Sulfurs in the slick - ideas?

[zOnk 0]

Had that early evening porpoise rise to sulphur emergers.

 

They ignored dries, soft hackles and emerger patterns - still born and regular.

 

There was also an abundance of gray drakes on the water that they were ignoring.

 

Any tactics out there for these picky risers??

[Piker20 0]

Nothing worse than fish all over and none to your fly. I have found that the backs out the water rolls are to subsurface bugs and not the hatched ones on top. Normally I would fish a Klink to start but often it needs to be further under than that. A suspender buzzer can be good that sits under the film, keep as tight a line as you dare and watch line. Or try a lightweight scruffy dubbed fly under a dry. Apply a small amount of floatant to it so it hovers in that top 3inches.

[Piker20 0]

Or just grab a drink, sit back and marvel at nature. Then when hatch cools off target repeat risers with a bigger than normal offering.

[planettrout 0]

Had that early evening porpoise rise to sulphur emergers.

 

They ignored dries, soft hackles and emerger patterns - still born and regular.

 

There was also an abundance of gray drakes on the water that they were ignoring.

 

Any tactics out there for these picky risers??

 

Carry one of these, use it and take the "guess work" out of the equation...

 

 

 

PT/TB

[Old Hat 0]

Sparkle Dun.

[McGnat 0]

Find you a feeding fish and watch duns as they go over him to see if he is taking duns. It may also be that there is a spinner fall taking place at the same time and they are actually on the spinners. I've seen spinners with PMDs out west. Sulphurs are may the same.

[SilverCreek 0]

Had that early evening porpoise rise to sulphur emergers.

 

They ignored dries, soft hackles and emerger patterns - still born and regular.

 

There was also an abundance of gray drakes on the water that they were ignoring.

 

Any tactics out there for these picky risers??

 

By "porpoise", you imply a head and shoulder's rise. If this is what you mean, the could be taking underwater nymphs on the way to the surface. The fish chases the rising nymph, takes it, and the fish's momentum carries it up so the head and shoulders or dorsal fin breaks the surface. Unless you see the fish actually take a dun, you cannot say it is taking a dry fly.

 

If this is what is happening, the fish are NOT taking emergers because to emerge, a nymph must first reach the surface film before it places it's dorsum against the underside of the film.

 

You tried emergers and they did not work. I would have tried three strategies:

 

1. A nymph 2 feet below a strike indicator.

 

2. A nymph suspended about 6-12 inches off the end of a dry fly.

 

3. A floating nymph pattern like the Borger parachute pattern or Lawson's pattern.

[williamhj 0]

Had a situation like this today, several naturals I could spot including BWO's and a small light bodied midge. Fish taking some under the surface and others off the surface. Sight fished for rising trout with 7x, tried everything from nymphs, soft hackles, RS2's in various colors, sparkle duns in various colors, parachutes in olive, grey, and cream, duns in the same, and various midge patterns. Most down into 22's. The small cream parachutes got the most interest but none took it, was just catching them on nymphs. Finally got tired of tying on the small flies and grabbed a size 14 ausable wulff and started getting hits.

 

I was trying to zero in on what they were taking, but though they showed interest, the pattern wasn't close enough. All that to say, sometimes the thing to do is the opposite of 'matching the hatch', can be surprising.

 

p.s. Silver, I like those patterns, The trout liked one like the Lawson's a bit under the surface but I wish I had some of the Borger parachutes.

[zOnk 0]

Well - tried the pheasant tail dropper last night below Klink's style emerger with no luck. Tonight the water was much clearer and the Klink's brought 16 fish in the 12 -16" range to net (and scads if dinky fish).

Stellar night on the river. It was crazy in the drift boat netting double hookups:)

Not sure I solved the original problem other than the fish were less picky.

[SilverCreek 0]

I am going to step into a controversy here and suggest a throat pump, which is more commonly know as a stomach pump. Situations like this call for a way to sample what the fish are actually taking. I have used sampling nets to see what is on and in the water. However, when there are complex hatches, even an accomplished fly fishers can have a difficult time.

 

I know there will be protesters because whenever this issue comes up, there are those who feel that either stomach pumps kill fish OR that stomach pumps are unethical. I have studied both issues for years. Please allow me the courtesy of addressing both issues in advance.

