real word, the macro and micro environment of each fish would have to be identical. Every fish would have to have access to the same number of nymphs, emergers and adults as every other fish. That cannot and does not occur in the real world.

    So as you move from place to place in a river, the fishes behavior will mirror the change in environment from where your were to where you are.

    Isn't that why we move from a place we are not catching fish in to a place where we hope we will catch fish in? The graphs and explanation above is the scientific underpinning of why we do what we do to catch fish as selectivity develops during a hatch.

    For example, say we are faced with almost all the fish feeding super selectively as in the pink graph above. Frustrated with not being able to "match the hatch" we employ the "hatch breaker strategy" of using a fly that is completely different that the hatch but familiar to the fish when they are feeding opportunistically. So we put on an ant or a beetle or we strip a big streamer. Unfortunately this does not work and with our knowledge of what is going on with these "Red Zone" super selective fish, we decide to move.

    We move and find that our hatch breaker strategy is picking up fish. Why? It is because we have found a population that is in the "Green Zone" and those at the lower end of that green bell curve are still open to feeding opportunistically to the hatch breaker fly we are presenting.

    As a physician with an undergraduate degree in chemistry, I know that theories are propositions that seem to correlate with reality. By that I mean that theories do no have to be absolutely true for them to be of usefulness. All they need to do is to predict or explain behavior such that we can use the theories to help us remember how the world works and to predict what will occur.

    What do I mean by the above? As an example we can use Newtonian physics which explains and predicts the motion of planets. Newton believed that gravity was due to the attraction of heavenly bodies. We now know that Newton was wrong. Einstein showed that gravity is actually a wave that is pushed out from an object that distorts space. Well so what?

    Well, it is apparent to me that even if Newton's theory was wrong, we can still use Newton's laws of gravitation to predict the motion of heavenly bodies. It may be wrong but it correctly predicts what happens and what will happen.

    Therefore, the theory of selectivity does not have to be absolutely true. If selectivity explains the behavior of a fish and predicts what will happen during a hatch, it gives us useful information and gives us a framework with which to understand and predict behavior.

    Selectivity and any other "theory" of fishing does not have to be absolutely true. It just has to explain and predict behavior better than a competing theory.



    Last edited by Silver Creek; 08-25-2014 at 06:34 PM.
    Regards,

    Silver

    "Discovery consists of seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought"..........Szent-Gyorgy

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Ontario Canada
    Posts
    363

    Default

    Wow! Tough post to follow but here goes. If a 'trigger' is something about the fly that entices a fish to eat it ....I challenge anyone to tie a fly that catchers fish and doesn't have a trigger.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Rothschild (Wausau), Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,530

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tig View Post
    Wow! Tough post to follow but here goes. If a 'trigger' is something about the fly that entices a fish to eat it ....I challenge anyone to tie a fly that catchers fish and doesn't have a trigger.
    Trigger is used in the context of selective feeding. I should have made that more clear.

    When trout are sampling the drift, they try all sorts of things as the poster that referred to cigarette butts noted. They hit thingamabobbers, they hit floating leaves, etc.

    Selective feeding implies that the fish MUST be selective to something about the fly or the presentation. Sampling feeding means they are just sampling the drift so there is no specific "trigger" other that the item happens to be in the drift.

    If what I posted is true, then it also must be true that when we fly fish, we are sampling the trout. We are sampling the trout for those trout that are susceptible to the fly and techniques we are using.

    Have you ever been in the situation where you caught a number of trout with a particular fly or technique and then that fly stopped working and the other feeding fish refused the fly? What has happened is that you have sampled and caught the fish that were susceptible to your fly but the other fish were feeding on another food item or the same food item that is at another sage of emergence. You have just proved biologic diversity of feeding behavior.

    Fly fishing is a method of sampling the fish and we hope that method of sampling matches what the fish is susceptible to. It is no different than using a magnet to pick out the objects that contain iron from a box of items. So we should not be surprised when one fly works and another fly does not. That is why we carry various flies.

    Fish can also change their behavior based on what has happened to them while feeding. This is the negative behavior modification of operant conditioning. Recall that selective behavior is the result of the fish being rewarded by food when it eats a particular item so it become operant conditioned to eat that item. This is selectivity.

    They can also become selective in the opposite sense in that they will refuse an item that give them negative feedback such as being caught by a particular appearing or acting fly. This is why they refuse a fly that is dragging. They can also become selective in the negative sense that they will refuse particular flies. We experience this type of behavior when a fly that has worked well becomes the "magic" fly on a river and then over a season it stops working. This is negative operant conditioning in action. The fish will ignore this fly because they have been caught with it with negative consequences. This is another reason I will carry several types of dry fly patterns of the same hatch.

