FLYMPH FORUM

As I still get quite a few e-mails on various stuff I have posted here and elsewhere, here are a few musings which might be informative as to why I do some things as I do and avoid others.

> so its all just guessing anyway?

Well, basically yes, but educated guesses are always better than random guesses. Just assuming something or other probably wont do you any good, and will in fact probaby be detrimental.

The point is that you don't know many of the variables involved, indeed, you simply can't know many of them, but you can make very accurate guesses based on other data. This is why your observations need to be accurate and your testing as good as you can make it.

What you are trying to do is find out what is most likely to happen in a certain set of circumstances, and be able to repeat it with the object of catching fish.

Random guesses or assumptions, just like random flies, wont do you any good in making accurate predictions. Some may work but you have no way of knowing why, or how to repeat it. Any guesses you make about it are based on limited data. It is the repeatability under certain circumstances which you can recognise which is important, not whether any particular random fly sometimes works at random.

My philosophy summed up as best I can is basically this;

Trout ( and of course other fish), eat various prey.

If I imitate that prey well enough trout will probably eat it.

If I am in the right place at the right time with a good imitation of that prey and don't do anything to alarm the fish or set off its instinctive defenses I will probably hook it.

Everything I do is set up to achieve that. The design of my flies, the methods of presentation, the emphasis on stealth, everything.

That sounds simple enough, and it basically is, the difficulties arise in learning all the things necessary to achieve it regularly. You are playing probabilities, and attempting to load the dice in your favour. If you don't load the dice, or not as well, then you wont succeed as often. You will still probably catch a fish now and then but not as often as if the dice were loaded favourably. If you use random methods or execute poorly then the dice are in fact loaded in favour of the fish.

You can never predict exactly what will happen in any given circumstance, but you can make general predictions based on the data and knowledge you have and on the system you are using. If you have limited or no data and knowledge, then your predictions will not be accurate. If you use random guesses and assumptions then your predictions will not be accurate.

You can not control the environment, or your targets, but you need to be able to control the system you are using in that environment or you can not load the dice properly at all, nor can you test your results with any accuracy. Flies themselves are only a means to an end. They are there to imitate prey. They are not there to "fool" a fish, that implies that you are relying on a fish making a mistake, which it is basically incapable of. An instinctive reaction can not be considered a mistake. If you get things right the fish is never aware of anything at all except something natural to eat in front of it. If you do not trigger its defensive instincts then they never come in to play.

Although this is constantly discussed I have never found a "positive trigger",( excepting some movement on some occasions), with regard to artificial flies. In the majority of cases, when a fish takes a fly it does so because it wants to eat that fly as part of its normal behaviour. If it senses no "negative" triggers, ( things which will alert its instinctive defenses), it simply does so without any fuss and bother. You can not know why a particular fish behaves in a certain way in certain circumstances, but you can observe that it does so. Of course you can make guesses, but if you try to base these on human experience and emotions you will invariably be wrong. A fish is not a human and is not subject to human emotions or behavioural imperatives.

Trying to base your fly designs on various unproven ideas and theories doesn't work well. It may work occasionally, even quite often, depending on circumstances, but you don't know why or can only make vague guesses based on limited data. There are a few "general" flies which work well under various circumstances, in my opinion this is because they resemble some prey well enough for the fish to take them in those circumstances. This further strengthens another theory of mine that fish dont actually "see" very well at all in the sense that many people mean it. What you see is integrated in your brain, lots of things affect it. Your final perception of the signals that reach your eyes is an extremely complex perception. It does of course depend on how well your eyes work to begin with. There is no way to know what a fish sees. You can extrapolate from its physiology what its organs are physically capable of but "seeing" is much more than that. It is an integrated sense that is interpreted by the brain. In humans, people often see what isn't there as a result of habit, previous experience, etc etc. There is no way, ( as yet) to know what a fish sees despite the amount of research and discussion on it. I think that in a lot of cases fish simply see what they expect to see regardless of what is actually there. Just like humans. As fish have no reasoning powers this probably happens a lot and also is an indication why fly fishing functions as it does.

Can fish see in the UV spectrum? Do they have colour preferences? Is there something ( excepting movement) which would "trigger" them to take an artificial? I have no idea, but as I know of no way to use that knowledge even if it were true, I simply ignore it.

TL
MC

PS. Although I still try to keep myself well informed on various developments as I might one day find a way to use something.

Mike Connor"Trout ( and of course other fish), eat various prey.

You can never predict exactly what will happen in any given circumstance, but you can make general predictions based on the data and knowledge you have and on the system you are using. If you have limited or no data and knowledge, then your predictions will not be accurate. If you use random guesses and assumptions then your predictions will not be accurate.

