Jackdaw and Purple

[hankaye]

Mr. Anderson, Howdy;

Truly sorry about misinturpeting what I preseved as 'snarkyness' for your dry humor.
Sometimes hard to tell the players without a program.
If you had taken any offence to my previous post I appoligize.
hank

[William Anderson]

Hank, none at all. But is snarky a bad thing? Guilty of that too i'm sure.

Thanks for the note. And thanks for sticking up for Andrew. You're a real Gent.

w

[Otter]

Can't leave it there gents I'm afraid.

I'm not one for following the creed of x wraps of thread and going to the barb etc. Proportions are only appropiate I believe in imitative flies in so much they should match what you are trying to imitate or are a necessary part of the illusion.

If as many believe you can tie a pattern short on a larger hook than I would have to goto the opposite direction than William
Andrew did mention that this he hoped to use when Iron Blues are on the menu, in that case IMHO a size 14 is not appropiate , a 16 or 18 would be a better imitation. So on that basis I would suggest that Andrew should immediately remove two wraps


and my last point is, We are all a little mad

[GlassJet]

Can't leave it there gents I'm afraid.

Wondered when you were going to pop up!

Andrew did mention that this he hoped to use when Iron Blues are on the menu, in that case IMHO a size 14 is not appropiate , a 16 or 18 would be a better imitation.

Serious point - I really like these straight eye hooks, but they are course fishing hooks and seem smaller than a #14 in the fly tying hooks I have - certainly in the shank length, but the gape does too - unless it is an optical illusion!

And i can only seem to get them in 25's which makes them pricey - anyone know where you can pick them up in a 100?


Mind you, one last point though Otter - I'll often fish something just that bit bigger than the naturals that are around, never mind that match the hatch nonsense. After all, a plentiful supply of natural, why go for yours? Whereas with my tasty offering and 'more bang for your buck' proposition... well, seems to result in me catching the odd one now and again anyway...

Just teasin' btw Otter - before we have to have another bout of making up!

Andrew

[Otter]

Can't leave it there gents I'm afraid.

Wondered when you were going to pop up!

Serious point - I really like these straight eye hooks, but they are course fishing hooks and seem smaller than a #14 in the fly tying hooks I have - certainly in the shank length, but the gape does too - unless it is an optical illusion!

And i can only seem to get them in 25's which makes them pricey - anyone know where you can pick them up in a 100?


Mind you, one last point though Otter - I'll often fish something just that bit bigger than the naturals that are around, never mind that match the hatch nonsense. After all, a plentiful supply of natural, why go for yours? Whereas with my tasty offering and 'more bang for your buck' proposition... well, seems to result in me catching the odd one now and again anyway...

Just teasin' btw Otter - before we have to have another bout of making up!

Andrew

Andrew, you know me too well, could not resist joining in the fun.

Those hooks are short shank, ive being buying them in 10's Kamasan B980 @ about £1 per 10 uk sterling, €1.50 in yo yos - not cheap by any means. Wide gape is very desirable in my opinion though it can make a fly look unbalanced to our eyes, not that how we view them matters a jot when they are about the business of hooking a trout.

Back to yer iron blue, a 16 on those hooks is large but adequate, most flys are presented larger than the natural. I think webster points out in his book that in his experience that for many hatches there will be a variance that go between the biggest and smallest sizes in a hatch that could be as wide as 3 hook sizes - his vote was to fish a medium sized one, not rocket science really.

Anyways , yours is a nice tie, and if you tie it on a 16 it would i think be a better option for the blues, and a few 18's for just in case...

Over the last couple of years I have spoken to quite a few of the best anglers on my local river, to a man they reckon that on that particular river for most hatches that smaller rather than larger is more effective, but they also reckon that this does not necessarily apply to all rivers. Personally I believe the reason for this being the case is that there are regularily more than one hatch at a time and also there is nearly always a host of small stuff available , hence a small pattern is more often likely to succeed except when they become very preoccupied - just an opinion.

[GlassJet]

Which all goes to show.... that if it works, it works.

As I see all this, if you try one tactic, you have absolutely no idea whether another would work better or worse at that time. That is not my opinion, it is simply unknowable. No amount of debate - fun as it may be at times - is going to convince me otherwise, because that is a simple fact, and no one is going to convince me that black is white when it is not - whoever is trying to do the convincing, and however much they may passionately believe otherwise.

Fishers who fish together will often reach consensus - "such and such a fly works on this river" - unsurprisingly they fish the fly and catch fish - reinforcement. Individuals over time are constantly forming their own consensus, and refining as they go - they catch fish, again reinforcement. Or they don't catch fish - negative reinforcement.

This is a people game - not an objective science. Personally, I find it all the more appealing for that.

Andrew.

[William Anderson]

Can't leave it there gents I'm afraid.

If as many believe you can tie a pattern short on a larger hook than I would have to goto the opposite direction than William
Andrew did mention that this he hoped to use when Iron Blues are on the menu, in that case IMHO a size 14 is not appropiate , a 16 or 18 would be a better imitation. So on that basis I would suggest that Andrew should immediately remove two wraps

Otter, we are not of the opposite opinion. The part where I was poking fun of those who might be legalistic about style and tradition is the the part that puts me in the other camp. I couldn't agree more, imitation first, which ever hook you use or however many wraps it takes to get there. (no emoticon necessary)

w

[Otter]

Which all goes to show.... that if it works, it works.

As I see all this, if you try one tactic, you have absolutely no idea whether another would work better or worse at that time. That is not my opinion, it is simply unknowable. No amount of debate - fun as it may be at times - is going to convince me otherwise, because that is a simple fact, and no one is going to convince me that black is white when it is not - whoever is trying to do the convincing, and however much they may passionately believe otherwise.

Andrew.

Yes that unknowable fact has crossed many an anglers mind, but your proposition is the very reason that one angler will with regularity outfish others by a very wide margin. This off course is measured purely on ones ability to catch a lot of trout not a measurement of ones enjoyment which may well be a completely different matter. As you know Andrew I have over the past few seasons done serious research and thinking into figuring out why my ability to catch was not much better than average. Fact was my techniques were haphazard, my choices were for the most part random and not really based on any reality of trout and insect behaviour. Fact is the more I removed the randomness the more trout I caught - I still do some random things for my knowledge is still quite scant. I have been on your side of the fence, try crossing over to this side for a short while and then you would be better placed to make such judgments. From my experience and my binocular view of fly fishing , even though randomly doing things can be fun in its own right , as far as catching trout is concerned you are more often likely to fool yourself than a trout and believe me when I say I spents years fooling myself.

Which all goes to show.... that if it works, it works.


Fishers who fish together will often reach consensus - "such and such a fly works on this river" - unsurprisingly they fish the fly and catch fish - reinforcement. Individuals over time are constantly forming their own consensus, and refining as they go - they catch fish, again reinforcement. Or they don't catch fish - negative reinforcement.

This is a people game - not an objective science. Personally, I find it all the more appealing for that.

Andrew.

As far as discussion and sharing it is indeed a people game.
But for me, how I approach the essential act of fooling a trout is quite a serious matter that involves only me , the river and the trout, your views and emphasis would appear to be distinctly different from mine at this moment in time. But I will continue tempting you to the light.... and enjoy the fun of doing so.....

[GlassJet]

Otter - you seem to need your gurus - I hope they work for you. You stick to reading ,l I'll stick to fishin',

Andrew

[Otter]

Otter - you seem to need your gurus - I hope they work for you. You stick to reading ,l I'll stick to fishin',

Andrew

Guru's no, but I do have the wit to listen to those with experience.