1. Troutnut Forum
›
2. Fly Tying
›
3. Putting this site to good use!, Page 3

Jason: not aware of any recent, formal studies on the color morphs that address them with any depth. I could be forgetting something or someone.

That's a really good point. It's probably counter-productive to imitate too closely something that evolved for millions of years to avoid getting eaten by trout. Of course, the trout simultaneously evolved to eat that thing, so it's a dilemma. You suggested the most sensible solution, which is to imitate "defective" individuals that are real enough to be accepted by trout, and conspicuous enough to be noticed.

I haven't read LaFontaine's books in the last couple years, but I'll summarize what I remember of his take on the subject. When you're looking at an object trying to figure out what it is, there are two types of cues: positive cues that make it look like something familiar, and negative cues that make it look unlike something. LaFontaine seemed to think that selective trout respond to a variety of positive cues, but not so much to negative cues. It's like they've got a little checklist of features, and if the bug or imitation has each feature on the list, it's food, even if it also has some other features that would scream "not a real bug" to us... because those negative cues are ignored. This is a pretty strong argument for "enhanced" flies of all sorts, from those with sparkly synthetic dubbing to flashbacks to bright orange wings, as long as those enhancements don't mess with the positive cues the trout are keying on.

Yeah, that's certainly one way to explain why trout are not necessarily put off by things like hooks and leaders, and I like Gary's theories. He doesn't seem to have spent quite as much time considering how negative associations brought about by pressure and exposure to flies factor into the equation, but perhaps that just wasn't very significant on many of the waters he studied and fished. There are some exceptions, however, notably his comments about his Plain Jane streamer:



He clearly seems to have understood that "attractive" traits could also repel. As I recall, he originally developed this fly while fishing on the Buffalo Ford section of the Yellowstone, which was (is?) one of the most heavily pressured areas in the Park.

Finally got a chance to read this fantastic thread. The best line by far:



That one belongs in the Troutnut Top Ten for sure. Well put, Lloyd - a zinger even Louis could come up with no response for.

Great flies, Brett - beautifully conceived and tied. Thank you for sharing them as well as your thought process in developing them. Too seldom is the evolution of a pattern shared, and it helps get readers get into the mind of the skilled tier, if not the fish. I for one am someone who appreciates the development of patterns more than the fly itself. Again, thanks for sharing.

-Shawn

Hey, I responded!

Gonzo, see your PM's thanks a million. Your book is truly a work of art! I've invested alot of mulah over the years in tying materials, books, hooks, etc. but your book is pretty darn priceless! Insert Visa add! I know I'm a newcomer to the site, and don't know everyone, but if you don't have this book go get it.

Mr. Chappell, thanks for your kind words sir! However, I must add that I'm having a ball driving the wife nuts talking about how to improve different patterns over the internet, phone, and at the fly shop. I enjoy tying, and fishing the "simple" bugs just as much as the next man! The ol "Don't fix what isn't broke." theory! Sometimes I just feel it isn't enough. Small fish and low fish count days account for my madness. Not to mention seeing Mr. Trout snub nose your pattern and then attack the real deal!

Mcjames, I have yet to try Tyvec. Though while working I passed some guys doing a school remodel with a large roll of it. Thought about asking for a foot or two of it. I'm planning on getting some very soon.

Konchu/Troutnut, very interesting stuff. However, thank you for further complicating an already vastly complicated fly. I believe I'll be tying this guy in three color schemes. Deep Brown, Olive, Light Brown/Yellow.

Gonzo, your thoughts regarding hot-spots and especially bead heads really hit home with me. I too have thought that very same thing. Your book better dipicts the point you are pushing.

Troutnut, "I don't have much insight one way or the other, because my collecting methods are somewhat messy." Stay messy, just keep em coming! It's a great reference site.

