Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by spicolli140, Nov 4, 2011.
As for the first, thats what trolling is.
As for the second, maybe it says more about outdated methods of transferring knowledge about conservation then it says about the "bead bros" Maybe, also, we dont associate well with a bunch of old timers who think anyone who bead fishes falls into the "bro" category, bro.
For the "bro's" only. The Bro Hymn
SG, can you go a little further into this? i not a steelheader and i don't understand what you mean exactly by "players". fish that are actively feeding only? or also fish that strike a swung fly in aggression? are you saying that a steelhead which eats an egg tumbling down a river is by definition not a legitimate target for an angler?
Who gets to decide which way to fish is "right" and "wrong" anyway? And, how do I get to vote for this omnipotent ruler? Unless, he/ she has already declared themselves the divine ruler.
I just want my voice heard, but I would rather do it on a secret ballot.
this is why old grandpa's smoke stogies and drink single malt..
38" wild on the swing,
no lead, no beads,
shit brazda, I WAS told to leave the bunny leech's at home..
A player is a steelhead that at this moment will strike the first properly presented bait, lure, or fly that it sees. A player isn't necessarily feeding, and most aren't, but they might be. A player will strike a swung fly; see first sentence, this paragraph, but that isn't all it will strike. A steelhead that eats an egg tumbling down the river may or may not be a player. Any steelhead that isn't on it's spawning beds or holding in lethal or near-lethal water temperature, etc., is a legitimate target for an angler. But not any steelhead can be persuaded to take a swung fly. Only a player will take a swung fly. A non-player can be persuaded to take a bead when it will take nothing, absolutely nothing, else.
Consequently if we meet up after a day's fishing, and you report to me that you caught 6 steelhead while fishing beads, and I mention that I rose one to a swung fly but couldn't get it to come back and even get a hook up, please understand why I don't give you more than a "ho-hum" for your day's results. It doesn't mean that either one of us has done something wrong, or that you're fishing lower on the angling ethical totem pole. It just means that you decided to use a method that can be approximately as effective as a gillnet while I chose to hunt for a player and almost found one.
thanks SG. so "playing" does not equal feeding, right? but then again, it's not known whether the "player" is striking out of aggression or hunger. maybe what i'm not really following is what the inherent value of fishing only for "players" (the definition of which seems still fuzzy to me, but almost sounds like it's the most willing fish in the river). i was expecting the premise to be based on not hooking fish that should not be pestered, but it sounds more like it just doesn't seem sporting to you to use an egg because it's so effective as a food item. a part of me resonates with this notion, but the other part thinks it sounds like insisting on NOT matching the hatch because that would make the fishing too easy.
anyway, could you give it to me in premise/premise/conclusion format?
enjoying your thoughts on the matter,
this was my view of the first OP too. how could you really not be happy for the guy?
I think I never commented on the OP. I suppose we're all happy for the guy for having caught his first steelhead, but some of us are not happy for him the way we will be when he catches his first fly-caught steelhead. Zero difference to some people, but all the difference in the world for folks who lean toward the way of thinking I've described in these last few posts.
I'm not sure what to put in your requested premise/premise/conclusion format. I think I described a "player" in the clearest possible terms. Non-players are not fish that shouldn't be pestered for biological reasons. Non-players are often legitimate targets, but you won't hook them on a swung fly. They just aren't interested, but they may be interested enough to take a dead-drifted offering at their level in the water column that is directly in front of their face or requires minimal movement to intercept. A very different fish than a player. You're correct, the player is one of the most willing, maybe dumb, fish in the river because he's willing to rise through the water column, either a little or a lot, and grab a non-living fly that is dragging against the current in a particular way that suggests life, but doesn't act the way an actual living baitfish or insect acts. One might conclude that the wet fly swing is an illogical way to fish if it weren't that it is so incredibly effective at times, just not as effective as skilled nymphing overall.
BTW, I think fishing with beads is sporting, just not as sporting as other methods. While steelhead sometimes take beads as an imitation of a food item, I'm positive they take them as an attractor lure often as well, like seasons that are months from any loose eggs being present in the stream. The most effective thing about beads is not that they are mistaken as food items. There are times and places where the most effective bead is a color that cannot possibly be mistaken for an egg, turquoise for example. It's the presentation, not what it looks like that gives it its gillnet-like effectiveness. And making the most effective presentations is not always easy as far as I can tell. Like the wet fly swing, anybody can do it, but not everyone does it extremely well. Same with nymphing and beads.
To your conclusion;
I agree. There is a big difference in my mind between the average vanilla swung fly, and a fly that swims through the water properly. The water speed shouldn't determine the speed of the presentation. There is a subtle feeling of proper lateral speed. Not saying I have it down pat every time, but I know when it is happening because of the results.
Wow, I've away too long, but looks like the same debates rage on. For what its worth, im a bead fisherman and none of the fish I've caught this year were on the bead. Interesting to say the least....or just dumb luck.
thanks again SG, interesting stuff. it seems there must be many years of field observation behind your thoughts and i value them. still, i'm not sure i would think of it as a solidly scientific assessment of what the particulars of what fish are players or not and why they do or do not strike a given type of irritant/food item. of course, if this were not a highly subjective matter, there would not be such a lively and enduring debate around it.