Match the Hatch... Fact or Fiction?

What's your opinion of the Match the Hatch Approach? Do you think anglers who believe in this catch more fish than those that don't?

I'm a huge believer in Matching the Hatch. In fact I believe in yet another level of matching the hatch. Success comes from not only matching the hatch but matching the precise, stage, size, silhouette and color of the natural the fish have keyed into.

This observation comes from years of fishing the very rich and pressured system of the Delaware.

I would also argue that match the hatch and trout selectivity is a unavoidably logical conclusion based upon natural selection and trout behavior. More later!

NJfred,

Nice post, and one I really agree with. I think that matching the hatch with the right fly is a very productive way to fish. As far as size stage color etc. ( I try to focus primarily on color, size, and silouhette) those are all very important things when imitating the insects that the trout are feeding on. However, I do not believe that it is crucial to be spot on exact in your representation of the natural. A little bit of variation is helpful when trying to convince a smart trout to take your fly out of the crowd. So I add little twists in my patterns. As far as stage goes that is a very important part of matching the hatch. I can remember times where in the early stages of a iso hatch there were a lot of emergers and even more duns on the water. But the larger fish keyed in on the emergers only, they woulden't touch a dun. One other key is fly behavior. It may not come into play too much where there is a very large amount of bugs drifting through a riffle but it largely comes into play when fishing flatter water with less bugs on the water. The fish can see the fly coming and how it behaves can sometimes be the deciding factor between a take or a refusal. So in my opinion matching the hatch is important because espcially on pressured fish like you said the fish won't just eat anything even when they are rising very steadily. Imitating the insect closely is critical.

Though I really love to fish dries and find it the most exciting way to fish, since I've learend to Euro nymph I have been focusing less on matching the hatch and searching the whole river for rising fish and more on fishing attractor type flies where the reaction strike or the strike out of curiousity are more important. But like dries, matching the right nymph for the right insect is very helpful.

I will have to ask you the rhetorical question of why does and White Wulff or a usual work so well on that system? Also, why is a rusty spinner so effective even when their are all yellow/sulphur spinners on the water? Why do soft hackles and wet flies work during intense hatches when trout are keyed in on naturals? The answer is that any successful fly has triggers that result in making the trout take your fly.

Let's take the French for an example. They fish on high pressurerd streams and their number one dry fly is an F Fly. They use this for mayfly and caddis fly hatches. The fly is very simple. It's nothing more than a cdc caddis. they change the wing and body color to match the naturals. They rely on excellent presentation skills to catch fish.

I will agree that when fishing glide type water like the Delaware does call for more exact imitations of the hatching insects. However, on other waterways, even those with wild fish, one might achieve some serious oversight if they get to involved with matching the hatch.

The correct answer is that there are times when you need to do it and there are times that you do not. Know when and how is what catches an angler more fish at the end of the day.

Matching the hatch-Hmmmm. Well I use flies that are closely suggestive of the naturals around. I select a size that comes close to the natural and that looks like the particular type fly present. I believe it is a good practice and helps. However, I believe fly behavior is always important. I know that matching the hatch is not. If it acts like the natural, it will be accepted more readily.

My thought is we will never REALLY match the hatch because I don't know of any natural that has a hook running beneath it.

Mark

Quote:

---

The correct answer is that there are times when you need to do it and there are times that you do not.

---

That is the answer. There are always exceptions when one technique will outproduce another....

I don't care to get that specific anymore...flies like the usual, adams, ausable bomber, stimulator cover my efforts for dry fly fishing...I don't have the time nor the inclination to carry a fly shop's worth of flies every outing. I stay with the old standby's and am focusing on presentation and technique...and if heaven forbid the fish are taking a specific fly that I don't have...I am confident one of you guys on the river next to me will be happy to share. :o

[quote author=kyle link=topic=3253.msg24386#msg24386 date=1245439264]
NJfred,

Nice post, and one I really agree with. I think that matching the hatch with the right fly is a very productive way to fish. As far as size stage color etc. ( I try to focus primarily on color, size, and silouhette) those are all very important things when imitating the insects that the trout are feeding on. However, I do not believe that it is crucial to be spot on exact in your representation of the natural. A little bit of variation is helpful when trying to convince a smart trout to take your fly out of the crowd.
[/quote]

Agree and disagree. Disagree....Trout aren't smart. They are dumber than skunks. They have a brain the size of a pea.

Agree... slight variation. Seen times when all they are taking are cripples... they let regular duns float over their heads in traditional variations. Slight changes change the silhouette. Have seen this in a trico spinner fall most recently. Good tie with perpendicular wings failed completely. Closer look at the bugs revieled spinners with wings against body. Bad tie with longer wings trailing along the body crushed them.

[quote author=Adam link=topic=3253.msg24393#msg24393 date=1245444757]

Quote:

---

The correct answer is that there are times when you need to do it and there are times that you do not.

