Salmonflies
Pteronarcys californica
The giant Salmonflies of the Western mountains are legendary for their proclivity to elicit consistent dry-fly action and ferocious strikes.
Featured on the forum
Nymphs of this species were fairly common in late-winter kick net samples from the upper Yakima River. Although I could not find a key to species of Zapada nymphs, a revision of the Nemouridae family by Baumann (1975) includes the following helpful sentence: "2 cervical gills on each side of midline, 1 arising inside and 1 outside of lateral cervical sclerites, usually single and elongate, sometimes constricted but with 3 or 4 branches arising beyond gill base in Zapada cinctipes." This specimen clearly has the branches and is within the range of that species.
Troutnut is a project started in 2003 by salmonid ecologist Jason "Troutnut" Neuswanger to help anglers and
fly tyers unabashedly embrace the entomological side of the sport. Learn more about Troutnut or
support the project for an enhanced experience here.
Chris_3g
Posts: 59
Posts: 59
Chris_3g on Nov 26, 2008November 26th, 2008, 6:20 am EST
So, I have another ethics issue for you guys. Story first.
I got out this morning to fish for a little bit, and within half an hour, I had hooked and landed a really pretty 20" male brown.
Roughly two hours later, I spotted a couple of fish in what has become for me, a pretty popular hole. So, I proceeded to drift an egg fly through this lie, and after a few drifts, I felt a non-rock-like tug, so I set the hook, and quickly found that I had hooked into a big mean brown! Score +1!
So, the fight was on: first he tried swimming for deeper water, and I was able to curtail that. Next, it was upstream, which I was happy to let him do (within reason) so as to tire him out a little more quickly. Then, he decided that downstream was his best bet, and he was right, because just downstream of my position was a fast run of water! I knew I had to get him in quickly (as if I hadn't been trying before...), so I ran downstream ahead of him and managed to pull him onto a rock bed just short of the fast run of water!
It was a fight for the ages, and I actually had to use a little skill to manage the fight so as not to lose the fish. Score +2!
Then I saw, much to my chagrin, that I had in fact hooked his "chin" and not his mouth. Score -1000. Of course, I couldn't resist a picture of such a beautiful brown (see link), but I can't help but feel as though I shouldn't be proud of this fish at all.
I mean, this was a heck of a fish, who put up a heck of a fight, and I had to put up a heck of a fight to land him. And sure, the foul-hooking was completely unintentional, and given the close proximity of the actual hook-set to his mouth, I really didn't have a clue until I landed him, but the fact remains that I didn't actually fool this fish. I cheated.
Now, I could just as easily have claimed none of the above, and no one would have known the difference, i.e. "I caught a great big brown because I'm a great fly-fisherman." However, it's a matter of respect for the sport (and a conscience) that forces me to say something.
Have any of you had similar experiences? What did you make of them? Am I crazy for being this conscientious about a fish I caught?
Later on.
Chris.
P.S. - Here's a link to my a Fall's worth of fish (and it's only the end of November). Fall Fishing '08
I got out this morning to fish for a little bit, and within half an hour, I had hooked and landed a really pretty 20" male brown.
Roughly two hours later, I spotted a couple of fish in what has become for me, a pretty popular hole. So, I proceeded to drift an egg fly through this lie, and after a few drifts, I felt a non-rock-like tug, so I set the hook, and quickly found that I had hooked into a big mean brown! Score +1!
So, the fight was on: first he tried swimming for deeper water, and I was able to curtail that. Next, it was upstream, which I was happy to let him do (within reason) so as to tire him out a little more quickly. Then, he decided that downstream was his best bet, and he was right, because just downstream of my position was a fast run of water! I knew I had to get him in quickly (as if I hadn't been trying before...), so I ran downstream ahead of him and managed to pull him onto a rock bed just short of the fast run of water!
It was a fight for the ages, and I actually had to use a little skill to manage the fight so as not to lose the fish. Score +2!
Then I saw, much to my chagrin, that I had in fact hooked his "chin" and not his mouth. Score -1000. Of course, I couldn't resist a picture of such a beautiful brown (see link), but I can't help but feel as though I shouldn't be proud of this fish at all.
I mean, this was a heck of a fish, who put up a heck of a fight, and I had to put up a heck of a fight to land him. And sure, the foul-hooking was completely unintentional, and given the close proximity of the actual hook-set to his mouth, I really didn't have a clue until I landed him, but the fact remains that I didn't actually fool this fish. I cheated.
Now, I could just as easily have claimed none of the above, and no one would have known the difference, i.e. "I caught a great big brown because I'm a great fly-fisherman." However, it's a matter of respect for the sport (and a conscience) that forces me to say something.
Have any of you had similar experiences? What did you make of them? Am I crazy for being this conscientious about a fish I caught?
Later on.
Chris.
P.S. - Here's a link to my a Fall's worth of fish (and it's only the end of November). Fall Fishing '08
Falsifly on Nov 26, 2008November 26th, 2008, 7:11 am EST
Chris,
I can understand your remorse; foul hooking a fish is certainly deflating, especially when it is a fish of such stature. However, as I glean from your post, you are a man of high moral and ethical standards and will thus “Take it on the chin.”
