September 2012

PRODUCT REVIEW:

SUMMERPRODUCTS

Nxamaseri Island LodgeXugana Island LodgeDrotsky’s Cabins

ZingelaYellowf ish

ClinicReport Back

FLY FISHING TIPS

TO LIVE BY

5

Among the many hobbies I enjoy including wood-working, building automatons, and fl y fi shing, there is a common theme. I most enjoy the process of dis-covery, learning, and personal improvement. That is what brought me down the path from a young boy

catching summer perch in the local pond, to my current status as fl y tier and fl y fi sherman.

Along the way I learned from the best including Don Baylor, Al Miller, Gary Borger, “Ozzie” Ozefovich, Ralph and Lisa Cut-ter, and more, either in person or via books and video. I also found that some of my “great discoveries” had been previously discovered numerous times before. This includes the idea of a Trout’s Eye View fl y tying mirror, which can be shown to have existed as early as 1921 [1], as well as the concepts of color matching by Borger [2] and by Caucci and Nastasi [3], each of whom understood the importance of taking the time to see what the fi sh sees.

Now, please note that when we talk about the trout’s eye view we don’t claim to know what trout sees in its mind. Heaven knows, I have been advised about that, many times; “You can’t know what the trout sees, and you can’t know what a trout thinks!” So, instead of arguing the subtleties, let’s agree on the more important and overarching concept. If we look at two items under the same conditions and from the same perspective, we are more likely to ap-preciate the important and unimportant similarities and diff erences between the two items. Thus we defi ne the Trout’s Eye View.

A DISCOVERY WHILE IMPROVING THE SPENT CADDIS

Let’s begin with a real example. While the recipe for Spent Caddis generally calls for wings made of mallard drake breast feathers, I recently opted to create a version that incorporates CDC feath-ers for the wings. When I started using this CDC spent caddis, I experienced more rejections than takes, and thus I decided to take a closer look in order to see what was going wrong.

The Trout’s Eye View Fly Tying Mirror

A CDC spent caddis next to a real caddis. They are both dry at this point, but otherwise they are both as seen from the

fi sh’s point of view.

6

While not perfect, I think that I’d take it if I were a trout. The wings may be a bit long for the body, but still, nothing terribly wrong. Next, let’s get both of these fl ies wet, and take another look.

When I viewed the fl ies as the trout views them; wet, from below, and on the surface of the water, two problems emerged. First, it be-came obvious why mallard drake breast feathers are generally used in the recipe, and not CDC. While CDC does a great job of keeping our fl y afl oat, the unconstrained CDC feathers tend to puff out, looking very little like the spent caddis wings that I was attempting to imitate. It should be noted that while fi shing, when I retrieved the fl y from the surface of the water in order to inspect it, the wet CDC barbules clung together nicely leaving me with the impression that they were performing as desired.

Oh well, so much for the CDC wing experiment. But there was another problem. I knew that the dubbing I had used for the thorax of the fl y was a bit too dark, (I was able to see that even when both were dry) but once wet it became obvious that the problem was much worse than I thought. In fact, this was possibly a bigger turn off than the wings – the thorax had become a huge dark brown mass. If we are going through the eff ort of selecting for a tan, olive, or yellow caddis abdomen, then it also seems that we should be reasonably observant of the thorax. And mine was distractingly dark and brown. But why did it look so much worse when wet?

THE COLOR OF DUBBING - DRY vs. WET

Most things, be they t-shirts, wood, cement, or anything else in this

world, appear darker when wet than they appear when dry. This is common knowledge, and it is why you can easily notice wet spots on an otherwise dry object. Dubbing is no exception; dubbing looks darker when wet. [4] And, while this was somewhat expected, the extent to which the darkening occurred on my fl y, as well as the color shift, was rather surprising. So, it was time for a little experi-ment.

First, I prepared something I call ‘dubbing sticks’ using some bam-boo skewers from the kitchen. Around each stick I wrapped two segments of dubbing, such that I could easily compare their color, wet vs. dry.

I then wet one dubbing sample from each pair for easy side-by-side viewing. After comparing my dubbing in wet versus dry conditions it became apparent that I really don’t need at least two of these col-ors! That is because, once wet, three of the samples ended up look-ing brown. Furthermore, wet ‘pale evening dun’ appears more like dry ‘blue wing olive’, and wet ‘blue wing olive’ verges on black! The darkening and the color shift was far more dramatic than expected. But wait, there’s more…

HINT – Take these dubbing sticks to the stream with you. They are an accurate and convenient way to remember the color of the insects in your stream for later duplication back

at the fl y tying bench.