---

That is the answer. There are always exceptions when one technique will outproduce another....

I don't care to get that specific anymore...flies like the usual, adams, ausable bomber, stimulator cover my efforts for dry fly fishing...I don't have the time nor the inclination to carry a fly shop's worth of flies every outing. I stay with the old standby's and am focusing on presentation and technique...and if heaven forbid the fish are taking a specific fly that I don't have...I am confident one of you guys on the river next to me will be happy to share. :o
[/quote]

Come with me in July when the Dorthea's get going on the Upper West Branch of the Delaware and trout are rising. Use whatever you want too but not a dorthea imitation. No question a dorthea imitation in my hands will outfish whatever you chose to use (not a nymph fished just below the surface in size to match natural.)

Match the hatch matters less on poor food systems where fish must be more opportunistic.

[quote author=AaronJasper link=topic=3253.msg24388#msg24388 date=1245442122]
I will have to ask you the rhetorical question of why does and White Wulff or a usual work so well on that system? Also, why is a rusty spinner so effective even when their are all yellow/sulphur spinners on the water?
[/quote]

Aaron... let me respond with a question... Why will trout let Green drakes float overhead while always eating dorthea's?

Trout from time to time will experiment even in rich systems... they have to to dial into the next hatch. They will from time to time try something new. Also with regard to rusty spinners, they will eat them like March Brown spinners because they do have some memory and will eat things that they see from time to time. Rusty spinners are around in some way or other most of the season.

Don't know about your white wulff but I guarantee you that if you fish dries with me and my buddies during the dorthea hatch in July on the upper Delaware we will out fish by a good margin you on top if you fish a white wulff in a size 2 sizes away from the dortheas... to rising fish only. We stick with dorthea imitations including emergers and cripples you a much larger or smaller White Wulff.

I am no expert on this subject but when fishing in water that is very fertile I would think that matching is key to success. However, on less fertile water I believe that trout are less discriminant because of the lack of abundant food. They are geared more to taking what they can get rather than keying in on a specific food source.

I have a fly pattern that will out produce any Dorothea pattern in JULY. It is matching a hatch but not the obvious one. I hope that you were not thinking that I would fish a white wulff during the day? The problem with the guys who fish the Delaware is that they get so miopic in their views on feeding fish.

As for the Green Drake vs smaller sulphers, to me its a matter of hatch duration and numbers. Since the trout have been seeing the sulphers for a longer period of time and their hatching coincides with the Drakes many trout will continue to feed on the smaller mayflies given their abundance. Now as for the spinner fall, that is different as the hatching bugs have ceased. The trout will often times seek out the larger drake spinners because at night the fish become more opportunistic. I have seen this with march browns. The sulpher spinners will greatly out number the march brown spinners but it seems as though the fish don't let one by.

Maybe its not matching the hatch per se, I would like to call it experience.

[quote author=AaronJasper link=topic=3253.msg24398#msg24398 date=1245452632]
I have a fly pattern that will out produce any Dorothea pattern in JULY. It is matching a hatch but not the obvious one. I hope that you were not thinking that I would fish a white wulff during the day? The problem with the guys who fish the Delaware is that they get so miopic in their views on feeding fish.

As for the Green Drake vs smaller sulphers, to me its a matter of hatch duration and numbers. Since the trout have been seeing the sulphers for a longer period of time and their hatching coincides with the Drakes many trout will continue to feed on the smaller mayflies given their abundance. Now as for the spinner fall, that is different as the hatching bugs have ceased. The trout will often times seek out the larger drake spinners because at night the fish become more opportunistic. I have seen this with march browns. The sulpher spinners will greatly out number the march brown spinners but it seems as though the fish don't let one by.

Maybe its not matching the hatch per se, I would like to call it experience.
[/quote]

Agree Aaron during a dorthea spinner fall I've done well with march brown spinners. But the answer is that they tend to fall more sporadically than many flies and are around here and there for 3 to 4 weeks. IT IS matching the hatch to fish a march brown spinner at the time of year when they are around even if you don't see them on the water.

Once again... I know for a fact that trout have a memory for 2 to 3 weeks. Logically they must and I and others have firm evidence of such. Now in that march brown example fish a green drake and they will ignore it. The trout are NOT being opportunistic eating the March brown spinner they are simply eating something they recognize as food. but something that is present sporadically. Big difference.

BTW.. most anglers, including me, get myopic regarding our approach which is why one must have these great conversations! Thanks for your continued dialog.

With the white wulff... that was the question you posed to me!... with the dorthea hatch it must be a bug in the surface film or on top. So long is you are not fishing a dorthea sized nymph at or just below the surface... pitched to a rising fish. I stand by my point.... My buddies and i will simply out fish you with imitations to match the hatch.