"When you're looking at an object trying to figure out what it is, there are two types of cues: positive cues that make it look like something familiar, and negative cues that make it look unlike something." Beads, hotspots, wire, tinsels, epoxy, the list goes on! What makes it interesting to me is when a smart fish eats a dumb fly. My fly box is full of dumb flies! I always find myself wondering what specifically made the fish eat something that really doesn't resemble anything. I tie a midge pattern that doesn't remotely look like a midge other than the overall shape of the fly, which is entirely too big, but takes fish like no other fly in my arsenal. This fly is my searching pattern and always tie it on first before even descending streamside.

Shawnny3, thank you very much sir for your kind words! I have seen your work before, and have really had no interest in tying classic flies until seeing your work quite some time ago. I've been told they are really interesting to tie, and have a good friend who ties them. He told me that I would be amazed to see how few wraps go into making those flies. Marrying wings, large tinsels, and big hooks make my head spin for some reason. But I can sit at the vise all day cranking out a size 20 BWO while managing to go cross eyed. Beautiful work my friend. My current favorite is Fire!

I too appreciate the development of a fly. Not too often do we see it either. With an endless arena of fly manufacturors and flies for just about every bug on the river not too many seem to bother anymore. This fly, and the March Brown nymph, are two specifically that bother me. These flies are either not available to purchase or don't appropriately match the actual bug. I have yet to find one comercially tied March Brown Nymph that even slightly resembles the actual bug! Gonzo, I too have made this search. Orvis, does sell an Oliver Edwards March Brown Nymph pattern. I believe it's an Upqua Merchants pattern. Though Orvis's/Umpqua's tiers have butchered his original pattern. It's ghastly to look at! Sorry Oliver! And, as mentioned, I don't feel that the original Split Back PMD pattern even slightly resembles the actual bug in any form of it's life cycle.

To everyone that replied, many thanks! I'm also glad to know I'm not the only "wierdo" out there trying to decipher all the aspects in this sport I've come to know and love! Less on "know" and more on "love". I've learned a tremendous amount and see that there are plenty of knowledgeable folks/members on this forum!

Cheers!

~Brett Romer

Does anyone sell any of these killer flies: Oliver Edwards, Lloyd's, etc? I bought Lloyd's book a few years ago. But my flytying skills aren't the greatest. And with 2 kids, well, I'd rather spend my free time fishing. It would take me a half hour to tie half this stuff, and then I'd manage to screw it up at some point and get really pissed off. I'd like to at least get samples to try them out on some of our central PA streams. Then I could look into tying them. I'd be glad to tie up some green weenies for people. Hahaha.

Apparently, after this evening, all I need is an olive soft hackle. Amazing. This sport can drive you mad.

I don't know of anyone who sells Lloyd's patterns, though I'd love to see them in a catalog someday. I sat next to Rob Lewis at last year's Flyfishing Show, though, and he develops realistic patterns and then teaches them to overseas workers who then crank them out for him at a reasonable price. I haven't fished any of his flies personally, but they looked to me like pretty nice flies for the price.

Here's Rob's site: http://www.robsrealistics.com/index.html

-Shawn

Those caddis pupae look pretty cool. I might have to check those out. Thanks.

I'm bumping this great thread up for anyone who's new.

Thanks Louis,

Jason said -
Good thing, or we'd never fool trout with our flies for that long curved tail with a stinger on the end of it.:)

I propose an experiment to put the hook issue to rest. We tie and fish our flies in an effort to mimic the naturals, paying particular attention in great detail to the physiology of the insect we are trying to imitate. We attribute to the trout its ability to scrutinize even the finest of detail and so our quest continues in perpetuity. However, that nagging appendage known as the hook continues to perplex us given the trout’s discerning eye and its willingness to ignore such a blatant mischaracterization. So here goes my experimental proposition: The next time you go fishing and catch a fish on a particular pattern continue with the same fly until you catch a sufficient number of fish to confirm its effectiveness. Once you feel comfortable that the fly is working cut the hook off at the end of the abdomen of that same fly and resume fishing. My educated guess is that no more fish will be caught. In summation I submit that the hook itself is the trigger that causes the fish to be caught.

We will need at least 30 participants to make it statistically significant.