 

The only sure way tell is to catch a fish and see what it has just eaten. Now before you go postal on me, let me address the issue that stomach pumps kill fish. Fishery research biologist have found them NOT to be the fish killer that popular opinion thinks they are:

 

"Strange and Kennedy (1981) assessed the survival of salmonids subjected to stomach flushing and found no difference between stomach-flushed fish and control fish that were held for 3 to 5 nights."

 

http://tinyurl.com/beyhmmk

 

On to the ethical issue. Like many techniques in fly fishing, I believe using a stomach pump is what could be termed a fairness issue. Some fly fishers feel that nymphing is somehow unfair, and some nymphers think nymphing with strike indicators is less fair than fishing without. The Dry Fly vs Nymphing ethical argument originated with Halford and Skues and in some circles that argument continues to this day.

 

http://midcurrent.com/history/halford-and-skues-this-chalkstream-aint-big-enough-for-the-both-of-us/

 

So if you don't want to use a stomach pump, don't. But research has shown that stomach pumps are not a resource issue.

 

Sampling does not injure many fish when done properly just like a proper release does not injure many fish. C&R kills about 4% of fish on average, and we consider that acceptable as long as the resource is preserved. Although it has been shown that the more invasive stomach sampling harms fewer fish than C&R; if we are honest with ourselves, a 4% fatality rate would be acceptable based on our acceptance that rate for C&R.

 

The unfair advantage criticism is a case of ethical blindness. It is cognitive dissonance at work. We conveniently ignore the fact that other fly fishers consider nymphing to be an unfair advantage based on their angling ethics. And some nymphers consider the use of strike indicators as unethical, and an unfair advantage.

 

In my view there are only legal and illegal tactics in fly fishing. All other "ethical" consideration are personal ethics and not public ethics. The difference is that public ethics can be used to judge others, whereas, personal ethics are used to judge yourself. Personal ethics should no be used in the public arena.

 

This site is dedicated to educating fly fishers on how to catch more and more fish, but we do not consider this an ethical issue. Catching more fish KILLS more fish. We conveniently have an ethical blind spot that ignores the fact that by teaching fly fishers to be more effective, we are teaching them to kill more fish regardless of how well they C&R. This is cognitive dissonance at work.

 

Fly fishers, and I include myself, tend to forget that even C&R fishing with a fly is a blood sport.

[Piker20 0]

Yes fishing in all forms is a blood sport and folk that distance themselves from hunting but pick up their rod are utter hypocrites and folk that look down on anglers that keep one for the pot, im not talking whole sale slaughter, are even worse. As someone who does practice 99% C&R it is easier to justify keeping the odd one than it is hooking one just to release it again.

[mridenour 0]

C&R is great in general, but to never eat what I catch would be just wrong...at least for me. I'm a 99%'er like Piker20. Gotta eat me some fish sometimes!

[zOnk 0]

The only sure way tell is to catch a fish and see what it has just eaten. Now before you go postal on me, let me address the issue that stomach pumps kill fish. Fishery research biologist have found them NOT to be the fish killer that popular opinion thinks they are:

 

Silver --

 

I took this under consideration while on the river two weeks ago. I'd had a stomach pump floating around the bottom of the fishing tub. I used it and released the fish seemingly unharmed.

 

As for the stomach contents: lots of fry; tan caddis; sulfur duns (two were still borns); gray fox; gray drake spinners.

 

Given the smorgasbord of contents i'm not sure It revealed anything that we'd not guessed based on surface activity and observations.

 

Clearly the "how" was more important than the "what" to trigger a strike.

[SilverCreek 0]

Zonk,

 

Don't sample the "stomach".

 

What you want is the last few items the fish ate. So the first item in the tube is the last item the fish ate. If you suck up a lot of stuff into the bulb, you need to judge what is the least digested. So less is more to find what the fish ate last.

[zOnk 0]

Silver --

 

I'm confident you're more skilled at this than I. I'm tried not to flush a ton of water in and only only suck a half a bulb into the tube but I ended up with a mix either way. I'm sure the abundance of squirming smolt did an good job at churning the contents as well.

 

Should I do this agian I'll take your suggestions into account. Thanks.