A fishing friend (and many others) suggest, for example, that the X-Caddis can be taken as much for a mayfly as a caddis fly.
I think, to the extent this happens, the trout are taking the fly as a caddis even though there may not be caddis on the water. Caddis are somewhat ubiquitous during most of the mayfly hatching season.
I think that while an X-Caddis, dressed like a particular mayfly, may look to us a bit like a mayfly…
I know many, including my fishing friend will disagree, it is my belief. If I remember to do so, I will try to test this out this June/July. Problem is, when I am fishing to a mayfly hatch, I get too excited to start experimenting…Know what I mean?
Obviously, until a Trout learns English, nobody will know for sure…but…
Is the look of the X-Caddis from below that much different from that of the Harrop Hair Wing Dun?
Do the trout even get that view? Don’t they have to lead the fly (like a QB leading a wide receiver) in order to intercept it?
I think the best we can say conclusively is that the trout takes it for food. Even during selective feeding on hatches they will take the odd item that doesn’t look like anything else on the water (IMHO). Having said that I think your fly would make a great mayfly substitute.
Steven, That is sort of my argument. All studies (that I am aware of) of what a trout sees in the water agree that they first sight wing tips of an insect or a fly coming into their “window” of vision. Then, they see the impression in the meniscus on the water of the body/legs; finally, when the object is close to them, the wings align with the body and show the entire insect/fly.
So, if fish are keying on mayflies I believe some sort of upwind is very important. When caddis are about, or were recently about, they don’t need upright wings to be present.
As to the Harrop Hairwing Dun, most folks suggest it is sort of an all-purpose pattern, but not the best when fishing to picky feeding fish. When fish are actively feeding on a particular mayfly pattern, I don’t think the Hairwing Dun would be the best choice and I suggests that Rene would agree. His most promoted/used patterns are more lifelike…the cripples and the more standard type upwind flies he and his family tie.
It’s the last part that I’m not 100% sure of and have trouble visualizing. As I visualize it, if the trout is rising while the fly is coming down, it will never get a view of the fly from directly underneath. The trout has to be near the surface just before taking the fly.
I’ve seen fish in clear water come from the side and come forward as well to intercept. There’s no way they had a direct underneath view.
This has been my experience, and those of many authors on the subject: When trout are keying on a specific hatch of mayflies, they often become “sippers”. They lie in the feeding lanes, and, as those wings appear in their window floating toward them, they begin to rise up to “sip” the insect. So, it may not be directly below the fly, but it is under the water looking up through their window. Certainly not our vision…viewing from perhaps 4ft. above the surface.
I guess a corollary might be: What convinces a trout, when caddis are on the water, to take a caddis pattern? Might it be the tent-like view from beneath?
My original post used the specific example of the X-Caddis fly pattern. Hans mentioned his success with the CDC&Elk in mayfly situations.
I would argue that the CDC&Elk is substantively different in that the “flowing” CDC fibers present a substantially different look than a dubbed X-Caddis.
I will probably be faulted for my version of Hans’ pattern, but offer a view of it as a trout might see it (second photo). Granted, it is dry and not on the water, but I think this is representative.
First the fly as we might see it.
Then the fly as the trout might see it. I think it is dramatically different from an X-Caddis from below/looking up…
A slightly different approach. Often, especially in the waters I fish, the energy expended / energy returned ratio in obtaining food is not hugely in favour of the trout. They can’t afford to pass up a possible meal. If something drifts past them, that could be food, then they will grab it. At times I have found myself watching the rise form to my fly and comparing it to the rise form to the natural. Unless they are the same I am not convinced that I have imitated the natural, just offered the fish something that could be food.
In the Ring of the Rise Marinarno explains that sometimes a fish will hand under a fly as it drifts on the current. On one of the richer waters I have fished, (the River Aire, just below Malham in North Yorkshire, where T.E. Pritt, and Edmonds and Lea fished) I have encountered this. Sometimes with a positive result, but often not. This made me totally convinced that presentation is far more important than pattern, when fish become more selective.
There is, of course, a cross over between pattern and presentation. This has caused me to reject parachutes as adult dun imitations (I still use them for emergers). There have been time when the fish would take a thorax dun with the hackle clipped flat below the shank, but will not take a parachute fly tied using the same materials. The difference being the former sits one body width higher on the water than the latter. Is that a difference in pattern or presentation?
Of course most of the time I am just happy that a fish has taken the fly!
As for a horizontal view of the fly, I tie low so am looking down at about 45 degrees at the fly I am tying. If you have seen Chris Helm tie, that is the position. (Not the same result, but the same position). I have considered buying one of the C&F Fish Eye boxes that you fill with water to photograph flies, However, my budget will not run to it just now.
Very interesting AlanB. I think we are not far apart in our thinking.
What I say about the way we see our flies applies when they are in the vise and while fishing. We see them from above or from the side.
Fish rarely jump out of the water for a look at our flies. They see them from below in their “window of vision”.
I get that we do all this introspection and discussion about the minutiae of stuff like this to spend time and intellect in our chosen way. It’s fun, kills time, and makes us feel good about what we believe.
But I often wonder if we are seriously overthinking all of this.
We have no clue what trout see. We don’t even know with certainty if a trout’s brain perceives shapes and colors as ours does.
Things like light levels, surface turbulence and water clarity all effect what can be seen. Light refraction through water itself, and the whole reflective issues with the surface of the water make any level of certainty about how a particular dry fly ‘looks’ from below impossible.
Our only accurate method of figuring this out is success. What works and what does not work on the fish.
We’ve all caught trout on something that seemed absolutely inappropriate for the conditions, and for all of us there have been times when we’ve been certain we’ve got it figured out and had no success at all.
All I can say is that I have no clue as to what any fish ‘sees’ or what it ‘believes’ my flies to be. I don’t really care anyway. I just know that when I figure out what works and I can catch a few fish, I’m happy. If I can’t figure it out and i don’t catch a few fish, then I’m still happy because I got to go fishing.
I really enjoy reading these debates to get others perspective. I like others have no idea what the fish see of why they feed on certain imitations, selective. I like to tye and fish Catskill style flies and fish them in the south, west and northeast on all types of water with success. About three years ago I started to tye Hans CDC and elk, though I use deer. I tye them with a wrapped CDC body in various colors the same for the wings. I use them to imitate, caddis.mayflies and ants from size 10 to 22’s. To me it is one of the best and consistent patterns I have ever fished. Why they take that style I have no idea.
I ordered this book and read it. It is interesting and I feel it was well worth the time and money invested in it.
Scientists can determine that trout have cone cells for the same three colors that we have and that they also have cone cells for UV. We cannot know how the trout’s mind interprets the information received from those cells. Mr. Curry has made some good comments and some hypotheses/guesses that I tend to agree with, e.g. trout selectively ignoring some things which their eyes see. The book has good illustrations but is not a comprehensive study of the UV reflectivity of all of the materials used by fly-tyers.
I believe that the founder of this site has a short explanation of how the trout “sees”. Can’t locate it now, but perhaps someone has a link to his summary? Caswell?