LOL :):) Very good, Al! The logic of your theorem is undeniable. :)

Bruce and I have completed that experiment several times while trico fishing.
Allan is correct. No more fish will be landed. Trust me, they will rise and take the fly, but none will be hooked or landed.



We didn't need 30 people, we only needed two guys with the same fly. One fly had the hook and one didn't. The wild browns ate our offerings equally, but I caught all of the trout.
Now, on the other hand, a size 24 fly that is delivered into the rump of a Holstein will give terrific fight on 7x whether or not there is a hook attached ...

Great thread...and I have little time to join in.

Some anecdotes to ponder…

Once upon a time, in my somewhat sordid past, I made a discovery that, at the time, sent a chill down my spine that still reverberates to this day. In a successful bid to quickly feed a crew of hungry backpackers I resorted to sight-fishing live nymphs on a spider-web line and tiny hook to drift-feeding brookies. If I could execute a good drift, the fish could spot the wriggling little beast, in this case large golden stonefly larvae, from a good distance. They’d raise their fins and quiver in anticipation of the drifting morsel, from three feet away. But, curiously, if an errant current took hold the line and dragged the nymph along too quickly, the little brookies’ fins would sag and their interest would abate. Those unsophisticated little mountain char didn't spook, they just failed to see the speeding nymph as “food” and let it pass. Truly out of mind, out of sight! What sent the chill down my spine was that that “fly” was the real thing. Take home: Presentation trumps fly pattern.


The Mystery of the Blue Lobster
A number of years back I was at a research lab on the Atlantic coast. One of the projects they had going was to check out the feasibility of raising lobsters for market. They raised from eggs some bright blue lobsters. I inquired about them because I'd also seen blue crayfish. They said it was an interesting story...

Blue lobsters are something like one in a million in the wild. But in the lab they were finding a much higher percentage of blues (don’t remember the numbers). Turns out they are a quite common color but the researchers theorize that the blue ones are selected out by predators (sculpins, sea robins, and striped bass mostly), thus nearly all wild lobsters are found in the usual earth tones. In the lab no such selective pressure exists, and blue ones are relatively common.

Similarly, one of the reasons many flocking bird species all look alike is that the odd one, say the starling with a white tail feather, or the lone mallard in with a flock of Gads, is more apt to be targeted by hawks and falcons. When you are prey, it pays not to stand out. I believe this is at least one of the reasons that fluorescent or odd-colored lures can work so well.

But the story is not a simple one bc fishing is not so simple…

As is discussed above about non-descript lures … some bass fisherman are hip to the idea that some lures are more effective when non-descript, esp in hard-fished waters, as they don’t provide negative cues.

Very interesting anecdote, Paul. Predator behavior sure is fickle at times. Makes you wonder if the little trout took the sudden acceleration of a pretty big nymph as aggressive behavior. Predators sometimes back away from that when exhibited by even the most over-matched prey. Examples of this are common in nature shows for a little comic relief. Of course if the predator is really hungry, the response is usually, "Screw it. I'm eating!" :) This kinda reminds me of that old steelheader's line as to why they only swing flies higher in the water column and refuse to bottom bounce nymphs, "I'm looking for the ones that want to play." :)

Level of activity/aggressiveness/vulnerability certainly plays a powerful role, and there are a number of reasons/factors and permutations of them as to why.

I've sometimes thought of fish activity in percentage terms -how far they will meet me, or how far I have to stretch to meet them. If they meet me halfway (a fifty percenter day) I'm pretty happy. A 100 percenter day is when the fish jump out of the water and rummage through my tackle box; I haven't experienced one of those. But there have been times when it was close.

As to those brookies, and others I've watched, I believe that there are cues that clue fish into food, and when those are not present, the object means little -unless it fits another category like ... "Otter!!!!!" lol. Drift-feeding trouts job is to sort out the bugs from the chaff and it appears to me that they have a mental filter to help them do it. But...they are often willing to try something new, at least once in a given session. Presentation, esp subsurface, is very hard to do consistently. I don't think many anglers fully appreciate that. Too quick to say "What're they taking?"

Or they chose to key on easy pickings and avoided unnecessary expenditure of energy.