Jump to content


 Welcome to FlyTyingForum.com


FlyTyingForum.com is the largest fly tying community in the world and we hope you take a moment to register for a free account and join this amazingly friendly and helpful group of anglers. FTF has over 12,000 registered members that have made over 300,000 posts and have uploaded over 6,000 patterns to our exclusive fly pattern database!

If you are an experienced fly tier or just starting out FTF is the perfect place to call home. Click Here To Register for a Free Account

Fly Pattern Database / Browse by Topics / Browse by Material / Fly Tying Bench Database / Fly Fishing & Tying Videos / FTFCurrent(NEW!)
Featured Products: Fly Tying Hooks / Fly Tying Scissors / Waterproof Fly Boxes
Photo

Revisit the hackle gauge


  • Please log in to reply
44 replies to this topic

#31 flytire

flytire

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 11,511 posts

Posted 14 November 2019 - 04:57 PM

hackled comparadun (photo from a different forum)

 

2-B20580-A-04-B4-4-B93-803-A-55-FB1-C699

 

as mentioned in their 1975 book "hatches" by caucci and nastasi


We do it all the time! Get over it!


#32 SilverCreek

SilverCreek

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,415 posts

Posted 14 November 2019 - 05:31 PM



 



 From a purely fishing standpoint, I think the "wing" is next to pointless on a fly with lots of hackle. 

 

From a purely fishing standpoint, a "wing" makes the fly easier to see, which is far from pointless. 

 

I agree, however, that it does nothing to increase the appeal of the fly to the fish.

 

 

I believe wings are very important in mayfly dun patterns.

 

My first point:

 

The wing is the FIRST part of the fly that enters the window so I think it is important. Note the natural in position 1 in the illustration below. "wings of the fly protrude above an angle of 10 degrees to the water surface and are visible in the trout's window"

 

http://www.flyfishingdevon.co.uk/how-does-a-trout-catch-a-fly-mobile03.html

 

23906666577_b3066a4077_z.jpg

 

 

 

 

Pay Attention at 2 minutes 10 seconds in the video below:

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=GIcvVbs3egE

 

My second point:

 

Vincent Marinaro did an experiment to demonstrate the importance of wings. He stationed himself above at trout feeding on hendricksons. He tore the wings off of duns and floated them down to the feeding trout. The trout refused the wingless duns but took the ones with wings.

 

The most obvious reason for the trout refusing the wingless hendricksons is that the wing is an important part of the search image of the trout.

 

"From his study of a trout's vision he believed that the dun mayfly's wing was the single most noticeable thing about the insect from the trout's point of view..."

 

See pg 18, first column in Spring 2000, Journal of the American Museum of Fly Fishing

 

http://www.amff.org/...ol26-No2web.pdf


Regards,

Silver

"Discovery consists of seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought"..........Szent-Gyorgy

http://tinyurl.com/lgkbu7v

#33 primeflycompany

primeflycompany

    Beginner

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts

Posted 14 November 2019 - 06:16 PM

^ The wings are also clearly visible in his book, In The Ring Of The Rise, and critically important as trout see the fly top down, not bottom up like many people assume when they stick a fly in their beer glass and look up from the bottom. Besides the light refraction of the legs on the surface in the very beginning of the drift, the wing becomes more and more visible as it gets closer to the window. 


Owner of Prime Fly Company
www.primeflycompany.com
Instagram: @primeflycompany
Facebook @primeflycompany 


#34 flytire

flytire

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 11,511 posts

Posted 14 November 2019 - 06:36 PM

silver creeks posting in 2015

 

https://www.theflyfi...-catch-fly.html


We do it all the time! Get over it!


#35 Poopdeck

Poopdeck

    You damn kids, get off my lawn!

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,868 posts

Posted 14 November 2019 - 10:58 PM

hackled comparadun (photo from a different forum)
 
2-B20580-A-04-B4-4-B93-803-A-55-FB1-C699
 
as mentioned in their 1975 book "hatches" by caucci and nastasi


Uh oh! Is the hackle the wing or is the hair the wing?

As for wings making the fly easier to see, not to me. There are flys out there with contrasting wings but match the hatch flies, and the majority of the most popular dry flies fished daily have wings very similar in color or shade and height so I'm not sure how that would increase sighting. I am due for my two year eye exam though. Parachute posts help with seeing but the post isn't a wing, or is it?

I do very little trout fishing but wingless drys work just fine for me therefore my small body of work suggest wings are not needed. Just in case it does make a difference I will dry some winged flies next year. I plan on doing a lot of tying this winter.

