If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
nymphs a la Schwiebert
I got a used copy of Ernest Schwiebert's book, "Nymphs" and I've been
working on tying some of the mayflies. But, you know, they all look a lot alike. I've tied the Gordon Quill, the Hendrickson, and the March Brown, and begin to wonder whether this is worth the effort. Does anybody know, with all due respect to Mr. Schwiebert, whether trout really notice the difference between these things? And, does anybody else out there bother to put marabou gills on them as I've been doing? Thanks in advance for your comments. Mike |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
nymphs a la Schwiebert
Michael Kessler wrote in news:4037B83C.4060404
@netscape.net: I got a used copy of Ernest Schwiebert's book, "Nymphs" and I've been working on tying some of the mayflies. But, you know, they all look a lot alike. I've tied the Gordon Quill, the Hendrickson, and the March Brown, and begin to wonder whether this is worth the effort. Does anybody know, with all due respect to Mr. Schwiebert, whether trout really notice the difference between these things? And, does anybody else out there bother to put marabou gills on them as I've been doing? Yes. Ask yourself: do the places these mayfly nymphs are going to be fished afford the fish enough time to do a body part inventory on the food item? One possible answer will be "sometimes" ... _perhaps_ then a more realistic fly stands a better chance of being tested than a more generic pattern. Steve |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
nymphs a la Schwiebert
Ask yourself: do the places these mayfly nymphs are going to be fished afford the fish enough time to do a body part inventory on the food item? that's a very good point. it depends on the type of water as well as how educated the fish are to imitations. one note about these "inspections", in reading Merwin's New North American Trout Fishing, he speaks of an amplification of the fly at the edge of the trout's 'snel window', first time I had read that. So when you see a trout move up to withing 2-3" of a fly and drift with it, it is actually using the water properties to magnify the fly to get a better look...all done instinctually of course. you all around here may know this much better than I do, but it was the first time I read about it. -- so much fishing, so little time -- --please remuv the 'NOWAY2it' from my email addy to email me-- |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
nymphs a la Schwiebert
There seem to be multiple approaches to creating a fly pattern. McClane
opted for what he called an impressionistic approach, a mere suggestion of trout food, let the fish fill in the details. LaFontaine sort of went with a combination of imitation and suggestion, as soft hackle flies also to me seem to do. Then there is the exact imitation type we get from Schwiebert. And all 3 types work at least some of the time. Or do all work all of the time if properly presented? Mike |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
nymphs a la Schwiebert
But does the fish key on the actual parts of the fly or more so on the
reflections, refractions, prismatic effects, halos, umbras, etc. caused by the fly? And in what combinations? What does a fish actualy see? We can pretty well tell how the fish eye functions in relation to image processing, but how does that pea sized brain process that data? LaFontaine flys simulate effects along with the actual physical fly components and have been successful in catching fish. Lou T do a body part inventory on the food item? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
nymphs a la Schwiebert
Lat705 wrote:
But does the fish key on the actual parts of the fly or more so on the reflections, refractions, prismatic effects, halos, umbras, etc. caused by the fly? And in what combinations? What does a fish actualy see? We can pretty well tell how the fish eye functions in relation to image processing, but how does that pea sized brain process that data? We don't and can't know, but that's OK. It promotes speculation sprinkled with BS, which, done cheerfully and in moderation, is one of the most enjoyable aspects of FFing and FTing. JR |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
nymphs a la Schwiebert
Michael Kessler wrote in message ...
... and begin to wonder whether this is worth the effort. Don't forget impractical considerations: Justifying a fly's design strictly in terms of fish production is unecessarily restricting requirenent. I tie lots of flies that are fancier than they need to be, just because I enjoy making them. Come to think of it, maybe somebody should write a book entitled "The Impractical Tier." |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
nymphs a la Schwiebert
Michael Kessler writes:
And all 3 types work at least some of the time. Or do all work all of the time if properly presented? I find myself using the Pheasant Tail in its many iterations. However, there have been times when it doesn't work, in which case a Hare's Ear (dark, light, olive) will work. I rely on those two ties and a couple of home made caddis worms, and, of course, the different stonefly ties. Dave http://hometown.aol.com/davplac/myhomepage/index.html |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
nymphs a la Schwiebert
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
nymphs a la Schwiebert
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|