Matching the Hatch

[eaustin]

So is the concept of matching the hatch just so much crap? If brown trout are readily taking the #6 Parmacheene Belle or a #6 Rich Widow, why do we bother? It's obvious that at that point, these trout will take ANYTHING. I'm amazed they're not eating sticks and rocks. If it looks alive, they go for it? Man, not on the Mad River here in Ohio. I couldn't get fish to take anything bigger than a #22 griffiths gnat last fall. Does size not matter one whit to these fish? I thought size was everything to these picky, fished over browns. You guys catching all these fish on #6 wets are not fishing the same spring creeks I do. I'm dumbfounded. Not saying these flies don't have a place, not at all. I'm sure in fast water where fish have to react to anything that floats by they're a real attention getter. But there are good reasons that the #6 flies don't sell any more, and the number one reason is, nobody buys them.
Eric

[mantis]

Don Bastian sells them at the shows but most people just collect his flies. He does all the Bergman flies and some Helen Shaws. I'll use a wet fly once in a while but usually a March Brown and a size 10 at that. I have seen Donnie catch fish with them in a Lake in SW Pa.

[eaustin]

My post sounds like an attack on #6 wet flies, and I don't mean it to be. What I'm really trying to get at here is whether or not matching the hatch is all it's cracked up to be. If all these guys are catching fish on #6 wets, why am I spending so much time and energy trying to tie just what they're eating? I should just tie the old Bergman flies and let it go. Or fish a banjo minnow or something. I like the idea of fly fishing being something of a science, but I might just be kidding myself.
Eric

I'd say I spend 70% of my fishing time w/ tiny dries, nymphs or midges. I wouldn't even consider a #6 wet on most rivers/streams I fish, though I'd be willing to give it a shot. I do fish larger attractor dries on smallstreams for hungry opportunistic trout rather often; it seems they're not picky.

tough fishing situations, though, most often call for tiny flies and I'm ok w/ that, but I struggle to see them more and more these daze.

mgj

[mantis]

Don't forget a lot of those colorful flies were created in another era . Used to be a lot more Brook Trout around then then there are now. It's the only native trout in NY (okay, I know it's a Char), and Brookies will hit anything.

[eaustin]

Right, I think of those flies as brook trout flies mostly, or flies for lake fishing. Many were created in Maine, some in the Adirondacs, back in a day when the brookies were in abundance. I think that these flies deserve more of a place now than they currently enjoy, but that said, I can't imagine using these for my day in, day out fishing as some have suggested. But the real thrust of my comments here is this: If we're not trying to match the hatch, or make flies that look generally like the food the fish are eating, then what's the point? Why would you want to fish with a fly that looks totally UNLIKE anything the fish are eating? I know that under certain circumstances fish will eat anything you throw out there. My friend caught a brookie on a Doublemint gum wrapper on a hook when we were young. But those days are mostly gone. Now bass and bluegill, that's a whole different matter, and these flies will work well for them. And I know Gary LaFontaine caught a trout on a Polka. But even Ray Bergman himself, talking about the March Brown, a big fly here, says sizes 10,12,14, sometimes 8. Olive Dun and Olive Quill, 10,12,14. Pale Sulphur 12,14,16. The flies that are listed as #6 are largely for brookies, and he says this: "On the whole I'd recommend the large sizes for lake and pond fishing, for heavy fast water, or water that is discolored. I'd consider sizes 10,12, and 14 most generally useful for ordinary stream fishing, with 18 excellent for some clear water and wary trout conditions, particularly in the late season."
I think Ray says it even better than I do.
Eric

[This message has been edited by eaustin (edited 05 November 2005).]

[BigFlatBrook]

There's a local guy here in Jersey that does TU presentations using underwater video that he shoots himself. They are very enlightening. His videos and commentary have convinced me that trout pick non-food items out of the drift all the time.

I think there's a couple of reasons for this. First of all, distinguishing food and non-food items in the drift is probably a difficult detection problem. Likely trout are genetically biased to favor taking an item rather than not take. Obviously, brook trout are great examples of this because they evolved in a rather infertile environment, and therefore had to "take more chances" in order to survive.

Second, I think all biologically successful creatures are genetically programmed to experiment regarding food sources. Otherwise, they would be unable to adapt.

My bottom line is that matching the hatch is over-rated, but that your fly has to exhibit certain triggering features in order to be effective. Those triggering features might differ depending on what actually appears in the drift. Nothing with a hook sticking out of it can "match the hatch" anyway.

By the way, I also think there is no such thing as "natural drift" -- just various approximations to it. The currents in moving water are just too complex for anything connected to a fly line to really drift naturally.

[eaustin]

That's a fascinating theory BigFlatBrook. So Rene Harrop is just chasing his tail studying all those insects and trying to imitate their look and behavior. Somebody should let him know. And all that underwater research Gary LaFontaine did, Vince Marinaro's observations, Art Flick's work, just a waste of time. It really doesn't matter a bit what we put on the end of a hook. The fish will take it anyway.

And forget about getting a good drag free drift, THAT doesn't even matter. Well I've got news. If I sit you down on Milesnick's Spring Creek in Montana and you drag a #6 Parmacheene Belle through that water, which is teeming with big trout, you'll scare half of them to death, and the other half will be laughing in your face. How do I know this? I saw a guy from England one day doing just this. He had been in Montana for two weeks and hadn't caught a fish. He was using big wet flies just not suited for the SELECTIVE trout there. So there are some times at least where you'd better match the hatch, and do it without drag.
Eric

[dudley]

Huh??
Reguarding Gary LaFontaine, his underwater research resulted in his theories about triggers. If fact all his ties that I can think of were all about triggers, not "match the hatch".
Exactly the same thing you just flamed BFB for.

------------------
Support politicians who support the environment

[This message has been edited by dudley (edited 05 November 2005).]

[eaustin]

I'm not arguing about triggers or impressionistic flies. They still are imitative of insect behavior. I'm arguing about #6 wet flies that are five times the size of the naturals. But ok, if you don't want to match the hatch, it's fine with me. I've always been a match the hatch fisherman, it just makes sense to me. Each to his own. As far as wet flies go, I'm more in the Sylvester Nemes camp I guess. The biggest fly in "Soft Hackled Fly Imitations" is a #10 Green Drake. He's done a very scientific investigation of Montana wet fly fishing in this book, and his average size fly is about a 16.
Eric