Correcting bad advice

A couple of perfect examples of where a well intended thought in an internet article goes awry:
"Change your bug if you don't get eaten on a legitimate chance. If it doesn't eat on a good cast, it probably won't eat it on the 100th good cast".

The above was written pertaining to night fishing, and is unfortunately misplaced. Part of hunting or sight fishing during the day requires a lot of sitting, standing, hiding, and keen observation. Fish have cycles - that is - they can move 2m left or right to feed, or cruise the inside seam on a flat for upwards of 100+ m if the hatch is light or if the fish is simply cruising and feeding on whatever it finds. Those fish cruising 100+m of river are difficult as you have to move faster than they without whooshing water and slamming rocks - it is difficult. However, the fish that are more likely easier to hook are those with a set feeding cycle (pattern). The rub is that fish are never stationary. If you follow the above advice, you could easily cast your fly perfectly to where the fish was on its last rise as that fish has since moved 4 feet to the left. Sure, you have a perfect drift, but if the fish is moving left and looking left due to greater insect density or loft in the water moving it over, your cast is not going to register. Change your fly? No. Wait to observe the pattern, the timing, the rhythm. So many times during a hatch on the Bow, Red Deer, central Ab brown trout streams, in MT, or over in New Zealand, Amelia & I have observed a fish' cycle prior to casting. "One shot wonders" are simply those that we know the cycle, the pattern, what it's feeding on, and simply wait to time the cast at the peak opportunity. Generally, these are going to get a take - one cast, fish on. Now, pertaining to the quote above, especially as it pertains to low light or night time fishing, while fish are opportunistic and feed freely in such conditions, it is more difficult to predict the cycle, and impossible to observe it, save for the rise patterns. As I discussed in "Can I touch you to see if you're real?" blog post last month, there is a systematic approach to working into a fish's cycle and feeding patch. Low, low and in, mid and out, mid and in, up, up and in. Repeat. The issue is that the fly line must protect the edge, that is, land outside the known pattern and cycle path. The second it gets too close or lands in the zone, you run the risk of lining a fish that might have dropped further down as you cast further up. This cross over is lethal to your chances - typically browns will cease feeding or leave the feeding lie, while rainbows often revert to more riffled water, often just upstream. If the fish has an observed cycle or pattern, we must be equally systematic in our approach and presentation. And, especially in low light or at night, one cast isn't going to cover that fish properly. Change your fly? No. Give it time and work the cycle first. If you give it 2 complete cycles of casting and the fish is still rising, then change your fly.

"Now, you'll meet a lot of fishermen that say this is ultimately the pinnacle of fly-fishing – just getting that rise from a selective, educated, finicky trout is why they do it. They have beaten the most difficult part of the game at that point; the rest is just a matter of going through the motions. BS! Do not let them fool you! It serves as a great excuse to being a very disappointing sportsman, but it is not at all a genuine sentiment."

There was a fish on last year's trip to NZ holding above a willow bush, in 10" of water. It was a tiny pocket of water, completely covered. I was casting right handed to a seam further upstream when I noticed the fish mid stroke. As I was afraid my movement would spook the fish (I was quite close already when I saw it) I switched hands mid cast, pulled back on my line with a bit of a parachute to shorten the cast while laying a left handed hook cast with a reach mend immediately above the willow and a 2 second drift into the pocket saw the trout rise to take the fly. I set the hook and fought the fish. It jumped and we went through the typical formalities. I turned it from an undercut on its last run and as it was coming to the net the fly simply popped. On video my body language reaction said it all "so what?" as I smiled, having had the fun I hoped for. Was I a very disappointing sportsman? A mid cast hand transfer, laying a left handed hook cast with a reach mend under an overhanging willow on the short side of the river, with the take and controlling the fish to the final netting glide is a disappointing display? I guess I must have missed the severity of necessity to catch every fish engaged. There again, to put such pressure on one's self is on the same keel as going to church and living the fundamentalist Christian lifestyle - don't color outside the lines. Why do that to yourself when fishing? Ironically, I say this as a person who fishes with the intensity I've not come across in others, that is, when it's the style of fishing I love. When engaged in sight fishing, or hunting, I'm extremely intense and expect to catch every fish I encounter. It won't ever happen, but my posture and poise is exactly that. It's not an intended over the top arrogance as much as an arrogance that reminds me to do the things I know need be done to ensure I have greater opportunity to get the trout to take than the fish will have to spook or refuse. It's subtle, the difference, but a mile apart in ramification.

Cheers
Dave Jensen