Match the Hatch... Fact or Fiction?

At the end of the day we are dealing with two issue here.
The behaviour of the species Trout.
The ability of the Fly Fisherman to deceive the fish.

No question of doubt in my mind that fish that are subject to heavy fishing pressure be it in or out of a catch and release zone do become if you like conditioned and develop heightened senses of awareness that may otherwise have not done.

I know for a fact that much of this has to do with the filament we attach a fly to. There can be a very marked difference so far as catch rate is concerned with the same fly by reduction from say 4 to 5x or 5x to 6x.

I did write a post related to this some time back, and did refer to the fact that l had fish in ponds that would not take a fly attached to filament, but would engulf and eject a fly that was not.

Forgot to add here that Dave and l discussed this when he was here with me last. This is what he told me, and l know this to be true as l have done same.

Dave has a pond also that he feeds the trout with pellets. If those pellets are cast onto the water in a instant the fish rise to take them.
If a pellet fly is cast to those fish, one may get hooked after which they all ignore it in favor of the real food, why. Do they associate that the mono attached to the hook is danger, or is it that the fly does not smell like the real food source or both. Bear in mind that these fish have been caught many times.

Are we now dealing with selective behaviour or a conditioned behaviour.
For sure these fish are selective as they favor the real food source over the artificial, or are they conditioned to the fact that they see the mono or the hook. ?

Likewise cast a real worm and a artificial worm, which one of the two would the fish prefer.
It is sight of or smell, it has to be the latter.
And l will argue that this can also be the case between any other natural food source and a artificial.

Further bait guides here know well enough that a crawfish taken from the river is way more effective than one that has come from another river source. Therefore, those trophy Browns know the difference.
Add a fly to the equation and the odds are way more reduced to catch that fish.

Davy





The cautious approach is but one part of the equation here which l would include such issues as drag or retardation of a more natural drift of that fly.

It amount to the same thing at the end of the day, the trout views what it sees with suspicion based on its prior experiences.

In the case of selective feeding modes, we look at that based simply on the fact we have difficulty catching that fish, for it would still selectivly feed in that manner otherwise without the human interference, all be it may well likewise do so with suspicion if the fish was prior subject to angling pressure.

Not sure if l can locate the work that was done at one time related to trout and Salmon that were subjected to a number interesting experiments to try and determine how they react to different food and non food sources, it was very interesting.

[quote author=Soft-hackle link=topic=3253.msg24467#msg24467 date=1245686742]
A few quotes fro Bob Wyatt:

" Unless you specifically target selective feeders, and restrict your efforts to spring creeks and chalkstreams during major hatches, what you are far more likely to encounter these days are disturbed and spooky trout, which is not the same thing as suspicious and selective trout."

I think we need to consider this into the mix. How much fishing pressure a stream/area receives surely plays an important part in trout behavior. I know where I fish, mostly, the trout are stocked. Initially, they are quite easy to catch. I believe fishing pressure on my home river makes these trout, as time progresses, more and more difficult to catch. The parade of fishermen, in addition to being caught and released, makes them more spooky-gittery, or whatever term you'd like to use. Does a more exact imitation of a natural present overcome a trout's spooky behavior? I would say, probably not. It might, however respond to a more cautious approach and a better presentation of an imitation.

What about fish in NO KILL areas. They are definitely harder to please, but is that selectivity?

" The window for what we interpret as selective behavior is actually quite narrow. observed only when the trout's prey is super-abundant, or in waters where a single type of food is predominant. Keyed to a specific food-form, the trout simply ignores anything that does not fit its established search-image and which lacks the stimuli to trigger a predatory attack, what biologists call its functional response....... As far as the discriminatory powers of trout are concerned, what we are observing is not suspicion and selectivity but the occasional preoccupation of a very simple predatory brain."

We, I believe, attribute far more human characteristics to trout than they actually possess. I believe it is more a stimulus-response sort of behavior than anything else, and it is we that complicate it to no end.

Mark
[/quote]

Spooky trout are not the same as selective trout, IMHO. The large trout in New Zealand are spooky and difficult to catch. However, from what I understand, they live in freestone rivers without the prolific hatches that serve to develop selective feeding behavior.

