Old "standard" fly patterns vs. new designs

[Steven]

However, these patterns of Rene's are not "hot new flies". He has been tying and fishing them for years and years. They aren't "new" flies to him and the shops he sells them through. They really aren't "trigger" flies. They are more "realistic" designs from his having fished the rivers around the Henry's Fork and studied the fish and the insects. He observes the river nearly each day.

Trout do learn. Most of us have had a strike with a fish in which the fly was taken, but immediately came off. Once the fish has "felt the steel" or even seen unnatural actions of the artificial, good luck catching him again for quite a while.....................

One has to wonder...If trout do "learn," why haven't they "learned" to avoid Harrop's patterns? My presumption is that after all these years, these flies are popular on the streams to which you are referring, but maybe not.

[Byron haugh]

They are popular there - particularly amongst the guides

Here's the story:
Generally or somewhat representative patterns work best on rivers with little fishing pressure. As I said, at the end of the perspective, famous tier George Grant once said that in "the old days" on great Western rivers, "it would be hard to find a fly that didn't work".

Unfortunately, today some of those rivers get hammered day after day by fishermen and by guided fishermen. The trout become conditioned to "hopper/droppers", etc. They become skidish and more selective in their feeding.

On really technical rivers, Rene has developed some more realistic patterns which take advantage of newer materials (not new, but "re-discovered" in the last 10-20 years - CDC, etc.)
The concept is that such flies which closely resemble the various stages of insects with materials that allow the imitation to "behave" like the real insects are more effective on such rivers or sections of such rivers receiving the most fishing pressure.

Now, you are certainly free to dismiss this belief. However, I would like to meet anyone here on the Ranch of the Henry's Fork in the last two weeks of September. I will use patterns designed by Rene for that water and you use standard catskill patterns and we will have a little contest?

[flybugpa]

are you springing for the plane ticket?

[Byron haugh]

Springing for mine from Kauai

[flybugpa]

no mine from pa , round trip. custom glass has eaten its way into all my road money this year and i have another being wrapped this weekend

[Byron haugh]

Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough for others.

I found this passage in Rene Harrop's great book "Learning From the Water". Now, I know most here are much more knowledgable than Rene, but I'm not. Here's what he says at one point in his book.

""

[Allan]

Byron,
You know that throughout this conversation, I have not implied or stated my opinion RE: the initial point of contention. I simply stated that everyone is entitled to their opinion and none is necessarily more valid, on any given day or given water, or specified condition, than any other opinion. However, I would like to know, again I'm not even giving my opinion RE: the initial point, what is this anti-Catskill position you constantly take? "I will use patterns designed by Rene for that water and you use standard catskill patterns and we will have a little contest". You probably know what a Catskill style dry fly looks like and the general make-up of one. However, I really doubt you have any idea what a Catskill fly is. There are many varied styles, materials, stages, etc. No one need stick to dries to be within the Catskill fly family.
Oh, and by the way, a challenge as you described means nothing because it's not a challenge. Additionally, next time you see or speak to Rene Harrop, ask him if he'd accept such a challenge vs. someone knowledgeable on the West Branch Delaware at a time specified by the Delaware fisher. He might accept because he'd want to fish the water and could afford the expense but probably would anticipate not doing as well as the native person. So, in short, your challenge is total BS and you know it. Or maybe you'll accept a similar challenge by coming east and fishing the Delaware with only flies from the Harrop collection?

Again, I have not offered my opinion about your initial question.

Allan

[Byron haugh]

Thanks for the invite Allan, but I already have my airline ticket to Last Chance Idaho.
By the way, I do know what a Castskill fly is. I have tied them over the years, have a shadow box of Mary Dette's flies and have read extensively about them.
Aloha Allan!

[Steven]

They are popular there - particularly amongst the guides

Here's the story:
Generally or somewhat representative patterns work best on rivers with little fishing pressure. As I said, at the end of the perspective, famous tier George Grant once said that in "the old days" on great Western rivers, "it would be hard to find a fly that didn't work".

Unfortunately, today some of those rivers get hammered day after day by fishermen and by guided fishermen. The trout become conditioned to "hopper/droppers", etc. They become skidish and more selective in their feeding.

On really technical rivers, Rene has developed some more realistic patterns which take advantage of newer materials (not new, but "re-discovered" in the last 10-20 years - CDC, etc.)
The concept is that such flies which closely resemble the various stages of insects with materials that allow the imitation to "behave" like the real insects are more effective on such rivers or sections of such rivers receiving the most fishing pressure.

Now, you are certainly free to dismiss this belief. However, I would like to meet anyone here on the Ranch of the Henry's Fork in the last two weeks of September. I will use patterns designed by Rene for that water and you use standard catskill patterns and we will have a little contest?

It strikes me you argue two different things: 1) more realistic patterns are better than less; 2) trout learn.

I accept that one will catch more fish on heavily plied water using patterns that more realistically imitate life stages, move like the real thing, sit on the water properly etc., etc. But I'd suggest this would be true on any water.

What I find hard to accept is that trout with the brain a size of a pea "learn" (no matter what your definition of learning is). And if they do learn, one has to make the argument that they are smart enough to figure out, after awhile, to recognize a catskill, but not smart enough to recognize one of Harrop's flies. I simply find it hard to buy this.

[Byron haugh]

Steven,
There are MANY books written about the trout's ability to survive. This fish with a brain the size of a pea knows how to survive. He knows how and where to reproduce each year. He knows how to feed himself. He generally knows how to avoid the circling birds of prey; etc., etc.

Evolution and nature provide wildlife with instincts and the ability survive. These inherited instincts allow the trout to adjust to conditions and to discern between likely food and not-so-likely food. This is evidenced particularly well during a heavy insect hatch. The trout key on a particular insect, and stage of that insect, and will not usually feed on any other insect which happens to float by... I know some folks throw out the very unusual situations like a trout eating a cigarette butt, etc. However these are very much the exception.

I might suggest the book "Selective Trout" by Carl Richards and Doug Swisher.

That "pea sized brain" doesn't do anything but keep that fish alive and reproducing. That is all it is used for.