I can understand your remorse; foul hooking a fish is certainly deflating, especially when it is a fish of such stature. However, as I glean from your post, you are a man of high moral and ethical standards and will thus “Take it on the chin.”
Falsifly
When asked what I just caught that monster on I showed him. He put on his magnifiers and said, "I can't believe they can see that."
When asked what I just caught that monster on I showed him. He put on his magnifiers and said, "I can't believe they can see that."
Troutnut on Nov 26, 2008November 26th, 2008, 12:33 pm EST
It might still be a fish to be proud of -- it depends, where and how did you hook it?
I think the question of whether a fish "counts" should rest on whether it tried to bite your fly or not. Of course, if it's hooked outside the mouth, you legally have to release it. But a catch-and-release angler's internal standard can be a bit more flexible, allowing us to make a good-faith subjective judgment of the intent of the fish.
The most extreme examples of that, for me, have been a couple incidents in which trout leaped clear out of the water as they grabbed my dry fly, but came down hooked in the top of the head or something. It would be illegal to keep such a fish and I would never do that, but it certainly goes down in the "caught fair and square" column of my mental records for the day. I'm sure the underwater equivalent of this situation is fairly common... it's just harder to discern.
A related situation is the fair-then-fouled fish: one that's fair-hooked to begin with, but the hook slips out of its mouth and catches in the pectoral fin or something. That's not quite as clear-cut: I'd call it "mostly caught." Again, the law is clear, but your memory can be more nuanced.
I think the question of whether a fish "counts" should rest on whether it tried to bite your fly or not. Of course, if it's hooked outside the mouth, you legally have to release it. But a catch-and-release angler's internal standard can be a bit more flexible, allowing us to make a good-faith subjective judgment of the intent of the fish.
The most extreme examples of that, for me, have been a couple incidents in which trout leaped clear out of the water as they grabbed my dry fly, but came down hooked in the top of the head or something. It would be illegal to keep such a fish and I would never do that, but it certainly goes down in the "caught fair and square" column of my mental records for the day. I'm sure the underwater equivalent of this situation is fairly common... it's just harder to discern.
A related situation is the fair-then-fouled fish: one that's fair-hooked to begin with, but the hook slips out of its mouth and catches in the pectoral fin or something. That's not quite as clear-cut: I'd call it "mostly caught." Again, the law is clear, but your memory can be more nuanced.
Jason Neuswanger, Ph.D.
Troutnut and salmonid ecologist
Troutnut and salmonid ecologist
CaseyP on Nov 26, 2008November 26th, 2008, 12:42 pm EST
foul-hooked fish are often much harder to land, but i agree, it's embarrassing no matter how you think it happened. go figure: three casts, three fish, every single one hooked at the front of the dorsal fin with the dropper of a two-nymph rig. sadly, i had to admit to those who asked that the day's results were not what i'd have wished. you have suggested a very good notation for the journal!
"You can observe a lot by watching." Yogi Berra
Chris_3g
Posts: 59
Posts: 59
Chris_3g on Nov 26, 2008November 26th, 2008, 2:28 pm EST
Good points Jason. I forgot to mention that I released the trout! That would be important from a legal standpoint, but I almost certainly would have released him anyway.
I can't say for sure that the brown went for the fly during the "fateful" drift, but he definitely moved for the fly on at least one of the previous drifts. The stream is pretty stained from the recent rain / snow melt, so I only noticed one lunge as I pulled back for a cast, which prompted additional drifts.
He was hooked on the underside of the jaw, about 1-2" from the end of the kype, which makes it conceivable that the interaction of the fly / mono / BB caused an issue if / when he went for the fly. I can attempt to justify the legitimacy of the hook-set (and I would have a decent case, given its proximity), but unfortunately, nothing can be proven one way or the other.
At the end of the day, I landed a beautiful brown trout after a great fight, and for lack of a better option, I guess I'll just remember the trout with an asterisk next to him.
Chris.
I can't say for sure that the brown went for the fly during the "fateful" drift, but he definitely moved for the fly on at least one of the previous drifts. The stream is pretty stained from the recent rain / snow melt, so I only noticed one lunge as I pulled back for a cast, which prompted additional drifts.
He was hooked on the underside of the jaw, about 1-2" from the end of the kype, which makes it conceivable that the interaction of the fly / mono / BB caused an issue if / when he went for the fly. I can attempt to justify the legitimacy of the hook-set (and I would have a decent case, given its proximity), but unfortunately, nothing can be proven one way or the other.
At the end of the day, I landed a beautiful brown trout after a great fight, and for lack of a better option, I guess I'll just remember the trout with an asterisk next to him.
Chris.
Quick Reply
Related Discussions
Topic
Replies
Last Reply
1
Nov 18, 2007
by Martinlf
by Martinlf
0
Jan 21, 2017
by Mcflyangler
by Mcflyangler