Do fish mind?

[mickporter]

There have been a few threads recently regarding matching materials, hooks etc..

I have been taking part in a really interesting discussion about colour descriptions. Someone else was panicking to find a hook that matched a particular recipe.

It seems that some of us fly tyers have become so paranoid about matching a pattern exactly that actually catching fish has become second.

I have to admit that I often become paranoid about matching my local flylife. Trying wherever possible to make a fly as close as possible to the originals. However when I get it wrong, the fish don't really seem to mind. I do not catch many more fish when I produce a fly with the correct number of legs, that exact shade of olive, or using that particular shade of thread that only comes from the belly of a Yak bread in the foothills of the Kyber Pass!!

I wonder when Sawyer tied his killer bug, he spent weeks negotiating with Chadwicks for that exact shade of yarn. I think it was exactly the shade of yarn that his wife had in her sewing box after darning his socks!! Recently in the UK small cards of the original Chadwicks 477 wool have sold for over ?75!! I tie them with grey wool and catch fish. Maybe if I have that exact colour I would catch much bigger and better fish......

Does it all really matter??? Maybe I should give up fishing and just tie flies? Maybe I should just wrap a bit of fluff on a hook and catch fish instead?? Perhaps there is a middle ground, maybe not!!!!!!!

[MOturkE]

I personally don't think all fish care whether the object in their mouth is food or fluff. However, there are some that do!

My favorite (and most productive) fly to date is tied with sky blue or gray-blue wool and a brown or red hackle. It's a woolly worm pattern that has just taken more sunfish, gills and bass than any other fly I've ever used.

Why do they like to put something with blue wool in their mouths? It's because of the hackle. The hackle gives it the right movement to look buggy and the wool just adds bulk. I imagine any color of wool would have the same result, I just know the blue will work so I keep using blue.

By the way, don't trade fishing for tying or casting for catching. Just enjoy everything...

------------------
There's almost nothin' wrong with the first lie, it's the weight of all the others holdin' it up that gets ya'! - Tim

[This message has been edited by MOturkE (edited 10 February 2006).]

[mickporter]

In the uk some streams are gin clear. It is good practice therefore to cast to fish you see rising or taking nymphs just under the surface.

It needs a lot of stealth because if you appear in the fish's circle of view they will just dissapear. So getting behind the fish and upstream casting is the order of the day. Because you are casting over their heads and allowing the fly to drift down, any splash, or drag of the fly will result in a blank day. Also the fly needs to be as exact representation of the original as possible both in size and the way it drifts into the fishes taking zone. However I doubt that the number of legs or the exact shade matters too much. I think its very much behaviour and presentation that is paramount.

If the fish is taking flies from the surface, then fish a surface fly, if taking emergers, then just below, or if boiling for nymphs then get the fly down. They certainly will not be checking for thread shades or numbers of tails.

[Bamboozle]

I don't think it matters; I never did regarding hook types and the like but adding some exactness to color matching makes it more fun for me when trying new ideas or creating new patterns.

Does it get me more fish? I'll never know because the fish I catch don't seem to mind and the ones that refuse my offerings never tell .

Urine stained vixen fox belly anyone?

[Ron Mason]

Some things matter a great deal when fish are in a selective feeding mode. Silouette and size being the most important. Generally I think the more impressionistic patterns are more effective overall. Many times fish are not in a selective feeding situation and that is when attractor patterns shine. Color is probably the least important factor in dry fly design. Fish see all dry flies in back lighting. There are no light sources in the bottom of a trout stream. Hold a fly up to the light and see it the way a fish will. You will barely be able to tell what color the fly is, subtle shades of color are meaningful only to the tyer. Of course tyers are obsessed with color because it is fairly easy to control and it is much more important to fish if the fly is a sub surface imitation.

------------------
Ron M

[mickporter]

So why do I spend a fortune buying Whiting Genetic Capes and Saddles??

[fishyfranky]

So why do I spend a fortune buying Whiting Genetic Capes and Saddles??

Because 95% of fly tying has nothing to do with fish and catching them

[JeremyH]

I think the most important thing with a dry fly is size and imitating the way the fly interacts with the surface of the water. With nymphs the most important thing is a "general impression". I think too much realism in a nymph is often counterproductive because all of those appendages and antennae hanging off of your fly aren't acting the way a fish would expect them to.

Here's a little aside that sort of applies. When you pick up a scud what does it look like? It curls up in your hand right? Have you ever seen one that is swimming? They are board straight when they swim. The next time you're tying up some scuds try tying them on a straight hook like a TMC3769. I think you'll be pleased with the results on the stream. A scud tied on curved hook looks cool. A scud tied on a straight hook looks a little silly. I think you'll be surprised at which one works better, though.

Having said all of that, many time fly tying is about what you can create. It's just as much fun to tie something that pleases your eye as it is to tie something just to catch fish. Fortunately, especially with dry flies, they can often do both.

Jeremy