Jim Slattery wrote:Hi Mike,
Perhaps you are being too technical . What Reed is saying and has documented is that many of the "most effective" Dry Flies from Whitlock's 1984 book have UV reflectance. So if one accepts that Trout do see UV as Reed and others believe, it would be logical that flies that exhibit some uv reflection would work better than those that do not. They are reflecting the uv that is in there given environment, just as the naturals would. Would they reflect it exactly as the naturals? No, but they could be with the right equipment, but while that would perhaps create a more killing fly, it is not necessary I would think as long as the tied fly had SOME uv reflectance it would be beneficial . Obviously total UV reflectance would be unnatural. Hypothetically think of it this way: You have found a selective feeding trout you have identified the insect that the trout is feeding upon. You make your fly selection based upon size, shape, colour and (translucence effect+ now UV reflectance+ motion effect/illusion + other such variables) that can be called the "appearance of Vitality" or "Vitality". As the fly approaches the trout, the fish makes it's decision whether or not to accept the fly as food or not. With Presentation et al. being the same, would you rather present a fly the reflects some UV or a fly that does not reflect any UV at all, when both flies appear to be the same in every other way?
I look at the UV information as this: "Interesting! This would be cool if it works! I think I will find out if it works by tying up some flies and see what happens, then refine the flies as I learn more about what I am trying to achieve. If this UV thing is bogus I will find out soon enough and I won't waste anymore of my time with it. How does the UV thing corespond with my go to flies that always seem to work? Is there a corelation? There is ! Wow imagine that! Let me tie up some different patterns that use the same principles and or materials. Do they work? Bingo! This is cool!"
Jim
Anybody can believe whatever they want to believe and try anything they like, regardless of the whys and wherefores. However, if you want things to work well you would be better advised to base your trials on reality, and not on wild speculation.
There is no proof that trout can see in UV wavelengths. If they can not, then all this is completely irrelevant in regard to artificial flies anyway.
Mr. Curry assumes that they can see in UV wavelengths. Indeed, some of Mr. Curry's other assumptions are also quite breathtaking!
Unfortunately for him, even if he is correct in his assumption that trout can see in UV wavelengths, he is completely unable to provide any correlation to artificial flies or even natural ones.
There are so many holes in this so-called "theory" that it is basically laughable. It can not even be called a theory, because no proof or reasoning is given, just a lot of unconnected facts about various things.
There is no evidence at all for any of it. The only evidence at all is against it. I am quite amazed that so many people would even take it seriously at all.
Whatever. I wrote what I think about it, and people will doubtless make up their own minds. Doesn't make any difference to me. I am not trying to sell anything connected with it.
Indeed, if somebody had found some effect like this that affected how well flies work I would embrace it and use it immediately. This was the only reason for my own research in this direction. I found nothing useful in regard to artificial flies. Neither has Mr.Curry. If he had he could simply say so. But he avoids answering any direct questions on the matter, and proceeds to dole out more unrelated information.
Not my problem.
TL
MC