Ok you're right... There is no discussing this....

Fred,

I would love to know how you "know for a fact" that trout can only remember 2-3weeks? And what makes you think that trout arn't smart? They sure seem pretty smart to me...

Kyle,

I can't answer the remembering question, as that hypothesis could truly only be answered by a scientist who conducts experiments on this. I can supply my hypothesis for the latter. Trout are simple creatures and they are conditioined to feed on certain food sources at different periods of a day. This leads them to eat only certain insects, when at times there are others of greater intensities out there.

I not going to argue with anyone but what I've been told is trout actually aren't very smart and that is what makes them difficult to catch. I mean think about it you guys are talking about them passing up drakes for sulphers, thats not very smart. Lots of other fish out there would go for the biggest meal they could but not trout.

Not to mention us humans would want to eat the largest thing or the most calories... Or maybe that's only me;)

General Tso's ;D

Hi,
I've been looking at this discussion and I begin to put something together. If we consider trout as a predator, which I believe they are thanks to Bob Wyatt's theories, then would it make sense that size wouldn't matter, but vulnerability might? I'm wondering if the abundance of insects of one over another might make those insects more vulnerable. Or perhaps, because, in the case of drakes over dorotheas, the drakes hatch much more quickly than them, again making the smaller fly more vulnerable. Understand what I'm saying?

Mark

PS--After re-reading Bob's writing on fly design-he actually has come to about the same conclusion

[quote author=kyle link=topic=3253.msg24405#msg24405 date=1245462452]
Fred,

I would love to know how you "know for a fact" that trout can only remember 2-3weeks? And what makes you think that trout arn't smart? They sure seem pretty smart to me...
[/quote]

Trout have a brain the size of a pea. Intelligence in the animal world has been correlated with brain size. They aren't smart. In fact why would any "smart" trout eat one of our imitations with a hook coming out of the body? And... they do it again and again and again.

With regard to the length of their memory... not sure how long it last but it's probably not long. I was very surprised to see them remember a bug that stopped hatching 2 weeks ago. Then again there was nothing else started at the time.

Wanted to chat about trout as opportunists.

First what they eat (and have been conditioned to.. which is a great word someone above has used) dramatically depends upon their system. In a rich system like the Delaware trout can grow and prosper by only eating one "pattern" (over a period of time) that they recognize as food ignoring other "patterns" which are food. The Pattern they see and recognize is plentiful enough for them to feed exclusively on this. They don't need waste energy rising to something which looks different and may not be food. They don't risk getting picked off by a predator for no reason. Now take a trout in an insect poor system. This fish has to be much more opportunistic. They must rise to all sorts of stuff to be able to maintain body mass. They have to take more risk and waste more energy rising to something that doesn't look like food. In fact they may have an extended view of what is food which does rule out some things that aren't food and rules in things which look kind of like food (attractor flies).

So for me... rich systems naturally bring on selectivity neccessitating match the hatch for the fisherman to be most successful.

[quote author=AaronJasper link=topic=3253.msg24403#msg24403 date=1245459651]
Ok you're right... There is no discussing this....
[/quote]

Apologies... if I come across as "not discussing this" that's not it, I'm just an ardent defender of selectivity in trout. Sorry if I put you or others off an any manner.

[quote author=NJFred link=topic=3253.msg24415#msg24415 date=1245512111]
Wanted to chat about trout as opportunists.

First what they eat (and have been conditioned to.. which is a great word someone above has used) dramatically depends upon their system. In a rich system like the Delaware trout can grow and prosper by only eating one "pattern" (over a period of time) that they recognize as food ignoring other "patterns" which are food. The Pattern they see and recognize is plentiful enough for them to feed exclusively on this. They don't need waste energy rising to something which looks different and may not be food. They don't risk getting picked off by a predator for no reason. Now take a trout in an insect poor system. This fish has to be much more opportunistic. They must rise to all sorts of stuff to be able to maintain body mass. They have to take more risk and waste more energy rising to something that doesn't look like food. In fact they may have an extended view of what is food which does rule out some things that aren't food and rules in things which look kind of like food (attractor flies).

So for me... rich systems naturally bring on selectivity neccessitating match the hatch for the fisherman to be most successful.
[/quote]I tend to agree with you here but I do not believe a trout that is feeding exclusively on a certain mayfly is going to pass up something like a fat juicy cranefly larva that drifts past its nose or even within a few feet of it.

The Henry's Fork might be the ultimate match the hatch stream on the planet.

[quote author=LopatNympher link=topic=3253.msg24418#msg24418 date=1245519002]
[quote author=NJFred link=topic=3253.msg24415#msg24415 date=1245512111]
[/quote]I tend to agree with you here but I do not believe a trout that is feeding exclusively on a certain mayfly is going to pass up something like a fat juicy cranefly larva that drifts past its nose or even within a few feet of it.
[/quote]
I can tell you on the Delaware I see fish show no interest in what you and I would describe as a juicy morsel almost every trip. They are rising to one particular mayfly at a particular stage sometimes even focusing strictly upon cripples and still borns even when there are more plentiful duns on the water and every now and then bigger mayflys.

