Jump to content
Fly Tying
Sign in to follow this  
SilverCreek

Failure of Modern Fly Design

Recommended Posts

Any fish that grabs an artificial over a natural is being selective, whether it's a loopwing dun or a Royal Wulff. It isn't that the fish is mistaken in selecting the attractor versus the imitator, it's that "attractor" and "imitator" are human constructs which don't apply to fish. That a fish chooses a Royal Wulff during a hatch doesn't mean the fish isn't selective, it means we don't understand what's going on. For all we know it's imitative of some doulble egg-sac'ed monstrosity that's more calorically valuable than a more imitative offering. If the difference between a "legitimate" fly pattern and another is whether a human being can construct a narrative as to why that fly was chosen, that's an awfully anthropocentric position for someone who insists on tying flies for fish and not fishermen.

 

And honestly- if a fish can distinguish between an X-Caddis, an Iris Caddis, and a Tup's Indispensable, who's to say they can't distinguish between an Adams and a Purple Haze, or a foam hopper with two sets of rubber legs and one with four sets of rubber legs? If you're a very selective fish then by definition you ARE looking for the minute differences between derivative small nymph or foam hopper patterns. It's an argument for the current state of fly design, not against.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

If the difference between a "legitimate" fly pattern and another is whether a human being can construct a narrative as to why that fly was chosen, that's an awfully anthropocentric position for someone who insists on tying flies for fish and not fishermen.

Well said.

 

I think that's pretty much the root of the piece: "These modern flies don't catch fish following the narrative I've constructed for why I believe a fish should eat a fly...so they're bad flies that have been poorly designed."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the piece is saying that attractors should never be designed? Because they're not specifically designed to target selective (by the according to Hoyle definition) trout? Or that a caught trout somehow "doesn't count" unless it was caught on the pattern that...someone...felt it should be taken on?

 

Using this rationale, the woolly bugger is a perfect example of an awful fly, as its a general imitator of no specific creature. There was no selective trout problem that the bugger addressed, therefore it's the product of bad fly design.

 

Ultimately, I think it's possible to defend the piece with respect to one individual criticism at a time, but the argument put forth quickly cracks and crumbles under the combined weight of several valid criticisms...that is: you can make a convincing argument on the "fishing problem" angle by limiting the scope of the argument strictly to selective fish, but if you apply that limitation across the board, the argument falls apart when presented with flies that do not approach catching fish in that one specific manner, yet are still widely regarded as examples of excellent design. Likewise, you can account for these popular attractor patterns by arguing that they sometimes work when nothing else will, but this doesn't account for those all too common days when the fish are keyed in on #17 sulphurs with a slightly orange body and one broken wing...yet your buddy is knocking them sideways with a #8 stimulator in purple.

 

The more I see of the criticism and defense of the piece, the more it strikes me simply as a guy who doesn't want to see his own contribution to the sport minimized or marginalized by the advent of other innovative patterns or lucky experiments, so he's assumed authority and taken it upon himself to tell everyone that new fly design is bad and wrong.

 

I don't think that is what he is saying at all. To imply that is to erect a straw man argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any fish that grabs an artificial over a natural is being selective, whether it's a loopwing dun or a Royal Wulff. It isn't that the fish is mistaken in selecting the attractor versus the imitator, it's that "attractor" and "imitator" are human constructs which don't apply to fish. That a fish chooses a Royal Wulff during a hatch doesn't mean the fish isn't selective, it means we don't understand what's going on. For all we know it's imitative of some doulble egg-sac'ed monstrosity that's more calorically valuable than a more imitative offering. If the difference between a "legitimate" fly pattern and another is whether a human being can construct a narrative as to why that fly was chosen, that's an awfully anthropocentric position for someone who insists on tying flies for fish and not fishermen.

 

And honestly- if a fish can distinguish between an X-Caddis, an Iris Caddis, and a Tup's Indispensable, who's to say they can't distinguish between an Adams and a Purple Haze, or a foam hopper with two sets of rubber legs and one with four sets of rubber legs? If you're a very selective fish then by definition you ARE looking for the minute differences between derivative small nymph or foam hopper patterns. It's an argument for the current state of fly design, not against.

 

Not at all. a fish that takes multiple types of food is feeding opportunistically. The reverse is taking a single food item which is being selective. Between these prototypical feeding behaviours is a spectrum of feeding behaviors.

