Well said Marco,
But, fly fishing is a passion/sport which allows the participant to touch the surface, dig down a little, or half way to China.
Kind of what I like about it. I believe I have probably read more books, articles, and videos than I did obtaining my bachelors and master degrees. I just am intrigued by the theories and practices of the greats in the sport who have come before us. All participants can enjoy the endeavor by exploring whatever depth they care to
As an example, one can build his or her own rods. Not something that interests me, but I can understand the great satisfaction one might feel in fishing with a fine rod they themself built!
Some of us have screen/nets to collect insect samples in the waters we fish. You can delve as shallow or as deep as you care to. There is no end to it!
As with any passion…anybody is capable of “going” crazy. For some of us however, the trip is a much shorter one than others, and the need to know “why” we are even taking the trip does not exist.
I want to add some context and comments to the bolded quotes above.
There is a common false assumption amongst fishers that the behavior of the fish they catch also applies to the behavior of the fish they have not caught. This is a huge logical fallacy that any population biologist knows. Biologic populations show variance in virtually all physical factors and behavioral factors. In truth, we don’t know what we don’t know.
Every time we fish, we are performing a population sampling experiment. We are sampling the trout population for those fish that are susceptible to the methods we are using including fly choice. No one can say that "fish don’t really care if one “palmers” or include a “shorter body hackle”. Since we cannot independently test both flies with the same fish at the same time, we really cannot make that statement; and we certainly can say nothing about the fish we do not catch.
“Biased samples are generally not very reliable. As a blatant case, imagine that a person is taking a sample from a truckload of small colored balls, some of which are metal and some of which are plastic. If he used a magnet to select his sample, then his sample would include a disproportionate number of metal balls (after all, the sample will probably be made up entirely of the metal balls). In this case, any conclusions he might draw about the whole population of balls would be unreliable since he would have few or no plastic balls in the sample.”
You may push back and say that you were not talking about all the fish, but most of the fish. One cannot say that either since if we do not know how many fish are in the population, we cannot say the fish we observe are “most” of the population. Again we can only say what worked on the fish we caught.
Regarding. “SOME common sense prevails. When “they” appear to be eatin midges, streamers won’t work.” I assume you don’t mean that streamers won’t work on all fish in the population in the area, but streamers won’t work well on the specific fish eating the midges. If so, common sense if correct. But even in this situation, the hatch breaker strategy is based on purposely using a non selective fly to catch those fish feeding opportunistically even when other fish are feeding selectively.
Here is my favorite fly fishing example of biased sample fallacy. I have heard many times that fish ignore the hook in a fly. The evidence that is presented is that we catch fish with flies that have visible hooks. All this proves is that that fish we caught ignored the hook. However, this observation is expanded to all fish, so that those we have not caught also ignore the hook. When this fallacy is pointed out is becomes obvious that we can say nothing about the fish we have not caught which, in the example above, would be the balls left in the truckload.
The biased sample fallacy is not uncommon. It was recently writ large during the last US presidential election cycle. Even the experts fall into this trap on matters of great importance.
When we fish, our job is to use the fishing method that will catch most of the population of fish we are targeting. Like the poll takers, our success depends on it. But when we are successful, we cannot assume that our method was representative of most of the fish. It was representative only of the fish we caught which may or may be “most” of the population.
Science! Nicely said, Silver Creek, but I suspect the argument will fall on deaf ears, because what you refer to as a “biased sample” most would refer to as “years of experience fly fishing”.
I agree with you Silver Creek, which is why I read as much as I can on fly fishing/tying…particularly by well respected authors who have great knowledge of insects and their behavior as well as those who know the biology of trout and have studied their behavior.
Silver,
Very eloquently stated. I TOTALLY agree that MY opinion is based ONLY on the fish I’ve fooled and NOT those ( or why NOT (?) those) I have not. Suffice to say, I’ m usually very satisfied with my creel contents and do not dwell on what might have been. Can one REALLY say, absurdity aside " I haven’t caught fish because…?"
Mark
PS: I do hope youz guyz don’r read more into my post than… AND, Whatfly took words from my keyboard for which I do forgive him.
Silver Creek,
Just as an asside, and, admittedly, just a theory concerning trout taking a fly with a hook showing:
No way to know, of course, but my theory is that trout are looking for POSITIVE components of food items. And, if they see enough positive elements, they will attack the possible food item.
A bit like when I was in Air Force ROTC in undergraduate school. We had a class on identifying Russian aircraft by looking at slides of plane sillouhettes. They would flash a US plane sillouhette on the screen and then proceed to mix them up between US and Russian. They would speed up the slides on the screen so that I began to just look for positive identifiers in the quickly changing sillouhettes, and it pretty much worked for me.