The only logical explanation to this behavior is selectivity. Further I even suspect that at the moment they don't recognize the other flys as food during when this behavior occurs. Their little pea brains allow them to recognize only the stuff they are eating as food. If they saw the other flys as food why wouldn't they eat them at least now and then?

As far as the more plentiful duns on the water that they are not eating... Seen it with Paraleps and hendriksons, seen it many times with Pseudos and other hatches. Often this occurs when a hatch is waning and a new one beginning. They are dialed in to the old hatch and haven't gotten into the new one.

Hi Fred, Everyone,
I see it as taking the more vulnerable insect. It's more like the lion chasing down a hurt or wounded animal. Now, this may tune them into patterns that replicate that vulnerable insect or stage of an insect, but I don't think it is preferential as the word "selectivity" might imply. It's instinct. The trout are given a stimulus, a fly that's easy pickings, a cripple, emerger or spinner. The stimulus triggers their predatory instinct, and they react.

Mark

[quote author=Soft-hackle link=topic=3253.msg24427#msg24427 date=1245527398]
Hi Fred, Everyone,
I see it as taking the more vulnerable insect. It's more like the lion chasing down a hurt or wounded animal. Now, this may tune them into patterns that replicate that vulnerable insect or stage of an insect, but I don't think it is preferential as the word "selectivity" might imply. It's instinct. The trout are given a stimulus, a fly that's easy pickings, a cripple, emerger or spinner. The stimulus triggers their predatory instinct, and they react.

Mark
[/quote]

Mark I do think vulnerability is part of the equation. However, I don't think trout see a fly and think boy is that vulnerable and then eat it. I think bugs which are vulnerable are in the surface film longer and hence the fish start to recognize them and go after them. For example fish a spinner to a fish eating caddis pupae in the film during the day and they are likely to not eat the spinner even though they are more vulnerable. Why?, the fish are keyed into the caddis pupae look, size cooler, and probably movement. They don't recognize the spinner as food let alone vulnerable food.

BTW... I have pitched spinners to a lot of fish eating something else... most often they don't eat it even though we know it's vulnerable.

I think it plays a role but it's not something that is thought about in any detailed fashion by the trout.

Fred,
It'd take me a while to type out Mr. Wyatt's idea of why trout take flies. I find his ideas very, very interesting. They are somewhat in harmony with your own, but not exactly. If you have not read Bob's wonderful book - Trout Hunting, The Pursuit of Happiness, I highly recommend to those that want to know more, but be entertained as well. In addition, there are a number of great patterns within. If you manage to get a copy, I would definitely pay attention to the section on Fly Design.

I will present this quote, however, which I think you will find interesting.

" Where the food supply is restricted to a single type, or for short periods during one phase of a sustained hatch, trout may develop narrowly constrained feeding habits, but the exclusively selective trout is a rare beast at the extreme end of the spectrum of fly fishing problems. It's a mistake to think that all trout are picky eaters. "

Mark

[quote author=BlackLabel link=topic=3253.msg24408#msg24408 date=1245463352]
I not going to argue with anyone but what I've been told is trout actually aren't very smart and that is what makes them difficult to catch. I mean think about it you guys are talking about them passing up drakes for sulphers, thats not very smart. Lots of other fish out there would go for the biggest meal they could but not trout.
[/quote]

Trout have a low IQ, if that is a measure of intelligence. How do you measure fish IQ? The same way you do for other animals I presume, by seeing if they can remember a sequence of tasks to get food pellets. The longer a sequence they can remember, the higher the IQ.

Another test is to remember a maze that gets increasingly complex to find food. The maze gets more and more complex, until the animal can no loger remember the series of turns to reach the food.

There are two authors that refer to Trout IQ. My friend Gary Borger says that it has been measured at about 6. See: http://www.flyfishersofvirginia.org/garyborger.htm

"Gary Borger scoffs at the notion of anglers having to outsmart fish. The IQ of a brown trout is around 6, he said. "Fish are not people," and they don't think like people. So while the average fly fisherman frets about tippet diameters, hook sizes, matching the hatch and presenting the fly artfully, the average trout basically ponders one simple question. Food, or not food?"

Ian Colin James says it is about 3. See: http://www.flyfishersrepublic.com/ta...the-fly/part2/

".....according to some research from the USA, the common carp, with an IQ of 6, is twice as smart as a trout...."

And : http://www3.sympatico.ca/ianjames/ask7.html

"...You need to remember that carp are in fact smarter then trout. Carp have an IQ of six while trout only have an IQ of three...."

Whether it is 6 or 3, trout are stupid creatures. They don't think, they react.

It seems to me that matching the hatch is really a discussion about selectivity. If that is true, then we need to know why and how how selectivity develops.

Selectivity occurs only in situations where there is abundant food. If the fish live in a stream where food is scarce, they will feed opportunistically. They cannot be selective to just a single food source because there is never a large or sustained hatch to become selective. So selective feeding occurs only in nutrient rich environments.

Selectivity is the most efficient method of feeding. An organism can only survive if the energy it gets from food is greater than the energy it expends to catch and eat the food. Selectivity then is a biologic necessary method that optimizes survival. It is a biologic adaptation that gives the organism that uses it a survival advantage. That is the reason that the fish feed selectively. They cannot help themselves from becoming selective feeders.

Another biological cause of selectivity is the size and age of the fish. As fish grow older and larger, their energy (calorie) requirements become relatively greater. A large fish requires more energy to chase food and yet gains fewer calories per body weight when it eats the food. Because larger fish expend relatively greater energy to catch food, but receives relatively less energy when it captures food; it must feed effectively if it is to survive. What is crucial then is not the total number of calories in a food item, it is the ratio of the calories spent vs the calories consumed per body weight.

For large fish, selectivity is more important as a survival strategy than for smaller fish. That is why we see smaller fish chasing food and our flies but rarely do large fish chase a fly unless it is a large fly that promises a large reward in calories.

Once a fish feeds selectively, it cannot help itself from feeding on our fly, if the fly meets the criteria for food.

How then does a fish become selectivity? Well, they don't do it through intelligence. Trout cannot reason. What trout can do is sample; they sample what they think is food. If the item is food and it is abundant enough, the trout will feed on it often enough that the visual pattern of the food eventually becomes imprinted. Then the fish then begins to search for this food pattern exclusively and ignores most other items that could also be food. If the food is very abundant, the fish will begin to both narrow the area it searches ( the fish feeds only on food that is in a narrow "feeding" lane) and the fish will develop a feeding rhythm. The fish mechanically moves up and down, taking the food item that happens to be in its feeding window.

The fish does not reason, it takes whatever is in the window that meets its search pattern. It is all automatic and the fish cannot help itself from taking our fly if it meets the search pattern, and it is in the right place (feeding lane) at the right time (rhythm).

The question then becomes, what are the fishes search criteria (triggers)? Everyone seems to agree that size, shape, behavior and color are search criteria. We know this, not because of positive evidence, but because when the fly does not meet all or most of these criteria, the fish refuses to take the pattern when it is in the right place at the right time.

When discussing selectivity, or selective feeding, we must realize that we are discussing a biologic system. In any biologic system there is variation in the population and there will be a variation in behavior. So although the discussion above treats a population as a single unit of identical behavior, the reality is that there will be a variance in both behavior and timing, so that what we find is similar to a bell curve distribution. Although the majority of fish may be feeding on a given stage of emergence, some fish may be still feeding on an earlier stage or may have progressed to a later stage.

Combine this variation in behavior with overlapping or simultaneous multiple hatches, and the possibilities become confounding to the angler who is trying to "match the hatch".

This confounding behavior, however, is not a conscious attempt by the fish to fool the angler. It is just the result of an efficient feeding method superimposed on a fish population with biological variance.

Why do some fish take other forms of food when most are selective? Again it is biological variance. Fish are not automatons. There is room for variance, and in fact, if there was no reported variance in a biologic system we would suspect that the data was flawed or manufactured. It would be too good to believe.

So a fish breaking out of selectivity can mean either biologic variance in a large fish or a juvenile fish that has no need to feed as selectively to optimize its caloric intake.

The explanation can't get much better than that.

Mark

[quote author=Soft-hackle link=topic=3253.msg24431#msg24431 date=1245554884]
Fred,
It'd take me a while to type out Mr. Wyatt's idea of why trout take flies. I find his ideas very, very interesting. They are somewhat in harmony with your own, but not exactly. If you have not read Bob's wonderful book - Trout Hunting, The Pursuit of Happiness, I highly recommend to those that want to know more, but be entertained as well. In addition, there are a number of great patterns within. If you manage to get a copy, I would definitely pay attention to the section on Fly Design.

I will present this quote, however, which I think you will find interesting.

" Where the food supply is restricted to a single type, or for short periods during one phase of a sustained hatch, trout may develop narrowly constrained feeding habits, but the exclusively selective trout is a rare beast at the extreme end of the spectrum of fly fishing problems. It's a mistake to think that all trout are picky eaters. "

Mark
[/quote]

Thanks Mark! Will have a look. I have read a lot of the stuff from Caucci, Proper, Schwiebert, Marino, etc.. but not Wyatt.