#36 tjm

tjm

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,358 posts

Posted 15 November 2019 - 02:04 AM

I probably read all this years ago and don't remember, but Snells cone is the light refracted as we see it; how do we know trout or bass or pike  perceive the cone in the same way we do? and if they do, and if  Marinaro's "Edge of the Window Theory" is true, how does a fish manage to shoot straight up from 5' deep on the bottom to catch an insect directly overhead? The fish can't have the insect on  the edge of the window unless it rises as the fly approaches, reducing the window always to the intercept distance.

The discussion always mentions the depth rearing to the Radius of the window but it appears the illustrations show the Diameter to be near the depth dimension?

All these technical details and fuzzy theories make me want to swing streamers.



#37 SilverCreek

SilverCreek

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,415 posts

Posted 15 November 2019 - 09:04 AM

I probably read all this years ago and don't remember, but Snells cone is the light refracted as we see it; how do we know trout or bass or pike  perceive the cone in the same way we do? and if they do, and if  Marinaro's "Edge of the Window Theory" is true, how does a fish manage to shoot straight up from 5' deep on the bottom to catch an insect directly overhead? The fish can't have the insect on  the edge of the window unless it rises as the fly approaches, reducing the window always to the intercept distance.

The discussion always mentions the depth rearing to the Radius of the window but it appears the illustrations show the Diameter to be near the depth dimension?

All these technical details and fuzzy theories make me want to swing streamers.

 

Snell's Law is physics so the trout has to perceive the window because that is how light bends. So is that "fuzzy" physics?

 

As to HOW the trout perceives the window, google trout vision.

 

If you believe in evolution, fish predate humans and the human eye and human brain evolved from from the same ancestor. Both fish and human eyes have a lens, a retina, rods and cones. Form = function; therefore, the laws of refraction in the fish eye are the same as in the human eye and the laws of refractions are also physics.

 

Read

 

http://www.flytyingf...showtopic=82200


Regards,

Silver

"Discovery consists of seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought"..........Szent-Gyorgy

http://tinyurl.com/lgkbu7v

#38 tjm

tjm

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,358 posts

Posted 15 November 2019 - 01:39 PM

It's fuzzy because it's all theory, not law, Most day to day mechanics are based on Newton's "laws" which if I'm not mistaken have been proved false by the latest new set of "laws". Any time we elevate a theory to the status of law we have discarded all science and entered the realm of religion.   (or maybe politics)

I don't think we know yet if the light bends or just our perception of is warped, but that's all irrelevant to the fact that variants catch fish and extremely oversized or undersized hackle can too.  

Doesn't matter that much, I was just curious if anyone had modeled a fishes eye to the point of knowing how much light angle correction it has or how great the peripheral vision is. Or maybe interviewed a pike.  Wide angle lenses might be a factor for all I know. It would be interesting to use a spherical lens camera to photograph the effect of that 'window".

I have not read any studies of how a fish brain processes information, I guess we assume that they process the same way we do?   



#39 Mark Knapp

Mark Knapp

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,051 posts

Posted 15 November 2019 - 01:44 PM

This is all very interesting but at the end of the day, sometimes some things work and sometimes they don't and there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason for it.

 

I guess it's a matter of what floats your boat, I can see that some of you really enjoy figuring all this stuff out and then using it to catch a really picky fish.

 

I'm pretty happy if I can get a fly to stay float and fish eat it. We don't have very many sophisticated fish up here if you stay out of the Kenai River so we don't have to spend much time thinking of any of this stuff. I'd much rather fish for stupid fish anyway.

 

I just realized that I do the same thing, it's just a different fish and a different bug.



#40 SilverCreek

SilverCreek

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,415 posts

Posted 15 November 2019 - 06:34 PM

It's fuzzy because it's all theory, not law, Most day to day mechanics are based on Newton's "laws" which if I'm not mistaken have been proved false by the latest new set of "laws". Any time we elevate a theory to the status of law we have discarded all science and entered the realm of religion.   (or maybe politics)

I don't think we know yet if the light bends or just our perception of is warped, but that's all irrelevant to the fact that variants catch fish and extremely oversized or undersized hackle can too.  

Doesn't matter that much, I was just curious if anyone had modeled a fishes eye to the point of knowing how much light angle correction it has or how great the peripheral vision is. Or maybe interviewed a pike.  Wide angle lenses might be a factor for all I know. It would be interesting to use a spherical lens camera to photograph the effect of that 'window".

I have not read any studies of how a fish brain processes information, I guess we assume that they process the same way we do?   