Spent Caddis in a Trout’s Eye Viewer

Well, there’s your problem; looks like a bad hair day! And just what color is that?!?!

Dubbing sticks, used to compare the eff ect of moisture on dubbing.

The same dubbing sticks, comparing them wet versus dry.Not only did all of the colors change, but three of the

samples now appear brown!

7

WET IS NOT THE SAME AS SUBMERGED

Not only is wet diff erent than dry, but there is a noticeable, albeit less dramatic diff erence between wet and submerged dubbing. While the camera obscures some of the eff ect, you will fi nd that submerged dubbing looks diff erent than wet dubbing. Again, this should be obvious – think of a person’s hair when wet, as opposed to when viewed swimming underwater. They look distinctly dif-ferent in color and in texture. In my case, the submerged dubbing tended to look less “buggy” and less soft, and more fi brous and wrapped, which is unfortunate.

While the diff erence between wet and submerged dubbing is in-teresting, I do not suggest that this fact should signifi cantly impact your fl y tying decisions; in fact, quite the contrary. I mean to show that some of the smaller details of fl y tying will be lost when your fl y hits the water. It’s all about spotting the big diff erences (puff y CDC wings, and brown thorax’s) and allowing the smaller diff er-ences pass.

A BUG IN THE HAND ISN’T A BUG IN THE WATER

Let’s get back to the bugs. While all of this talk of color shift and the behavior of fi bers may be interesting, could it be that we are over-thinking things a bit here? Isn’t it good enough to pick a bug from the water, have a look at it, and fi sh something reasonably close? Well, yes, and no.

First, on the ‘yes’ side: Yes, that is exactly what you should do! Pick up a bug, look at it, and fi sh something similar. Believe it or not, many fi shermen choose not to perform this most obvious and basic step. If that includes you, this is where you should start.

But, sometimes we can do even better. Take a look at the picture at the top of the page. A bug in the hand (or on a piece of photo paper, which unfortunately was the only photo I bothered to take like this) clearly shows the problem. Most bugs tend to curl up in a ball when removed from their natural habitat.

Flying bugs can be even worse. They generally refuse to sit still, and they are easily damaged when handled. If you decide to look at them where they land, you will rarely get the trout’s eye view. Instead, you get the fi sherman’s eye view of the back of the fl y, or maybe the side at best.

Why is it that so many fl y tying patterns are displayed from the fi sherman’s eye view online and in books, instead of

the trout’s eye view? Look for patterns that show you the “working side of the bug”.

Looking closely at insects isn’t all about recreating them in excruciating detail. It’s as much about noticing what the

insect looks like most of the time, from the most common angles, and allowing ourselves to ignore some of the more

subtle details.

Furthermore, while it cannot be seen in these photos, subsurface insects are constantly changing their appearance as they move about and interact with other bugs and obstacles. Thus, taking a few minutes to look at the living bug as it swims next to your imita-tion will allow you to see what the bug looks like most of the time from the most common angles. It also enables you to quickly spot the diff erences and the similarities, as well as the details that you can ignore.

With each of these lessons in mind, the photo below shows three examples of artifi cial caddis larvae in a petri dish next to the real deal. I deliberately tied each pattern a bit diff erently such that when I returned to the stream to compare them I could more easily discern the best features to match. In the end I opted to use heavy thread for the legs as seen on the fl y on the top right, a peacock herl tail, and dubbed gills, as seen on the other two tied fl ys. I also fi gured out the correct body size and shape. The live fl y can be seen at the bottom of the photo.

Wet vs. Submerged Dubbing - While the eff ect is somewhat obscured by the camera, all of the dubbing

appeared a shade lighter when submerged, more fi brous, and less natural.

Bugs tend to get defensive and curl up when removed from their natural habitat.

8

For a caddis larva, the primary features to match are body color, size, and shape, the legs and the tail. The gills look

nice, but have proven to be more important to the fi sher-man than to the fi sh.

DID IT WORK?