Silver... very nicely put. Learned some new insight with regard to large fish vs. small fish selectivity. That is a very well put view of why I think it's important to be a match the hatch fisherman in rich systems fishing dries.

In terms of breaking out of selectivity fish do have to from time to time experiment. In rich systems, they have to recognize a new hatch and abundant food source. So they must experiment at some level particularly as the current hatch wanes and food becomes less abundant. The difference between fish in rich and poor insect systems is simply that the fish in the rich systems does not have to experiment as much risking predation and waste of energy. So fish in a rich system are much more selective (at least that's what we call it.) and experiment less while fish in insect poor systems must experiment more often and appear therefore to be more opportunistic.

It is apparent to me that selectivity is not an all or none proposition.

What I mean by that, is that at any given moment you may have both selective and and non selective feeding. Even more confounding, the selective fish may be feeding on different stages of the hatch; or if there are multiple hatches, there may be trout that are feeding selectively on different stages of different hatches.

If you fish in waters where multiple dense hatches occur often, you will find yourself in such a situation. To say that the theory of selectivity is not valid because a fish takes a Royal Wulff during a hatch does not disprove selectivity. What it proves is that some fish will take a Royal Wulff when some or most of the other fish are feeding selectively.

As a physician with an undergraduate degree in chemistry, I know that theories are propositions that seem to correlate with reality. By that I mean that theories do no have to be absolutely true for them to be of usefulness. All they need to do is to predict or explain behavior such that we can use the theories to help us remember how the world works and to predict what will occur.

What do I mean by the above? As an example we can use Newtonian physics which explains and predicts the motion of planets. Newton believed that gravity was due to the attraction of heavenly bodies. We now know that Newton was wrong. Einstein showed that gravity is actually a wave that is pushed out from an object that distorts space. Well so what?

Well, it is apparent to me that even if Newton's theory was wrong, we can still use Newton's laws of gravitation to predict the motion of heavenly bodies. It may be wrong but it correctly predicts what happens and what will happen.

Therefore, the theory of selectivity does not have to be absolutely true. If selectivity explains the behavior of a fish and predicts what will happen during a hatch, it gives us useful information and gives us a framework with which to understand and predict behavior.

Selectivity and any other "theory" of fishing does not have to be absolutely true. It just has to explain and predict behavior better than a competing theory.

This has been a interesting thread, all be it much of the content has been well discussed in the past. Some of which l would agree with, but not all.

I have never believed that a trout or for that matter most other fish species have the ability to determine whether or not the taking of a food source is related to the energy needed to get it or nutritional value that food source provides, for l have seen 100s of times that simply cannot be the case.

Why would for example a very large Browns trout that primarily eats 12 ins Rainbow trout, sculpins, fish guts, crawfish decide to move a considerable distance to take a size 18 sowbug, when it has absolutely no need to do so.

Why would a 12 ins Brown trout rise 10ft from the bed of the lake to take a small caddis fly, for l have seen both happen and very many other similar situations in the past.
Couple that say with river systems that are very low in aquatic food sources, fish here will be very dependant on terrestrial food sources, and they will expend considerable energy to obtain those food sources, all be it a single ant at times.

Fly fishers tend to relate selective feeding behaviour only to organisms present close to or on the water surface. OK, l do not buy that one either as they can be as selective when feeding at depth, make no mistake about that one. It is not as simple as any old nymph will work, at times size, shape and color can make the difference big time, coupled with the absolute right presentation.

The main difference is that trout that are surface feeding are visual, which is not always the case when we are fishing below the surface, unless you are sight fishing to a specific fish or at least can see the fishes reaction.
Thus the truth of the matter is here you have no idea what is going on, but it is easy to see otherwise when surface fishing!!

I used to write for the same magazine as Bob, a UK publication called Fly Fishing and Fly Tying and both Bob and l have written many articles related to fly fishing and flies, l absolutely agree with the way of thought Bob states as posted here.

I have never evaluated as such my approach to fly fishing based on scientific analogy so far as , why, how or otherwise a fish makes choices and decisions. 10 wild trout will differ as would 10 human beings, but there may be a collective way of thought, such as we know we have to eat to survive, and so does a fish or any other living creature.
Fish in different water systems do differ by way of habit and feeding behaviour, such reasons as genetic traits or abundance of given food sources and in the case of trout, species.

Why are small fish more aggressive, the answer is simple, small fish cannot eat larger food sources, they have to grab what they can that is of edible size. Large trout do not have to do same.
Also the small fish has at that time not lived long enough to figure out the watery world it now lives in and how it will as it lives and grows larger be able to adapt to its surroundings.

In the case of what we term as selective fish or feeding behaviour l look at it like this, the angler has not figured out what he needs to do to catch that fish, and there are at the end of the day only 3 reasons why.