    I have been in a situation on the San Juan River when the fish were so selective they fed only on a subset of BWO duns. I was fishing with some friends and was called over by one of them who was casting to a pod of feeding rainbows in slow water. He had casted to these fish and not been able to catch a single one so he called me over to try. I asked him to cast again and I could not see any problem with his presentation. There was no drag. The fish just refused the fly.

    We could see that the rainbows were taking mature duns. The fish had refused both his comparaduns and parachutes. I had some no hackles and put one on and the fish took the fly.

    Then I caught a few more but there were fish in the pod that refused the no hackle and yet I could see that they were taking duns. Why did these fish refuse?

    I stopped casting and looked a bit closer and I finally noticed that these fish refused the duns with perfectly upright wings and took only the duns that were canted to one side or the other with one wing up and the other down. So I fixed my fly so that it would float canted, and I was able to catch more of the fish.

    This is the only time I have ever witnessed this super specific feeding behavior because the fish on the San Juan are not angler shy. You can really get close to them and they will continue to feed.

    My theory is that these are super pressured fish, and when the hatches are dense, as with the BWO hatches on the San Juan, there are enough of these canted duns for the fish to feed just on these. I know that this type of super selective behavior exists, and it is not surprising to me that some fish will refuse a parachute and take a comparadun or vice versa.



    Last edited by Silver Creek; 08-25-2014 at 09:50 PM.
    Regards,

    Silver

    "Discovery consists of seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought"..........Szent-Gyorgy

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Kapaa, hawaii
    Posts
    5,480
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Silver,
    Thanks for posting. Appreciate your clarification of the subject. LaFontaine, I believe, was a practitioner who well understood the concept.

    For example, in one of his books, he says: "It's the first strong visual characteristic, the one triggering the trout's decision to take a natural or an imitation, that is critical. This feature varies even with different stages of the same insect, such as a mayfly, and the matching fly must have it."

    Many great fishers, including Gary Borger, promote the "exaggerated trigger". For example, if trout are selectively taking a certain adult, floating dun, they would argue fishing a matching pattern with oversized wings Might be fruitful due to the fact that the wings are the first characteristic coming into the trout's window of vision.....and they are looking for the distinctive wings.

    From LaFontaine's "Dry Flies - New Angles":


    Last edited by Byron haugh; 08-25-2014 at 06:10 PM.

  8. #8

    Default

    I fee; certain patterns are effective because of particular "triggers" within their design. However, I don't think that the trigger is always what the fish want on a given day. I think where folks are led astray is when they feel that the pattern itself is what made the fish eat it. I would suggest that they only eat a fly when you get lucky and give the fish what THEY want. Regardless of what fly it is.

    Fish quite often make us look brilliant.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    3,545

    Default

    I do incorporate a "trigger" in my nymphs but the "trigger" is not the pattern. While fishing late one evening, a mayfly hatch arrived and they were everywhere and I caught one and noticed that their head/eye had an orange pink tint to it plus there was a tint of it in the body. I guess it was not really a strong orange color and maybe a little orange/pink cast to it. I started using orange thread on my nymphs for the head. I would complete the fly and do a whip finish using whatever color thread I used for making the fly and then do another whip finish over the first one using orange thread. It may make no difference but I have more confidence when fishing them.
    Warren
    Fly fishing and fly tying are two things that I do, and when I am doing them, they are the only 2 things I think about. They clear my mind.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    1,076

    Default

    Of course there are triggers...we just don't know what they are, hence why we constantly generate new fly patterns in the futile but fun quest for the one magic pattern that works always. Some tire of this game and simplify their patterns to basic generic patterns (refer Bob Wyatt's work for example) but even those souls follow a design philosophy that emphasizes what they think is important. This is as much as part of the sport, as casting, and to me one of the more fascinating and intellectually stimulating aspects of fly fishing and tying. What one must wonder would happen if one were to someday discover the perfect pattern? Despite being the implicit quest of all fishers, it would really make the sport a less satisfying endeavor in my mind.

    And of course, "Happy trails, to you..."
    Last edited by whatfly; 08-25-2014 at 02:38 AM.

+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. Strike Triggers for Streamers
    By Gandolf in forum Fly Tying
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 05-01-2013, 04:16 AM
  2. Triggers!
    By Mike-Connor in forum Fly Tying
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-03-2009, 05:06 PM
  3. Feeding Triggers
    By Gnu Bee Flyer in forum Fly Anglers Online
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 02-09-2008, 11:10 PM
  4. Olfactory Triggers
    By Lotech in forum Fly Anglers Online
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-22-2006, 02:23 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts