Joe,
Can't speak for those better tiers than me, but for me, I stick to deer hair. More substantive (even in thinned down bunch) than poly or CDC for parachuting hackle. There is some really fine deer hair available for the smaller hook sizes. Just my feelings.
Last edited by Byron haugh; 10-24-2016 at 12:10 PM.
I'm sure there's a stream somewhere where that's true, but there are also streams and conditions where exactly the opposite order is true.Originally Posted by planettrout
I don't know about that since I haven't fished Hot Creek Ranch in a very long time. Their dry fly only (except when the flows are really blasting) rule is a bit of a turn-off for me. About 90% of my fly fishing is done sub-surface...
PT/TB
Bob
Really? I'll let Ernest Schwiebert answer that ( Trout, Volume II, Pg. 1421 ):
...believe the previous from Dave Whitlock and this - or don't, reality does not have an opinion...add one of these to the FF kit and that thing with the red bulb will help one arrive at fact based conclusions:
PT/TB
Last edited by planettrout; 10-24-2016 at 02:38 PM.
Daughter to Father, "How many arms do you have, how many fly rods do you need?"
http://planettrout.wordpress.com/
That doesn't in any way contradict what I said. 90% of my trout are taken within an inch of the surface.Really? I'll let Ernest Schwiebert answer that ( Trout, Volume II, Pg. 1421 ):
PT/TB
The only quibble that I have with that passage is 90% Schwiebert mentions. It's is just a a made up number -- nobody's done the study. There are places where the number is closer to 100% (think browns in Lake Ontario) and other places where blow-in of terrestrials is a significant portion of a trout's diet (think headwater brook trout streams), it's going to be much, much lower. And sub-surface doesn't necessarily mean on the bottom. (Indeed, I fish a wet fly most of the time -- just under.) It also doesn't take in account the fact that fish are opportunistic feeders; if presented with floating food, they may take even if what they've been eating was subsurface. (Or not.)
I've been on streams in both the Sierras and the Rockies where a skittering fly will take a fish on every single cast, all day long. (It get boring, quickly, BTW.)
I'll certainly agree that there are times and places where a fly on bottom is the most effective, but by no means all the time or in every place. You may gravitate towards streams where it's true, or it may happen to be true in the place where you're able to fish, but it's not true in the places that I fish the most. (In fact my catch rate went up considerably when I gave up nymphs pretty much altogether on my local streams.)
Dry fly fishing was not invented to make fish harder; it was invented to catch fish during those times when a sunken fly didn't cut it. Halford et al went overboard and tried to apply the method to all times and conditions. They were wrong in that, but that doesn't change the fact that there are many situations where it is the most effective method, and at times skittering, a la Leonard Wright is absolutely more effective.
Right now on my local steam would be a perfect example of when a nymph on bottom is absolutely useless. The leaf clutter is foot or more thick; any attempt at bottom dredging would be an exercise in frustration. Skittering a caddis, however pulled up some pretty big (for the stream) fish for me last weekend, as did fishing a wet in the film.
Last edited by redietz; 10-24-2016 at 03:17 PM. Reason: Addtional comment
Bob
Like I said, believe what you want to believe...
"However, studies absolutely prove trout eat 90% of their diet underwater."
http://flyanglersonline.com/begin/101/part14.php
...then get a stomach pump, use it and report those findings back...
PT/TB
Daughter to Father, "How many arms do you have, how many fly rods do you need?"
http://planettrout.wordpress.com/
Do you seriously believe that "studies" have covered every trout population in existence?
Back when I kept fish to eat, I looked at the stomach contents of every trout caught. I came to a different conclusion.
Bob
That's a good question, Joe, and I do agree with Byron (who is being overly modest with his skill). My needs haven't pushed me to be a comfortable tyer of tiny bugs. Given your location relative to the San Juan and Colorado waters, I understand your interest in smaller patterns.
As a caddis, I'd rarely have a use for the E/C below #16,...and never below #18. I tried tying the E/C in a smaller black midge version with a poly wing subbed and wasn't pleased. I do like tying with poly in some applications, but it doesn't give that feedback that the right clump of good hair gives when I cinch it down.
Here's a BWO tilt wing dun on a #20 with a deer wing and split tails. As small as I care to go in this style.
Man, that's a beauty! Can't find those in the bins I look through!
If I had a bunch of those, I would tear up the BWO hatches..........
I agree. That's a great BWO tie. I see a step-by-step coming up in the near future.
Thanks guys. I guess it's not bad for aging eyes and fingers.
lastchance, the "How-to" is really straightforward. Not a complicated pattern.
Byron, what's been your choice for BWO?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