Either the fly used is wrong, or the method of presentation or both, it can only be those reasons, for if the fly and presentation is right then the fish will take the fly.
Which is as we know the crux of the matter, or are there other reasons to be considered.
Yes, indeed that can be the case no question of doubt.
If trout are subjected to heavy fishing pressure then make no mistake other senses are heightened, such as sight sound and smell.

I do of course accept without a doubt that trout can become very selctive to a particular food source available, as l have of course faced that many times in the past.

I would also argue having watched many FF attempt to catch fish feeding in this manner why they had no chance to catch that fish even if they had the right fly, in simple terms they have made the fish very aware of what they are doing to catch it, or they have continued with the wrong approach, either way the fish is now wised up.

All for now guys, just my thoughts on the subject matter.

Davy.

[quote author=Davyfly link=topic=3253.msg24452#msg24452 date=1245647176]
This has been a interesting thread, all be it much of the content has been well discussed in the past. Some of which l would agree with, but not all.

I have never believed that a trout or for that matter most other fish species have the ability to determine whether or not the taking of a food source is related to the energy needed to get it or nutritional value that food source provides, for l have seen 100s of times that simply cannot be the case.

Why would for example a very large Browns trout that primarily eats 12 ins Rainbow trout, sculpins, fish guts, crawfish decide to move a considerable distance to take a size 18 sowbug, when it has absolutely no need to do so.

Why would a 12 ins Brown trout rise 10ft from the bed of the lake to take a small caddis fly, for l have seen both happen and very many other similar situations in the past.
Couple that say with river systems that are very low in aquatic food sources, fish here will be very dependant on terrestrial food sources, and they will expend considerable energy to obtain those food sources, all be it a single ant at times.

Fly fishers tend to relate selective feeding behaviour only to organisms present close to or on the water surface. OK, l do not buy that one either as they can be as selective when feeding at depth, make no mistake about that one. It is not as simple as any old nymph will work, at times size, shape and color can make the difference big time, coupled with the absolute right presentation.

The main difference is that trout that are surface feeding are visual, which is not always the case when we are fishing below the surface, unless you are sight fishing to a specific fish or at least can see the fishes reaction.
Thus the truth of the matter is here you have no idea what is going on, but it is easy to see otherwise when surface fishing!!

I used to write for the same magazine as Bob, a UK publication called Fly Fishing and Fly Tying and both Bob and l have written many articles related to fly fishing and flies, l absolutely agree with the way of thought Bob states as posted here.
[/quote]

I certainly don't believe that trout contemplate is that fly worth the energy expended to eat it? Is it worth the predation risk? This is simply instinctive behavior from thousands of years of evolution. I believe trout are capable of thinking in the manner humans do.

In terms of knowing what's going on or why trout behave in the manner they do... They do behave in a logical fashion... they must. It is worth contemplating why and it I know it has made me a better fisherman. Far better.

In terms of your observations... trout are very efficient in moving in the water. A flip of the fin and they can rise or move quite a ways. They have to be. Any creature cannot afford to expend more energy eating than the caloric content of what they eat. Their body mass would decrease and they would not thrive and eventually die. My guess is that the trout rising 10 ft from the bottom may to eat a small fly might still be worth it. Of course one could argue that now and then the bug they eat wasn't worth the energy expended to eat it.

With the case of the brown trout.. eating a sow bug takes a lot less energy that chasing 12 inch trout! More certainty of catching the prey as well. (once again I don't believe that this is a thoughtful decision but instinctive).

I think the comments on tippet are very interesting in terms of fish seeing it and not eating the fly attached to it. However, I wonder why the hook sticking out of the fly doesn't tip them off more often than simply the tippet. It's clearly visible and attached directly to the the food source it is looking at.

I tend to believe that tippet's impact on whether a fish takes or not has much more to do with drag... micro drag than it does with a fish seeing the tippet and reacting negatively. Particularly with a downstream presentation where the trout must see the fly prior to seeing the tippet as it comes into their sight. Stepping down tippet size reduces drag.

I have observed that fish can be leader or fly line sensitive and can be put down with a sloppy cast which puts the line over their head and a shadow from the line.

[quote author=Davyfly link=topic=3253.msg24452#msg24452 date=1245647176]
This has been a interesting thread, all be it much of the content has been well discussed in the past. Some of which l would agree with, but not all.

I have never believed that a trout or for that matter most other fish species have the ability to determine whether or not the taking of a food source is related to the energy needed to get it or nutritional value that food source provides, for l have seen 100s of times that simply cannot be the case.

Why would for example a very large Browns trout that primarily eats 12 ins Rainbow trout, sculpins, fish guts, crawfish decide to move a considerable distance to take a size 18 sowbug, when it has absolutely no need to do so.

Why would a 12 ins Brown trout rise 10ft from the bed of the lake to take a small caddis fly, for l have seen both happen and very many other similar situations in the past.