I think that even in no kill sections of rivers, catch and release fishing kills fish. Depending on the study, estimates seem to range from about 3% to 5% of released fish die. So being caught is a survival disadvantage.

To me that means the fish that do not get caught as often have a survival advantage. Pretty soon the population of fish that was planted in a no kill area has relatively more of the harder to catch fish and fewer of the easier to catch fish. Whether the survival advantage is spookiness, or a more difficult fishing lie, or night time feeding, or whatever the cause is; fish that get caught less often have a survival advantage.

It could be as simple as choosing a feeding lie near the right side of the bank rather than the left side of the bank, because the left side is easier to fish for right handed casters. Whether a fish chooses a prime lie near the right or left side of the river presumably is a random event, but the resultant survival advantage of that fish is not random.

It is similar to the chicken and egg question. We could ask, "Do large trout feed at night because large trout find it easier to ambush prey at night, or do they get large because they fed at night from the beginning?" To the pragmatist, the underlying reason doesn't matter. It only matters that he can catch larger fish by fishing at night. To the theorist it does matter, because one reason presumes that large night feeding trout get that way purely by accident, but the other reason presumes that they can modify their behavior.

What I am saying is that there are two possible ways that a fish populations get more difficult to catch. The first is random and that is what I have described above. If a random choice or inherent behavior of the fish results in it being caught less often, it will live longer and these fish eventually become the larger and more dominant population of that fish's year class.

The second model is that the fish can modify its behavior so that being caught by an articifcial fly often enough leads to it modifying its behavior so that it gets caught less often.

I happen to believe that both things happen. I believe that both random choices and learned or behavioral modification lead to a fish population that is more difficult to catch.

I technically agree with both Davy and Silver regarding their answers, and I believe Bob Wyatt is saying, and I agree, that selective feeding is not as common as we think it is in trout behavior. It is often more of spookiness or something that tips them off to our presence or is telling them something is drastically wrong with what they are seeing. It does not fit the criteria for what is "food". That to me, is a lot less complicated, and fits better into the idea of a pea brained trout.

It is very similar, IMO, to always fishing dry flies because this is what we human fishermen are most attracted to; Taking trout on dry flies. We ignore the fact that a fish taking the fly from the surface is, for the most part, an exception and we center all our theories and ideas of fly fishing for trout on an activity that occurs about 15% of the time. I believe the same holds true of selectively feeding trout. While this does occur under certain circumstances, it's far less than we think, yet we tend to concentrate on that the most.

In my estimation we are the ones that complicate the process. We do so because we are, essentially, hard wired to react in this manner. We have to have an explanation for behavior that could be as simple as the trout taking insects of one type because there is more of them.

Now a question I think we must also address is. Would you carefully select what appears to you as a good match for the insect upon which trout are, in your opinion, "selectively" feeding, and then make a sloppy cast, with a dragging fly and a visible leader? To me that'd be a waste of time. As I said, earlier in this thread, I believe the fly needs to behave properly, and that is more important in the scheme of things. To me, there is always a chance a trout might accept an odd ball fly if it acts like a real fly should act.

Matching the hatch is good practice because it offers a fish one more reason to accept our very crude offerings.

Mark

Mark,

Gary Borger considers proper presentation to include everything that is necessary to present a fly successfully. It is just not the casting, the mending, etc that most would consider presentation. It includes the skills of reading the water, stealthy wading, fly choice, and other fishing skills that normally would not be considered as "presentation."

The point is that when we talk about the standard concept of presentation as being important, we ignore other choices that we make that determine whether we are successful or not. Whether we blow the cast, or the mend, or spook the fish by spashy wading, or choose the wrong fly, or tie a bad knot, or incorrectly read the current and cast that is necessary; all these errors result in the same failure. So everything we do from A to Z affects our success.

I think this is what Davy meant he said, "At the end of the day we are dealing with two issue here. The behaviour of the species Trout. The ability of the Fly Fisherman to deceive the fish."

I happen to have Bob Wyatt's book and it is a fine book and worth reading. Having said that, Gary Borger's Presentation is the book that I recommend that every fly fisher read.

