... as we go along.

In my case, whether I am on one of those "cutthroat only" creeks or not, I am almost always as much interested in how the fly I choose to fish will work as I am in catching fish. When I am fishing with one of my own original patterns, a new one or an older one ( which is most of the time ), the important thing is to see if it works as is, or maybe needs some tweeking.

So I tend to be adverse to droppers for hoppers or any other dry fly that I will be fishing.

One of the replies above suggests that the trout in particular rivers just don't eat bugs on the surface so there is no point to fishing dries - it's a nymph river, end of story. That may well be the case. But is it possible that the dry fly selection is the problem ?? Maybe instead of falling back on a proven nymph record, working with dries only until finding one or more that will work would be more rewarding ??

One of the replies above suggests that often times the fish refuse the dry and go for the nymph. Which makes me wonder if the fishies are actually refusing the dry, or just taking the opportunity to get the easier snack ?? If there were no dropper, maybe they wouldn't refuse the dry. And if they did, maybe it would say something about the dry that is being used and the need to find one that is not so readily and often refused ??

A seemingly prevalent attitude is that the hopper / dry might catch a fish or two so why not use it. If catching one or two more fish is that important, then by all means it makes sense to do the hopper / dropper thing. But if it in fact only catches another fish or two, then why bother with the hopper / dry and the expense involved ?? Why not just use a thingamabobber ( or a cheaper homebrew indicator ), which costs not much and will last many times longer than any hopper / dry and is almost certainly cheaper in the long run, and less hassle in the short run ??

John