 

t is interesting that you bring up Newton's Law of Gravity which is based on the attraction of one mass to another.

 

It has been replaced by Einstein's Law of Gravity which is based on the bending of space time by masses.

 

Here's the thing. Although, Newton's Law of Gravity is incorrect, it was still used by the Apollo 11 Mission to land both Armstrong and Aldrin on the moon. It other words, a theory can be wrong but have accurate predictive value. If Newton's Law of Gravity could not predict the orbit of the earth, the moon, and the path of Apollo 11, there would not have been a moon landing.

 

If I may be so bold, your skepticism reminds me of a student who asked a philosophy professor this question, "How do I know even I exist?"

 

The professor told him to remain standing and asked the student, "And who may I say is asking?"

 

LIke the professor, my question is to you is, "What is your theory of how we can match the hatch?" My opinion is that being a sceptic of well established science without an alternative theory to explain reality adds nothing to the discussion. You must offer an alternative explanation of how we humans are able match what the fish are feeding on.

 

In other words, if we humans and trout did not see the same shape, size, color and behavior of the naturals, we could not match the hatch.  What we observe and match would not match what the fish observes.

 

You are asking how we know what we know. Basically, your question is about the theory of knowledge which involves three major laws of logic and the two tests for truth. The three major laws of logic are the law of identity, the law of non contradiction, and the law of the excluded middle. Of the tests for truth, the correspondence, and coherence tests are the primary truth tests.

 

Does the theory of trout vision correspond to reality (your observation) and is the theory internally consistent (are the parts of the theory coherent)? Do you spook fewer trout when you stay lower and go slower (observation)? When trout are feeding selectively on mayflies, do you use a pattern with an upright wing? Why?

 

If you do use patterns that look like mayflies to you when trout are feeding on mayflies, the your behavior demonstrates that you believe that trout and humans see the same thing regardless of what you think you believe!


Regards,

Silver

"Discovery consists of seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought"..........Szent-Gyorgy

http://tinyurl.com/lgkbu7v

#41 DrLogik

DrLogik

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 179 posts

Posted 17 November 2019 - 01:07 AM

I tie my dries mostly Catskill style with a bit larger than normal hackle.  I copied the hackle size gauge in the Dette book and have that on my bench but mostly eyeball it by curling the hackle over the hook first for size with the hackle still on the neck.  



#42 Bruce Derington

Bruce Derington

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,381 posts

Posted 17 November 2019 - 08:11 AM

Started out about hackle gauges, Wow. This forum is still one of the best resources!

Bruce Derington


#43 sandflyx

sandflyx

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,557 posts

Posted 18 November 2019 - 03:28 PM

go snorkeling in a stream during a hatch, you will be surprised. Schreibert taught me this trick. Gary lafontaine also did this. get your perspective from the trouts view. 


sandfly/bob

www.facebook.com/bigmeadowsflyshop/

N.J.B.B.A. #2215
fly tying and fishing instructor/shop owner

"I TIE FROM BILLFISH TO GUPPIE FLY'S" !
Fly Fishing and Tying Ghillie


#44 DFoster

DFoster

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 282 posts

Posted 18 November 2019 - 03:41 PM

This is all very interesting but at the end of the day, sometimes some things work and sometimes they don't and there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason for it.

 

I guess it's a matter of what floats your boat, I can see that some of you really enjoy figuring all this stuff out and then using it to catch a really picky fish.

 

I'm pretty happy if I can get a fly to stay float and fish eat it. We don't have very many sophisticated fish up here if you stay out of the Kenai River so we don't have to spend much time thinking of any of this stuff. I'd much rather fish for stupid fish anyway.

 

I just realized that I do the same thing, it's just a different fish and a different bug.

 

Mark the trout river I fish most often is also probably the most heavily pressured in the state.  Lots of Trout and lots of fly fisherman. The owner of a local shop said to me "If you go up there in a blizzard there will probably run into someone else fishing".  6 months of the year it's catch and release only. The end result is a lot of really smart fish.  Still I catch a good amount of fish there and I know you would also, hell you would probably out fish us locals!  -Because in the end a good fishing technique beats a perfectly measured hackle. Like Norms tag line says "The fish care less than we do".  My own flies are not even close to perfect, I use the gape of the hook as a gauge, but they still manage to catch fish who have been probably caught a few times before.


"I am not against golf, since I suspect it keeps armies of the unworthy from discovering trout."
- Paul O'Neil

 

 


#45 Mark Knapp

Mark Knapp

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,051 posts

Posted 18 November 2019 - 04:18 PM

D, Trout can be bribed. smile.png