You can not control the environment, or your targets, etc...

No you cannot predict correctly all the time. Opening day last Friday, for as many opening days as I can remember, the best and nearly all the trout were in deeper water - i.e. 2-4 foot range. So predicting this I made for the same place as last year, fished it for an hour with a single small trout as the only return. Strange but I guessed if they aint here then they must be in very skinny water or really really deep water , i knew my flies and methods were good enough. I fished some skinny water, some fast flows and in the next hour twenty trout came to hand, a few of them well above average. Predictions can be flawed and you have to make a decision on your next line of attack. The only certainty is that if you trust your own judgment, apply some logic to situations, apply some common sense you will be eventually be rewarded.

Just when you think you've got it figured out, they (the fishes) do something totally unexpected. That's probably why the fisherfolk who insist on employing only one technique end up doing more fishing and less catching .

Yes, it's really a form of complex physical multidimensional chess with a strong gambling element, where you have to learn a vast range of moves and also devise new ones, the "board" keeps changing, the fish don't abide by the rules anyway, and in some cases might not even be "on the board" at all. Even when they are it is never certain that they will respond to your moves at all, much less as expected or hoped!

The way I see it, there are two types of trout angler that are generally successful.

Firstly there is the "cute whore" (an Irish expression usually applied to devious politicans) - The cute whore only dons his waders when the fishing can be expected to be good , during the hatches that the trout usually react to very positively , where success is all but guaranteed. The cute whore can appear lazy but in fact he is simply a gambler that only fishes when the odds are heavily stacked in his favour. The cute whore will always play the blame game when things do not work out. "It was too dark, too bright, water too high, too low, too coloured , too warm, too cold, too windy......etc."

Then there is the junkie, he would as they say, fish for a trout in a bath tub.
The junkie will continue fishing even if every trout in the river was lying belly up drinking martini's and getting a tan. The junkie is an eternal optimist, certain that for every situation there is a solution, certain that no matter the conditions,a trout may be caught. The junkie will have a huge repetoire of techniques to be able to wiggle a few trout from any sort of water that holds them. The best junkies are patient, persistent, perceptive, resillient and have an insatiable appetite to catch trout. Unlike the cute whore, the Junkie believes he can overcome the odds but he is also a realist and knows that sometimes success is simply not possible despite his best efforts - the junkie never plays the blame game expect to blame himself and ALWAYS looks for a solution.

You forgot "The reluctant angler", He just wants to get out of the house now and again, he doesn't like golf, and he can't think of anything else to do!

Mike Connor wrote:You forgot "The reluctant angler", He just wants to get out of the house now and again, he doesn't like golf, and he can't think of anything else to do!

He catches a fish now and again, so feels quite successful.

There are doubtless a lot of stereotypes if one looks for them.

You might like these;

http://anincorrigible.wordpress.com/

http://dharmaofthedrift.blogspot.de/201 ... ngler.html

You have outlined your philosophy here, but the crux is , not every angler that casts a fly to a trout has a philosophy that places the catching of the trout as the cornerstone of their philosophy, if indeed they have a philosophy at all.

There is no denying that following your philosophy of looking to the trout and how and on what they feed as being the primary key to catching them regularly and thus defying the odds. That following the "bullshit" that pervades angling is less than a good starting point is obvious to any angler with experience.

HOWEVER a beginner simply wants to catch a trout, often has no comprehension of hatches , fly life, the where , the when , the why - indeed simply being able to cast a flyline is challenging enough. So our beginner is more than happy to tye on an Adams as recommended as being a good fly and god willing eventually catches a trout. Our beginner will then accuire another good fly, say a Bob Wyatts DHE and catches a few more. You know the rest of this progression. Its how most anglers start and learn and unforunately for many they can never exit the perpetual loop of following the fashions and trends that so much are biased in favour of the commercialism. Whats the best fly line, the best rod, best waders , best reel , best nymph rod, best dry rod, best soft hackle rod ........as important as these things can be and no denying the pleasure in purchasing new stuff, inevitably it is a poor substitute to actually looking to the trout and its prey as being the primary source of inspiration.

Its the way of the world Mike and your philosopy so simple and so obviously a solid grounding to successful hunting of trout is way too simple. It alas demands the beginner to work things out for him/her self and the lure of following the "bullshit" is hard to resist.

Indeed, lots of people look for easy answers to questions they don't even know, and not just beginners either, just how it is.

My basic philosophy is quite simple but it is not at all easy to implement everything required and of course takes a lot of time and effort.

It depends on what you want as well. Many just want a nice day out on the river if they catch a fish then that's an added bonus not their main priority. Nothing wrong with that.