I have sold myself on the concept that trout do something similar. They look for several positive elements to decide quickly if they should go after the item, and if enough positives are seen, they may overlook a negative.
Here’s a closely related idea I came across yesterday in Fly Tying Problems and their Answers, by John Veniard (2nd edition, 1970):
… Capt Coke had the following method of stiffening his dry fly hackles, an idea born of the scarcity of good quality hackles required to keep our flies afloat. It is this, after completing the fly to the stage where hackle is required, select a large hackle of the same colour and cut off about 1 in. from the tip. This is the best part to use, as any web which may be in the feather is much less apparent at its extreme tip. Stroke the fibres to right angles to the stem and clip them to about 1/8 in. in length either side of the stem … we are left with a hackle 1 in. long with a width of 1/4 in. long along its entire length.
This hackle is now tied in at the should of the fly, and one, or at most two, turns taken around the hook shank and finished off. The effective hackle is then selected and tied in and wound behind and in front of the cut hackle, and the fly finished off in the usual way.
The stiff, short fibres of the cut hackle act as stiffeners to the weaker fibres of the ordinary hackle, and are quite invisible if the job is done properly. A fly tied in this manner is most effective in rough water, where it is important to have one which cocks and floats well.
Incidentally, this two hackle principle is used for the Dr. Baigent “Refracta” dry flies, the difference being that instead of the long-fibred hackle being cut short it is left long, the efective hackle forming the legs forming the center of the hackle. By this means, Dr. Baigent that the surface of the water was disturbed by the fibres of the long hackle, giving an altered refraction and thus a more natural look from the fish’s point of view.
Assuming this was in the 1st edition as well (from magazine articles written in 1956/1957), the general idea apparently had been floating around for some time and on both sides of the Atlantic. Fran Betters may have picked it up, assumed it to be true, and then passed it along.
For what it’s worth, I personally believe it to be BS.
Just like congress we have gone full circle on this topic and still have not reach a consensus and not sure we ever will. The discussions have included questionable practices of a famous fly tier, scientific theory, personal experiences and even a floating needle. I guess that’s the beauty of having such a varied group of folks on this site with strong opinions. I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t know. Many of my flies have two uneven hackles because I just eyeball size without measuring. However, they general float and usually catch fish. Like Byron, I read allot about this stuff, but always get back to presentation and holding locations as being the most important elements of catching fish and enjoying the experience. This is probably too simple for this discussion, but it fits my way of enjoying the sport. Don’t get me wrong, I also enjoy reading your observations and opinions. We have some wise folks on this site.
I have a powerpoint presentation for local TU chapters that explains how trout become selective feeders and also explains how trout “learn” to avoid feeding based on visual cues. Your general concept is correct and is consistent with experimental psychology.
The science behind trout selective feeding behavior is taught in the most college level introductory psychology courses and is demonstrated by the classic experiment of B.F. Skinner in 1947. Expanding on the original “classic” behavioral conditioning experiment of Pavlov, he devised a method of behavior conditioning that depended on the results of the action taken by the subject of the experiment. His subject was a pigeon and his device is now called the “Skinner Box”. His original article has been preserved here:
You will notice that Skinner describes two phenomena, conditioning and the gradual loss of conditioning which is called extinction. He calls this type of conditioning “Operant Conditioning” in contrast to Pavlov’s “Classical Conditioning.” Subsequent experimentation filled out the theory so that there are two methods or arms to condition conditioning - a Reinforcement arm that increases behavior and a Punishment arm that decreases behavior.
Operant conditioning is how we train dogs, and it is how we modify behavior in our children. Operant conditioning (reward and punishment as the consequence of behavior) is how societal norms are developed and maintained. It exists everywhere and it is how trout become selective feeders and how they also “learn” to avoid flies, for example, a fly that drags. It explains how a very effective fly become less effective as the season goes on. It explains why the fish continue to feed on artificial flies that imitate a huge hatch that has ended (example, the salmon fly hatch on the Madison) and how that behavior of taking those flies decreases over time (Extinction of Conditioning).
It also explains a rare phenomena I experienced on Poindexter Slough, a spring creek near Dillon, Montana back in the 1980s. I was relative new fly fisher, and sought help at the 3 fly shops in Dillon. They all told me that hoppers were the flies to use. The first trout I saw was a 16-18? brown trout holding just under the surface. It was feeding opportunistically, and I sequentially tried all the hopper imitations in my box. The trout looked at and refused a Jack?s hopper, a Dave?s (Whitlock) hopper, and a Schroeder Parachute hopper. It closely examined my patterns with nose to fly compound rise and refusals,
I wanted to see if the trout would take a real hopper. I had a sampling net with me and I caught 3 real hoppers, crippled them, and crawling to the edge of the spring creek; I threw them in one by one to observe what the fish would do. In each case the fish performed compound and complex rises to the hoppers and refused each one.
