Hello,

I am currently reading Bob Wyatt's fabulous book, "Trout Hunting: The Pursuit of Happiness," and it helps me reconsider the following common rationale behind development of today's many new fly patterns:

Because of catch-and-release practices and heavy fishing pressure on many famous waters, trout become more and more educated, suspicious, and discriminating. So, old, general, impressionistic flies become no longer as reliable as before because trout come to learn that they are fakes, and hence we need new, more lifelike/exact/specific imitations.

Being a presentationist and impressionist, Bob does not buy the above argument, and I agree with him.

What about your experience? Do you think that good old general patterns are still as good or better than today's new fly patterns as long as your approach and presentation are careful and right? Or, do you buy the above rationale so that you think Catskill dry flies, for example, are too general and well-known to trout to be your go-to flies?

I appreciate your comments.



[This message has been edited by adso4 (edited 03 September 2005).]