other mysteries. In the modern day (let’s say 1900 - present), there have been several theories about what triggers a trout to hit a fly. Imitation, impression and presentation are the usual suspects, although other theories abound too. In another thread, it’s noted that there have been ‘scientific studies’ done by fly fishers and that’s true. The problem with every one of those studies is in any conclusion the study may have made. There’s not one that has a conclusion that can be proved because no one can duplicate the experiment or create a ‘control group’ upon which an experiment can be created. Oh, and by the way, if any fly fisherman had been able to decipher the mystery of ‘trigger’ what would be the fun and why bother to create flies that didn’t cause this effect? No two waters are the same and the conditions of any one water cannot be duplicated. Someone once wrote, “You can never step into the same water twice”.
What triggers a trout in a slow moving limestone creek, a shallow slow moving crystal clear stream, a fast tumbling clean river or waters of other conditions, as well as the overall climate of any particular day can change at the drop of a hat. Or more realistically, as a large cloud passes over.
As a specific statement, I don’t know what triggers a trout and never will. What I hope is that by carefully observing the specific water I happen to be fishing, I can make a reasonably educated guess what might fool a few fish at that time. Sometimes that works out and sometimes not. If it always worked, we’d call it ‘Catching’.
Hi, Allan. If the mystery is gone, so will be the fun of trout fishing. But have you read Gary LaFontaine’s book “Trout Flies”? He and his friends spent uncounted hours underwater observing trout reactions, or lack thereof, to many possible fly stimuli. His training as a behavioral psychologist came in handy.
Yes. Read it long ago along with many other books on trout behavior. Have you seen any of the fantastic ‘underwater’ videos that let you see trout actions in the water? In them, some previously proven facts are disproved. As I wrote, if someone was to read and view all the ‘scientific’ information out there, the conclusions based on one or a few of the studies out there could and would be disproven by other studies or actual observations. Interesting reading and experiences - Yes! Proof that the conclusion(s) expressed because of a particular study - No!
My point - Don’t be fogmatic in your fishing, observe, experience, learn, be open to changes in environment, be flexible and adjust based on those change, and most importantly - have fun.
“My point - Don’t be fogmatic in your fishing, observe, experience, learn, be open to changes in environment, be flexible and adjust based on those change, and most importantly - have fun.”
Indeed. We flyfishers tend to be rather analytical types. Kind of enjoy that part of it. But without the fun, what’s the point? I do have fun, as do you, I’m sure. But I long ago gave up memorizing the Latin names of bugs. Observation trumps genus and species for me.
I may save a fly that I know will work until last, such as a local favorite. But until then I’ll give the other flies I’ve designed my best shot. And just because they didn’t work doesn’t mean they aren’t good patterns, either. I’ve fished next to guys fishing an identical fly and method, and one of us was catching and the other one wasn’t. Fishing is fun because I’m in, near or on the water, and I enjoy that. Actual fish are a bonus. Success is not falling in and drowning. Or being eaten by a grizzly.