Refusing one hopper might be accidental. Refusing 2 real hoppers could be coincidental. But refusing 3 hoppers is learned behavior!
I didn’t understand that behavior then and it puzzled me for a number years until I remembered my psychology course and operant conditioning. I believe this is an example of the punishment arm of Operant Conditioning. My explanation based on operant conditioning theory is that this fish had been caught many times by hopper flies. What do hopper flies imitate? They imitate real hoppers, and I believe that the fish had learned to refuse hopper flies, and in doing, it had also refused the real hoppers that those flies imitated. This is transference.
Just as we fly fishers seek to transfer the reward behavior of fish feeding on a hatch to flies that match our hatch, I believe avoidance behavior from the punishment of feeding on a hopper flies was transferred to a real hopper that the flies imitated. Operant conditioning explains both types of behavior.
I have a powerpoint presentation for local TU chapters that explains how trout become selective feeders and also explains how trout “learn” to avoid feeding based on visual cues. Your general concept is correct and is consistent with experimental psychology.
The science behind trout selective feeding behavior is taught in the most college level introductory psychology courses and is demonstrated by the classic experiment of B.F. Skinner in 1947. Expanding on the original “classic” behavioral conditioning experiment of Pavlov, he devised a method of behavior conditioning that depended on the results of the action taken by the subject of the experiment. His subject was a pigeon and his device is now called the “Skinner Box”. His original article has been preserved here:
You will notice that Skinner describes two phenomena, conditioning and the gradual loss of conditioning which is called extinction. He calls this type of conditioning “Operant Conditioning” in contrast to Pavlov’s “Classical Conditioning.” Subsequent experimentation filled out the theory so that there are two methods or arms to condition conditioning - a Reinforcement arm that increases behavior and a Punishment arm that decreases behavior.
Operant conditioning is how we train dogs, and it is how we modify behavior in our children. Operant conditioning (reward and punishment as the consequence of behavior) is how societal norms are developed and maintained. It exists everywhere and it is how trout become selective feeders and how they also “learn” to avoid flies, for example, a fly that drags. It explains how a very effective fly become less effective as the season goes on. It explains why the fish continue to feed on artificial flies that imitate a huge hatch that has ended (example, the salmon fly hatch on the Madison) and how that behavior of taking those flies decreases over time (Extinction of Conditioning).
It also explains a rare phenomena I experienced on Poindexter Slough, a spring creek near Dillon, Montana back in the 1980s. I was relative new fly fisher, and sought help at the 3 fly shops in Dillon. They all told me that hoppers were the flies to use. The first trout I saw was a 16-18? brown trout holding just under the surface. It was feeding opportunistically, and I sequentially tried all the hopper imitations in my box. The trout looked at and refused a Jack?s hopper, a Dave?s (Whitlock) hopper, and a Schroeder Parachute hopper. It closely examined my patterns with nose to fly compound rise and refusals,
I wanted to see if the trout would take a real hopper. I had a sampling net with me and I caught 3 real hoppers, crippled them, and crawling to the edge of the spring creek; I threw them in one by one to observe what the fish would do. In each case the fish performed compound and complex rises to the hoppers and refused each one.
Refusing one hopper might be accidental. Refusing 2 real hoppers could be coincidental. But refusing 3 hoppers is learned behavior!
I didn’t understand that behavior then and it puzzled me for a number years until I remembered my psychology course and operant conditioning. I believe this is an example of the punishment arm of Operant Conditioning. My explanation based on operant conditioning theory is that this fish had been caught many times by hopper flies. What do hopper flies imitate? They imitate real hoppers, and I believe that the fish had learned to refuse hopper flies, and in doing, it had also refused the real hoppers that those flies imitated. This is transference.
Just as we fly fishers seek to transfer the reward behavior of fish feeding on a hatch to flies that match our hatch, I believe avoidance behavior from the punishment of feeding on a hopper flies was transferred to a real hopper that the flies imitated. Operant conditioning explains both types of behavior.
I read heavily, and I am a student of fly fishing. I love to tie and develop patterns, and stock my boxes with those that work. At least for my style and waters. But reality is, where catching fish and fly fishing collide? I learned 90% of how to “catch” fish by age 12, with a spinning rod and a jar of salmon eggs.The lifelong study of fly fishing, is only applied to the remaining 10% of the process.
](