It’s nice when a story comes together, and this one turned out to be a great example. During my fi rst visit to this fi shing location, I had netted some caddis larvae, made a few notes, and then pro-ceeded to fi sh the closest pattern that I had with me; a simple olive caddis larva that is known to be strong pattern wherever there are caddis. I caught a fair number of fi sh that day, and by all measures considered it a success.

“When I returned the following week with the creations that I de-scribed above, I once again put a net into the water to make sure that things hadn’t changed much, and then got to work fi shing in the exact same spot. The second fi sh I caught was a 24” rainbow, pulled from the very same water that I had fi shed the week before, and I have every reason to believe he had been there all along. A fi sh gets that big by not eating everything that fl oats by that looks “close enough”. A fi sh gets that big because, for whatever reason; smarts, genetics, or just being fi nicky; that fi sh behaves in a more selective manner. This is the biggest fi sh that I have ever caught on this particular stream.”

Comparing three tied caddis larvae to the real thing. It’s a simple pattern with nothing more than a dubbed body, a peacock herl tail, and heavy thread tied in as legs. When I feel up to it, I also dub some gills of light olive, but after testing both patterns side-by-side on the water I learned

that the dubbed gills tends to be more important to the fi sherman than to the fi sh. The live caddis larva can be seen

at the bottom of the photo.

Before my entomology experiment I was told that theolive caddis larva (at centre of picture) was a hot fl y for

these waters. That pattern worked ok, but it did not come close to the newer pattern, which is hard to distinguish

from the live larvae in this photo.

9

HOW MUCH OF THIS REALLY MATTERS?

The fact is, on any given day you can catch a fi sh using just about any pattern in your fl y box, regardless of how well or how poorly you match the stream’s inhabitants. In addition, there are very pro-ductive fl y patterns that bear little resemblance to anything found naturally in a trout stream, and many people fi nd success using standard patterns without any regard to the color when wet or dry, nor to the appearance from below.

But there are at least two reasons why you may choose to use these methods, not the least of which is that you will likely catch more fi sh. We’ve all been rejected, either by the trout that looked closely at our nymph the fi rst time it passed, and ignored it from then on, or by the fi sh that went as far as to practically bump our dry fl y with his nose, maybe more than once, and then turned as if to laugh and say, “Good one, Mike. You almost had me there”. Sometimes good enough simply isn’t good enough. Better imitations, better presentations, better approaches to the stream, and a better ability to read the stream are the primary factors that result in consistently catching more fi sh, and bigger fi sh.

As for the other reason, like many aspects of this sport, much of our enjoyment comes from learning and from discovery. It comes from a better understanding our surroundings, and from getting in tune with the stream and its inhabitants. I know of no better way to do this than to take the time to look closely at what is already in the stream and at what we are off ering as an imitation.

Some time ago I reached a point where I was no longer interested in pursuing the most fi sh, or even the biggest fi sh. These days I delight in catching a specifi c fi sh; the one that occasionally darts out from behind a rock to snatch a morsel from the feeding lane, and then immediately returns for cover, or the fi sh that others have found to be too fi nicky or smart to catch, or the one that I know to be there even though I have yet to see him. He’s the one making good use of the buff ered water in front of that big boulder, pro-

tected by that overhanging branch. Yeah, that one. Come here big boy. 3... 2... 1... Got him!

Take care,

Mike Lang

Husband, father, fl y fi sherman, woodworker, tinkerer, and inventor of the Trout’s Eye View fl y tying mirror.

You can see more images and live actionvideo online at TroutsEyeView.com

1 - Popular Science - Apr 1921 – Luring the Wily Trout: This article by Raymonde G. Doyle describes the eff orts of Leo Vaughan, and it specifi cally mentions “all manner of curious tools, including…a tumbler with a mirror at the bottom.” I guess Raymonde got there fi rst. The entire article can be found online at books.google.com, or accessed directly via this link: http://tinyurl.com/bl89u5l

2 - Borger Color System by Gary Borger. This booklet included 147 color chips for matching insects. At one time Gudebrod made thread colors to match.

3 - Fly-Tyers Color Guide by Caucci and Nastasi. This color chart was designed to be used with their 4 color dubbing kit, which included yellow, blue, red and white dubbing.

4 - Search the internet for “wet dubbing changes color” to learn a lot more about this phenomenon, and how people use it to their advantage.

Photos - Trouts Eye View