chiros vs. leaches... i need an opinion

I fish lakes 90% or more of the time and have to agree with troutpocket - trolling a leech around isn't a terribly productive technique for me and even less fun. Instead, I try to 'read' a lake to see where fish might be. Rises are an obvious giveaway. But I also pay attention to inlets and the outlet as well as any structure in the littoral zone like tree trunks, rocks, springs and dropoffs that might offer fish cover while they wait for food to come their way.

While I only occasionally fish leeches, I rarely fish chironomids. Yes, I know they produce fish (when that's what fish are feeding on). But to me, staring at an indicator all day long makes my eyes cross. I'd almost rather watch paint dry.

Someone here has a signature that reads something like "90% of what fish eat is brown, fuzzy and 5/8" long." Instead of passively trolling a leech around and hoping a fish might hit it, I prefer to start with a smallish nymph or soft hackle that fits the above description and then cast it towards rises or near structure, wait for a moment or two for it to sink, and then retrieve. Instead of passively hoping a trolled leech will work, the cast-and-strip technique lets me methodically probe likely fish holding areas. And yes, I do it because it works.

K

I've tried a couple of 'fish finders' and frankly between the false positives and fiddling with the controls I spend more time with them than I do fishing. To me their best purpose is in determining depth. For actually finding fish, not so much. I think the process of fishing is as much about finding fish on my own as it is catching them, so my electronics don't get much use.

Finding fish and the structure they often hide in isn't as hard as one might think. Unless water temps are so high that the fish hug the deepest parts of the lake just to breathe or aerial predators keep them in the depths, for the most part you'll find them in no more than 10-12 feet of water. Look for old tree trunks that stretch out into the water, large underwater rocks, steep dropoffs (where the water changes color abruptly) or inlet streams and then focus on fishing those areas first. If you see rises, especially concentrated in a certain area, start there before going anywhere else.

That's not to say that you won't ever find fish out in the middle of a lake or down deep - there are no hard and fast rules. But in the dozen or more years I've been concentrating on lakes, 80 to 90% of the fish I catch are within a long cast of the shoreline.

K

I on the other hand do not find chironomid fishing boring but then I've always been a visual learner and watching an indicator dip under the water increases my heart rate at a might finer clip then feeling a strike on a leech. My problem of late as in the last few years is a stubborn reluctance to stick to chironimid fishing even when it wasn't working, constantly switching something, flies, depth, location, retrieval, something thinking it was just a matter of time before they ate my mid. Fishing with Troutpocket this spring really helped me work out of this rut.

I do like your idea of just figuring out the chironomid thing until you understand it. If you are into hitting big number days on stillwater it is one of the best ways to do it when you figure it out. Your best bet and what worked for me was to hire a guide for a day who really knows there stuff. I hired Gordon Honey out of Kamloops, that guy is a stillwater god, who has worked with Chan, Rowley and Morris on more than one occassion. Or you could "hire" a semi-expert as in one of us from the board, offer to provide lunch or something and I'm sure we could work you into our schedule. For chironomiding lessons, spring is the best season, but if you just want to hit the water and experiment I'd be up for the challenge in fall.

Ira..