nymphs a la Schwiebert

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
Steve writes:

Is there a generic stonefly pattern (especially for the larger species)
that would "work anywhere there are trout" just like the PTN and Hares
Ear?
(Assuming there is a population of large stoneflys of course)

You've answered the woolly part then. The woolly (worm or bugger)
variations are often cited here as patterns for stone fly nymphs.

Steve

Not that I use. I have few stones in my repertoire, but I do have a
yellow
stone that is my "lucky fly" (or at least it was until I lost it to a
snag).
Small (for stones) - size 14 with a black bead tied in on the shank of the
hook, surrounded by yellow dubbing. Tail and antennae were yellow goose
biots.
Head was same as body with the hair (dubbing) pulled out. I got this fly
from
the jaw of a large (22+) land locked salmon. Over time it began to fall
apart,
but rather than fix it (it still worked - why bother?) I continued to use
it
and catch fish. It was a scraggly looking thing when last I saw it. d;o)

Dave


Hi Dave,
If so inclined please send me your email address. Had it once, but got
bumped twice today. Interested in the pattern. Just want a few more
details. Fun for me to goof around with patterns.
BestWishes,
DaveMohnsen
Denver

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

Steve

Steve,

I'm sure someone more familiar with the work could explain it much better, but
due to the physical properties of water, the light refracts in such a way that
a trout (or any seeing animal underwater) has a circular window through which
objects above the water can be seen. I'm sure you're familiar with this by some
other term. I found this link
http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/explain/atmos_refr/invariant.html which has a lot
more information than I can digest right now, but if you follow the first link
on that page to Snel's law there is a more reasonable explanation of
refraction... with which I'm sure you're also very familiar.

At any rate, others applied all this to angling and what a trout sees and found
(by analysis alone I believe) that at a certain distance objects in the circle
(or as I called it 'window') were magnified.

I'm way over my head here, but that's what I was referring to in my post.
Apparently, according to Merwin, Marinaro, Edward Hewitt, and others wrote
about this in their works.

-- Rob

-- Rob wrote:



I'm sure someone more familiar with the work could explain it much better, but
due to the physical properties of water, the light refracts in such a way that
a trout (or any seeing animal underwater) has a circular window through which
objects above the water can be seen. I'm sure you're familiar with this by some
other term. I found this link
http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/explain/atmos_refr/invariant.html which has a lot
more information than I can digest right now, but if you follow the first link
on that page to Snel's law there is a more reasonable explanation of
refraction... with which I'm sure you're also very familiar.

At any rate, others applied all this to angling and what a trout sees and found
(by analysis alone I believe) that at a certain distance objects in the circle
(or as I called it 'window') were magnified.

I'm way over my head here, but that's what I was referring to in my post.
Apparently, according to Merwin, Marinaro, Edward Hewitt, and others wrote
about this in their works.


I used to do alot of snorkeling. Although I've worn glasses or contacts
since I was twelve, I was able to snorkel without any eye correction. I
didn't see quite as well as with correction, but I was able to see a
WHOLE lot better underwater than I could on land without correction.

Willi

OWAY2it (-- Rob) wrote in
:

At any rate, others applied all this to angling and what a trout sees
and found (by analysis alone I believe) that at a certain distance
objects in the circle (or as I called it 'window') were magnified.

Yeah ... the window at the surface I understand.

Thanks


Steve

used to do alot of snorkeling. Although I've worn glasses or contacts
since I was twelve, I was able to snorkel without any eye correction. I
didn't see quite as well as with correction, but I was able to see a
WHOLE lot better underwater than I could on land without correction.

Willi


I'm not sure of the physics involved, but
I don't think that's the same thing that the trout experience, since their eyes
are built to see underwater in the first place. I would guess that your vision
is corrected by the artificial lens created by the air/glass/water boundary of
the mask/goggles, not being underwater per se. The effect of the snel circle,
on the other hand, would be something that you could (if I can believe what
they're writing) experience if you approach an object floating on the surface
and view it at the right angle / distance.

-- Rob (of course, I could be completely wrong about this...)

"Willi" wrote

, but I was able to see a
WHOLE lot better underwater than I could on land



Fu**ing proof that this guy IS part fish !!! IMHO, this invalidates his
awesome fisherman's reputation, hell he probably thinks in little bubbles
like a trout, too G ...no fair !!



JK, of course