If the price that even a paperback copy of Presentation demands is any indication, there is a tremendous demand for this out of copy book. You will be shocked at the prices below.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listi...condition=used

http://www.amazon.com/Presentation-G.../dp/0962839256

Sorry, but I consider fly selection to be separate from presentation. To me, presentation means the act of showing the fly you have selected to the fish. I agree judging the water, stealth, where you present from will figure in, but you must make a choice of fly before you present it, and to me, that's a separate process.

It is very much like me doing a painting. I pick a subject first; then I must decide how I will execute it. To me, that's two separate processes.

Mark

[quote author=Soft-hackle link=topic=3253.msg24498#msg24498 date=1245723371]

In my estimation we are the ones that complicate the process. We do so because we are, essentially, hard wired to react in this manner. We have to have an explanation for behavior that could be as simple as the trout taking insects of one type because there is more of them.

Mark
[/quote]

Mark that in my view is very close to the truth.

Quite often its not the trout that are being selective, its the angler. We precondition ourselves to fish in a certain manner at certain times of the year, when the predictable hatches are expected. There are many factors outside our control thank God that make sucess an uncertainty , and keep us on our toes.

When you stand at the starting point in your favorite pool , ready for a hatch, a fall of spinner or whatever - consider the implications of the weather, the angle of the sun, the possibility that a dozen anglers fished that stretch earlier, and the previous day and the one before that. Don't assume the trout are merely being selective.

I dont take as fact anything I read or told by other anglers - it aint fact until you have proved it to yourself on the water. One lesson learned on the water is worth ten learned elsewhere for these are the ones that you will reach for when required.

Quote:

---

Mark that in my view is very close to the truth.

Quite often its not the trout that are being selective, its the angler. We precondition ourselves to fish in a certain manner at certain times of the year, when the predictable hatches are expected. There are many factors outside our control thank God that make sucess an uncertainty , and keep us on our toes.

When you stand at the starting point in your favorite pool , ready for a hatch, a fall of spinner or whatever - consider the implications of the weather, the angle of the sun, the possibility that a dozen anglers fished that stretch earlier, and the previous day and the one before that. Don't assume the trout are merely being selective.

I dont take as fact anything I read or told by other anglers - it aint fact until you have proved it to yourself on the water. One lesson learned on the water is worth ten learned elsewhere for these are the ones that you will reach for when required.

---

I could not agree with you more.

Mark

I have been restrained on this topic as I am only a some time match the hatch guy. I am no expert on dry fly fishing , insects or anything else about fly fishing. I have been fly fishing for 50 plus years and the more I learn the less I know. One thing I am sure of is that we over think our sport , that is we make it more complex than it is. I cannot count the times that I have tried to match the hatch and been out fished by some guy throwing a size six woolly bugger. I have also had the experience of being king of the river for an hour or so matching a hatch correctly. My answer is simple find out what turns you on about fly fishing and go for it. If you want to be scientific angler - Do it and please share what you learn with the rest of us. Some anglers fish for trout like cats and can tease them into striking. Some fish on top , some fish on the bottom. Fly fishing is a big house and we can all learn from eachother. The fact is that fly fishing is a sport where several seemingly contradictory facts can all be true . That is the mystery that keeps me fishing.

Absolutely!

Mark

[quote author=wwelz link=topic=3253.msg24508#msg24508 date=1245764485]
I have been restrained on this topic as I am only a some time match the hatch guy. I am no expert on dry fly fishing , insects or anything else about fly fishing. I have been fly fishing for 50 plus years and the more I learn the less I know. One thing I am sure of is that we over think our sport , that is we make it more complex than it is. I cannot count the times that I have tried to match the hatch and been out fished by some guy throwing a size six woolly bugger. I have also had the experience of being king of the river for an hour or so matching a hatch correctly. My answer is simple find out what turns you on about fly fishing and go for it. If you want to be scientific angler - Do it and please share what you learn with the rest of us. Some anglers fish for trout like cats and can tease them into striking. Some fish on top , some fish on the bottom. Fly fishing is a big house and we can all learn from eachother. The fact is that fly fishing is a sport where several seemingly contradictory facts can all be true . That is the mystery that keeps me fishing.
[/quote]

True very true and fact if it was only about the catching none of us would be fly fishing we'd be using live bait with spinning or other non-fly fishing tackle!