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

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

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--

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

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?

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

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."

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

OWAY2it (-- Rob) wrote in
:

'snel window'

Rob ... 'snel window' is not a term I'm familiar with.
Care to expand on it a little?

Steve

irate (Dave LaCourse) wrote in
:

the different stonefly ties

Would there be a "PTN or Hares Ear" of the larger
Stonefly ties ?? Woollys?


Steve (A part from a large Hares Ear of course ;-)