|
I have studied, at great length, the causes of trout strikes,
from many different sources. All seem to be in agreement that
there are three basic reasons for the strike as follows; to eat,
to protect the space where they reside or spawn and finally
out of curiosity/playfulness. Having said this, I would
respectfully submit there is a definite separation or
difference between attractor patterns and proven imitations
of natural aquatic foods at the disposal of, specifically,
wild trout and or salmonoids, in general. It would be my
guess that most of us would agree that when a significant
hatch is in progress on most bodies of water, it would be
the wise angler that attempts to match some phase or stage
of the hatching insect with a natural imitation tied to
replicate the dominant hatching insect as opposed to
offering an attractor pattern to the feeding trout.
As we go through our fly boxes, attempting to select the
correct pattern for those, sometimes, rather selective
trout, we often times come up empty and are forced to
reevaluate the conditions, perhaps, intensifying our
observation techniques. Admittedly, there are times
when we anglers often reach a point of frustration as
we go through this process without success and will
ultimately resort, on occasion, to an attractor pattern,
sometimes a terrestrial pattern, that has been successful
for us in past similar situations.
This brings several questions to mind; the main question
being the reason we fly fish rather than use any other
method to catch wild trout, secondly, what we hope to
accomplish while on the water, specifically in the pursuit
of wild trout. My first thought would be, we can discount
the need for food as being a reason. Could we discount the
number of fish we desire to bring to the net on each outing
or should it be the size of the fish we catch on any given
outing? After many hours of observing anglers on the water
and through subsequent conversations with many an angler,
it's blatantly apparent that the reasons are as varied as
the number of fly anglers.
The quality of the fly-fishing experience has many definitions,
however, I believe most fly anglers choose that approach
with the idea that it's more productive but mostly more
sporting, not necessarily in that order for each angler.
It has occurred to me there is a typical progression fly
fishers go thru all of which become possible as the fly
fisher's skills improve from being able to read the water,
spot fish, perfect rod and line skills and recognize and
successfully evaluate stream conditions along with a good
knowledge of the insects in and around the water. As the
elements of the total equation fall into place, the fly
angler's rate of success increasingly improves exponentially
with his consistency.
In a perfect world this would be the general rule, however,
as soon as the human element is entered into the equation,
exceptions appear, at which time the objective fly angler
is wise to be aware of and evaluate his own individual short
comings. These short comings can manifest themselves in all
aspects of the sport, usually resulting with the number of
compromises the angler is willing to make in his methods
and to the water he fishes.
We all have our favorite "fishin' holes" and or streams
and usually because we tend to be more successful at these
secret spots but the true measure of an accomplished angler
is to have similar success on any water that has comparable
populations of fish, then by going the long way round,
reading the water, locating holding fish, identifying
the dominant insect and exercising experienced rod and
line skills.
When all else fails and you must have fish, a mixture of
Kieselguhr and Nitroglycerin packed into a variety of
elongated shaped cylinders and wrapped tightly with
heavy waxed paper can be extremely effective, however,
beware, this material can cause headaches in either of
it's states, dormant or active, a small compromise at
worst. This method is not recommended nor accepted in
most parts of the world but I have heard it is effective. ~ Osprey
|
