Scuds in Still Water?

FAOL Community Fly Anglers Online
21

Gentlemen:

You miss my point. It is simply that the term ‘scud’ is applied to several different major groups of organisms that vary considerabley from one another and to the extent that it has lost it’s original meaning and it can leave one at a loss for what is actually being referred to; which can be important to tying an appropriate pattern to imitate the actual bug. An example is that if someone writes ‘trico’, many fly fishers will immediately have an accurate mental image of what is being talked about. The same holds true for Hexagenia, crayfish by any of it’s colloquial names, etc. This listing could go on ‘ad infinitum et ad nauseum’. If ‘scud’ refers to a gammarid, which is what I use the term for, I immediately think of a little bug that has a short body that is thinner from side-to-side than it is tall (laterally compressed). If you say ‘shrimp’, I think of an organism that rather closely resembles a miniature edible shrimp; long slender body and all. Each bug warrants it’s own pattern IMHO.

One does not need degrees in biology, or even a high school education for that matter, to learn to recognize members of each of the three groups I earlier mentioned. I reference my background, experience, etc., to emphasize the point that when someone with such a background is left cold relative to what is being talked about, you can imagine how frustrated others without such a background must feel. And I will confess that in spite of my degrees and my background, I feel very strongly that to learn the Latin names of all of the various mayflies, or caddis flies, etc., is a waste of time. However, as fly fishermen we have no problem mentally conjuring up images of what mayflies look like and recognize that caddis flies don’t look like mayflies. The differences between the groups I previously mentioned are on a par with the differences between mayflies and caddis flies.

My question then becomes; Why can’t we do the same for those bugs that are found in the aquatic bug wastebasket we call ‘scuds’? The groups have totally different physical attributes.

Jerry:

You hit my nail squarely on the head! I could not agree with you more. If we use the term “scud” to mean a gammarid, which is shown and discussed in the article in Kelly’s link, we all know what is actually being talked about and therefore what pattern we need to mimic it. (Incidentally, this is my concept of a scud.) The corollary is that if we use the term ‘shrimp’ for the mysids, we will have the same understanding. However, when both are collectively referred to as ‘scuds’, as many are inclined to do, the reader is left holding the bag: Pure, plain and simple.

Kevin:

I did not say you, or whoever, did not find them under rocks. What I said was that I have not found anything in the literature, etc., that indicates that they do occur under rocks. I will be the first to point out that not everything about the lives of all of these bugs is to be found in the literature. We have all observed things in nature that are not to be found in the literature.Therefore, I took the note at face value as being an accurate observation.

Cheers,
aged sage

22

… I will hazard a guess. It is two fold.

First, a good proportion of fly fishermen fish the entire lifecycles of many mayflies and several caddis over the course of a season. They can see the adults and hold those images clearly from their own observation, and they can understand and care about the larva / nymph / emerger and cripple forms of the adults they see. The same is most likely true for several of the stoneflies.

Second, not so many folks actually see scuds, sowbugs, and shrimp in their natural habitat, and probably a minority of us fish those critters on a regular basis. Without the benefit of actual observation, most of us have to rely on fishing reports, articles, and discussions like this to even get interested in those bugs. And unless someone goes out and has some direct positive experience rather quickly, what they learned will soon fade away.

John

23

Let me back up a second. I think you misunderstood my post. I respect all the book learnin’ and the knowledge that goes with it. It was more of an answer to your question if you were taking things too far as I understood it. I did not mean to convey that I had taken any offense or to demean your opinions. If it was taken that way, I do apologize for not being clearer. For me, the answer is that I don’t care what it is as long as I can tie a reasonable facsimile and catch fish, or look in my fly box and find a reasonable facsimile and catch fish.

To me, it is unimportant if it is a shrimp or a scud or a nymph. Shrimp and scuds look a lot alike to me. They may not be, but the same fly works in both cases and that is the result I am after. The fish in the high Colorado mountain lakes like this fly. I have tied it with a soft hackle, a bead, a lead wire under the thorax which was dubbed in, and with stiff dry fly hackle trimmed top and sides and they all work. I think it’s the segmented body that tells the fish, “This is food.”

While I might obsess over the CCS and how to apply it and matching up lines and rods, etc. This is a case of ‘close enough’ for me.

24

John:

Your points are well made and your first response goes to the heart of my point. Why do we obsess over the detailed minutiae of the mayflies, caddisflies and stoneflies in all of their various life stages, but simply ‘lump’ several different groups of aquatic organisms into a common ‘wastebasket’? To the extent that the term ‘scud’ is, in many respects, meaningless.

I would respectfully submit that anyone who has ever wade-fished any of the high desert, highly alkaline, prairie lakes any where in any of the Rocky Mountain states has seen gammarids (true scuds), as they have a habit of covering one’s waders that are below waterline. And they are often seen swimming in sometimes dense clouds in the gin-clear waters of these ponds as can the mysid shrimp often be seen swimming in these waters.

Kevin:

I do not feel that I misunderstood your post, and no apology is necessary, as I was in no way offended; and I totally agree with your fundamental philosophy with respect to fly selection. To this end, I argue that trout are NOT truly selective feeders. They are opportunistic and feed on whatever is most readily available at the time that remotely resembles something edible, and even not so edible. Most anyone who has ever used a strike indicator can relate stories about getting hits on the indicator, or seen fish rise to, and even take, cigarette butts! All of our so-called ‘attractor’ patterns fall into the realm of things that are readily taken when they ‘resemble’ food items. I will not bore you with the details, but I have caught fish on bare hooks; more than one species and on more than one occasion.

Again, my original point was, and is, that we pay a great deal of attention to the detailed minutiae of the various life stages of the three major “fly” groups, as enumerated in my response above, but fail to clearly distinguish between organisms in at least two, and possibly even three, different groups of organisms that are as divergent as are the members of the “fly” groups. I would respectfully submit that fishing reports, etc., are not good places to learn what shrimp and scuds look like, and what their differences and similarities are. Also, one does not have to actually see them in the ‘wild’ to seek out accurate information and photos of what they are and look like, and to refer to them accordingly.

Cheers,
aged sage

25

I have 3 fly boxes in my vest. One for streamers. Streamers of all kinds from mini buggers to Carrie Stevens styled streamers. The next one is dry flies. This includes any fly that is supposed to float. Adams, Royal Coachman (a favorite), ants, any thing that is supposed to float. Then there is the “Other wet stuff” box. Nymphs, soft hackles, scuds, worms, whatever doesn’t fit in the other two categories.

Those are my categories. I have 3 warm water flies I got in swaps that are cool, but they are too big for the “Other Wet Stuff” and ‘Dry’ boxes for now. :slight_smile:

26

The Summer 2010 issue of Fly Tyer has an article…“The Deadly Scuds” he presents a number of what he call simple scud patterns…and BTW he lumps everything under “scuds”.

27

ducksterman:

That is precisely my complaint. I wonder if he also lumps mayflies, caddis flies and stone flies into a single group, “bugs”. A few very simple nymph patterns work for all three groups.

aged sage

28

I hear you, Frank. I wasn’t agreeing with the lumping…just pointing it out.