Couple that say with river systems that are very low in aquatic food sources, fish here will be very dependant on terrestrial food sources, and they will expend considerable energy to obtain those food sources, all be it a single ant at times

Fly fishers tend to relate selective feeding behaviour only to organisms present close to or on the water surface. OK, l do not buy that one either as they can be as selective when feeding at depth, make no mistake about that one. It is not as simple as any old nymph will work, at times size, shape and color can make the difference big time, coupled with the absolute right presentation.

The main difference is that trout that are surface feeding are visual, which is not always the case when we are fishing below the surface, unless you are sight fishing to a specific fish or at least can see the fishes reaction.
Thus the truth of the matter is here you have no idea what is going on, but it is easy to see otherwise when surface fishing!!


[/quote]

Davy,

A fish that does not feed efficiently is at a evolutionary disadvantage.

Do they actually think about energy used vs energy consumed? No! But does this happen because they have evolved to do so. I believe the answer is Yes!

The fish that feeds efficiently, grows faster and is able to live on it's body stores longer when a catastrophe happens and food may not be as available. It is more likely to survive and pass it's behavior along to its progeny.

Any given fish at any given time can exhibit "irrational" behavior, but over eons of time, the evolutionary process molds the animal so that its behavior is conducive to survival. Unless choosing an inefficient feeding method is a survival advantage, that behavior in a fish is the exception and not the rule.

As I said before, biological systems have variant behavior. To observe such behavior and state that that observation disproves a theory is simply not correct in my view. The question is not how a single individual trout may behave at a single instant in time, but how the average population behaves over a length time. An individual fish may break a selective feeding pattern to take an ant. But my view is that this does not negate the overall behavior which is selective feeding.

You ask, "Why would for example a very large Browns trout that primarily eats 12 ins Rainbow trout, sculpins, fish guts, crawfish decide to move a considerable distance to take a size 18 sowbug, when it has absolutely no need to do so." I would answer that in that case that brown was not feeding selectively. It was not locked in in to a specific hatch if it was eating "12 ins Rainbow trout, sculpins, fish guts, crawfish"

You ask, "Why would a 12 ins Brown trout rise 10ft from the bed of the lake to take a small caddis fly, for l have seen both happen and very many other similar situations in the past." I would reply that examples of inefficient feeding during periods opportunistic feeding do not disprove the theory of efficient feeding during selective periods. I believe opportunistic feeding is almost always less efficient that selective feeding.

Can a large brown on the White River make a meal of a 12 inch rainbow and then rest for hours? Absolutely, and one could calculate that on a ratio of calories consumed for calories expended, that it was an efficient meal. So even when feeding opportunisticaly, that particlar fish for that particular meal has behaved efficiently. Will it do so always when feeding opportunistically? I believe not.

However, on the quality water section of the San Juan, that same fish could feed on literally thousands of midge pupa by just turning it's head. It too is feeding efficiently. On the San Juan and rivers like it, I do believe that selective feeding is present far below the water surface and not just at or near the surface.

I think it is the habitate that determines behavior. Opportunistic vs selective. Because I observe one behavior does not negate the presence of another type of behavior.

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 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]

Thanks Mark... I have to say I fully agree with Wyatt's take on things!

You ask, "Why would for example a very large Browns trout that primarily eats 12 ins Rainbow trout, sculpins, fish guts, crawfish decide to move a considerable distance to take a size 18 sowbug, when it has absolutely no need to do so." I would answer that in that case that browhewas not feeding selectively. It was not locked in in to a specific hatch if it was eating "12 ins Rainbow trout, sculpins, fish guts, crawfish"

I would absolutely agree with this, that such a fish was not selectively feeding, it is a reaction based on the fact that the fish was aware that this food source was part if its available food chain within that system.

Quote.
Any given fish at any given time can exhibit "irrational" behavior, but over eons of time, the evolutionary process molds the animal so that its behavior is conducive to survival. Unless choosing an inefficient feeding method is a survival advantage, that behavior in a fish is the exception and not the rule.

I agree with this also. Certainly here on my own river we see trout that will in-jest all sorts of useless matter, subsequently become emaciated and die.

There are two reasons why. The first is there is not sufficient food base to provide for the numbers of fish within the system. Secondly hatchery raised fish of course retain the instinct to feed, but cannot adapt to the new environment were they have to actively seek and identify a natural food source.
In order for a trout to retain its body weight or increase its size there has to be a intake of value to maintain that.
If that is not the case then the fish will likely die from starvation and bacterial infection.

Quote
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.

Yes, l agree with this no doubt at all. At the end of the day we will never know the exact answer to this ,is it the fly that made the difference, and l would have to argue at times it most certainly does, or is it that the angler made a more cautious approach with a applied acceptable presentation.

Back later guys

Davy