 

Read about operant conditioning and selectivity:

 

https://books.google.com/books?id=jWfeAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA115&lpg=PA115&dq=operant+conditioning+in+trout+and+selective+feeding+in+trout&source=bl&ots=eC8ywcyL_6&sig=1fXCEE40m_vfSXPslmoOPfzgmPE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiExJWunKPMAhWBRCYKHV4eCcYQ6AEIJDAB#v=onepage&q=operant%20conditioning%20in%20trout%20and%20selective%20feeding%20in%20trout&f=false

Rainbow Trout and Atlantic Salmonhave experimentaly been operant conditioned in multiple experiments.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18444024

http://www.neaq.org/conservation_and_research/projects/publications_and_presentations/pdf/50__.pdf

The Mind of the Trout: A Cognitive Ecology for Biologists and Anglers By Thomas C. Grubb

Polarized Light in Animal Vision: Polarization Patterns in NatureBy Gábor Horváth, Dezsö Varju

 

Goldfish are trained by operant conditiong:

http://www.fit.edu/cool-stuff/aba-fish-lab

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Orvis lists a whole bunch of mayfly patterns. Interesting. My first thought is: Are all patterns aimed at mayflies in different parts of the country or different species of mayfly? Not necessarily a "one size fits all." But some fly patterns can be used in many different places.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"There is a random element in all behaviors, however. Not all behaviors can be logically explained, at least not from our perspective. Sometimes trout just seem to do things that defy any explanation. Sometimes, I guess, so do we. What cannot be explained from our point of view may make sense to the trout, though."

 

That's all anyone's saying, and it's right there in the first link you provided. Operant conditioning is a perfectly good explanation for some observations, but not every observation. Saying it's the only explanation, that all others are somehow illegitimate- it's dogmatic. So is arguing the only "legitimate" patterns are the ones we and the fish agree look like food item X in the 45 minutes a day, two weeks of a year, that fish is feeding exclusively on that species at that stage and nothing else because a fish that eats a dun and a dun and a dun is selective but a fish eating a dun and a scud and a dun isn't. If the point of fly design is creating patterns that solve angling problems,ignoring the times an imitative pattern doesn't work is probably more dangerous to the sport than varying a pattern to try and get an eat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every once in a while someone comes along that completely overthinks and over-analyzes a situation, thus creating an issue where there was none.

 

That's how I read this article.

 

If I want to sit at my vice, sip good (or even cheap) bourbon, let the creative juices flow producing variations on a theme, and someone seems these on social media and wants to fish them, who exactly cares?

 

If Umpqua sees a new pattern tied by Brian Silvey and offers it for sale, who cares? I thought fly fishing and fly tying was supposed to be relaxing.

 

Now I'm gonna go make up some new patterns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't think that is what he is saying at all. To imply that is to erect a straw man argument.

 

Just throwing that out there without an explanation, while not necessarily wrong, also does absolutely nothing for your case.

 

So you think that. Great.

 

Someone else may think the moon is made of cheese. They don't have to defend that position either, doesn't mean it's accurate.

 

So you interpret the underlying message of the article differently. That's fine, but it doesn't mean my interpretation is strawmanning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Operant training and selectivity have become more important to me lately.... with trout I am more becoming conditioned to rather strong cocktail sauce with fresh horseradish and Hunt's ketchup- not Heinz - and with fried panfish fillets it's tartar sauce or nothing at all. I have the personal research to back it up, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with a lot of the points, the article does have some points that are certainly provokes debate. Here is my two bits worth, fly bins in shops have a lot of flies that catch anglers! I would never fish them, I do tie a lot of them because as a fly tier I enjoy the different techniques and styles used in them. A lot of fish we catch are not feeding! I believe any fly will catch a trout as I am sure every fly in the shops display would have caught for someone somewhere! I live in Scotland and my tackle shop has Chernobyl Ant! It would catch a fish but I wouldn't buy it, but I have tied a couple cause I love tying. But on the side of fly development, certain fly companies employ the services of some of the best fisherman and fly tiers there is! The flies they have designed and used to catch wary big old feeding wild trout. They churn out new flies every season and I believe these are excellent! Talking to them and watching them tie the fly live as I am sure most of you would have done and are for that matter, gives you the insight to the thought that the fly has went through some new patterns are gimmicky and are just to sell i.e. squirmy worm, different coloured blobs! fish catchers where I'm from but most of the fish in our big waters are stocked rainbow trout! The flies that get my vote are the ones that catch our native wild browns when they are feeding , to me these are true flies, I will tie and use blobs but tying an Oliver Edward pattern, Paul Procter pattern. They are tried and tested and have been developed over time and still are to some extent . Other flies are decades old are will still be catching fish in decades to come. Anglers complicate fishing always have, but the flip side it creates new patterns and a few are certainly worth fishing and definitely worth tying!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found the article could not have been less thought provoking. It offers no insight into anything let alone "fishing problems," which I think is another way of saying the fish aren't biting. If commercial tiers extensively fished and tested flies they would go out of business or a fly would be like the pharmaceutical industry where the first pill cost 2 billion dollars to make but every pill after that only cost 9 cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hunt's ketchup- not Heinz

Heathen!

 

I haven't been able to choke down Heinz anything since I found out about john kerry being part of the family. Just sayin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted earlier that today's design are designed to catch fisherman more than fish. What it really comes down to, will I get a tug on the end of my line using this fly.

 

Where I usually fish gets a lot of pressure and sometimes the "oddball" fly is what works. Just because it is different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heinz? Baked beans are good for your heart, baked beans make you fart, the more you fart, the better you feel, baked beans for every meal!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...