Presentation and Angle On Rivers

[bg110960]

This is a great thread for eginners like me. Well done

[colliedog]

tynetraveller said:

One point on angle and presentation- At what point does a cast fish too slowly? I can think of many places such as the Ledges on the North Tyne and Delchapel and The Griggles on the Spey where in low water it would be easy to cover the whole pool by wading above the head of the pool and fishing the fly at a very shallow angle indeed. Does anyone think the fly would be attractive at snails pace? The other issue is the hook-up on the dangle that may result in a bad hook hold.

Tynetraveller - DOnt' know these pools but IME if you are fishing a pool form the neck and have dead water in towards your bank you can sometimes avoid the dangle problem by putting a big downstream mend in your line and working the fly as it comes out of the current below you. the curve of the DS mend results in the fly continuing to fish across the pool rather than hanging lifelessly below you.

Sometimes this just isn't possible - therefore I tend to start slowly handlining or figure of eighting before the fly is on the dangle in almost all situations - it doesn't seem to reduce the number of takes and certainly improves the hook-up rate as discussed above.

One pool where this has dramatically improved by success rate is the Gleddes Weil from the left bank of the Lower Thornielea beat of the Tweed - a lot of fish lie tight into the left bank directly downstream and I used to get a lot lot of missed opportunities. Now most of the fish I catch in there are whilst handlining - sometimes from almost midstream.

Regards

CD

[rpsalmon]

I have to commend CLAG for his article, however, considering CLAG’s article emphasised the importance of attacking the pool, I am surprised to see that he has not included a description of the type of salmon likely to be encountered in a specific lie. It is vitally important to know whether you are dealing with residents or resting salmon, and if the later then what their psychology is likely to be. Only after taking this into consideration with the environmental variables effecting the fish, can we plan how to attack a lie. Even to do that we need to understand how to tempt and hook the fish, to do this we need to know about hooking and the relationship between lure size and speed of lure-this is missing in CLAG’s article. Strange considering FT Grant is mentioned in CLAG’s article and he is one of the few modern authors who fully understood the relationship between size of lure and its speed relative to tempting a salmon. While I certainly didn’t and don’t agree with a number of FT Grant’s generalisations or approaches to fishing, it is an indictment on modern salmon fishing and modern anglers, that the book as well as this intelligent angler were slated with the result that his book passed into mediocrity and has been sold for peanuts ever since.

Regarding Size/Speed relationship.

The following scenario will be familiar to those who’ve read a number of books, sadly it does not surprise me to find most anglers blatantly ignore it.

An object that isn’t moving upstream or downstream in effect looks to be stationery in the river, but in a water current of 3 mph it is actually moving at 3 mph in order to maintain position. While a large fish such as a salmon will be naturally able to maintain this speed, an inch long shrimp or other sized life form may not be able to swim consistently at this 3mph, in fact a shrimp may be doing well to maintain a consistent swimming speed of 2 mph in still water and so any speed in excess of this would be considered abnormal and unnatural. Therefore with a maximum consistent swimming speed of 2mph the shrimp would not be able to swim upstream consistently in a 3 mph current (but it could probably do this tail first and in a jerky fashion) and would in fact drop downstream at an average speed of 1mph in relation to the bank and also the salmon swimming at 3 mph in the 3 mph water current.

If you wanted to present an easy and tempting target to a salmon holding position in our 3 mph current you could either fish (using generalisations of speed and size) a ½ inch shrimp stationery in relation to the current and therefore travelling past the salmon at 3 mph, or a 1 inch shrimp at its maximum consistent swimming speed of 2mph and therefore letting the fly drop downstream at 1mph in relation to the 3 mph salmon, or for a 2 inch shrimp with a consistent swimming speed of say 3 mph then you could fish it at the same speed of the salmon and it would look natural. You can go into this subject of speeds in relation to fish/current/bank in far more detail with various books, even looking at speed required to move an across the current naturally, I could go into this but I’m only outlining the basics.

Unfortunately I don’t know the exact natural swimming speed of a sea shrimp or fish that I am imitating on a particular day, even if shrimps, sandeels or herring could live in rivers we would have to take account of their ability to move in particular water temps and oxygen levels etc in order to know their most enticing speed to attract our salmon. Fortunately a salmon is an adaptable creature that is used to taking a wide variety of objects as food in the sea, and as much of their old sea foods resemble life forms it rivers, as long as we follow certain guidelines to match its food our lures will catch salmon in rivers. As it spends more time its new environment, the river, it will adapt itself to its new surroundings and eventually that even includes adjusting its idea of what is natural food. Undoubtedly Grilse can remember their recent period in a river and are more likely to take river life imitations, ie trout flies because their instinct connects them with natural food.

High lure speed is fine as long as it appears to the salmon as a naturally occurring movement, to ensure a lure moves naturally you have to take account of its size, what it is supposed to represent, water temperature, style of movement, current direction and strength, depth etc. Due to the UK’s changing climate we have water temperatures above 5c for the vast majority of the salmon season (the salmon this is neither cold nor warm because it doesn’t operate with our concept of warmth and cold) and this results in the salmon’s metabolism and psychological state being higher which in turn allows it to not only put on a burst of speed but be more susceptible to its feeding habit and chase a moving lure; as such, in what we humans class as warm water, since the salmon is more likely to be chase a lure moving quickly it makes sense to capitalise upon this and fish quickly.

Example of how to fish a lie.

To catch salmon that are temporarily stopping, and therefore are the most vulnerable, we can employ a wide range of tactics but which one succeeds depends on factors we can’t know exactly such as the salmon’s metabolic rate, feeling of security, strength of instinct to feed etc etc. Since we can’t know these factors we have to make general assumptions based upon our knowledge of the fish behaviour and lie. Using a 3mph current, 13c water temp, slight colour and river dropping, overcast conditions, a submerged rock in the middle of a stream, the likelihood of say four 8 to 15Ib salmon in 4 feet of water by the rock but with no deep water near by, and the likelihood of the salmon being in the river for three days and having moved 40 miles in that time.

Because of the position in the pool, the depth of water and that there is no deep water near by, it is likely to be a running lie and would expect the fish to be running fish that have stopped for a rest of anywhere between a minute and as thirty mins, unless they’ve been fished over before I would expect them to act simply and probably take the first lure they see. I would reckon that such fish could be tempted by a range of methods but because their metabolism is undoubtedly higher (due to warm water, in a stream, recuperating to move on) and are in a group, they are all more likely to be spooked if one is spooked. While the stream would cover the angler’s actions to a degree, I would first work out how to lead the first hooked fish downstream in order to minimise disturbance to the others and give a chance to at least catching one more from the lie. Taking the natural looking tempting lure approach…(And these are generalisations to make it easier to understand) I could go well above the lie and cast down to present the fly slowly and steadily and could fish a size 8 directly across the current at an speed of 3mph in relation to the fish, a size 10 at an effective 2mph to the fish, a size 12 at an effective 1 mph to the fish, or size 14 at an effective 0 mph to the fish (The AHE Wood option!), these last three options involve the fly falling back downstream while staying at same depth.

However, because the water is warm, also there being a moderate current, the salmon won’t have much momentum when it takes and will be able to quickly spit out any slow fly after it feels the points of the hooks. If I don’t give the salmon time to feel the hooks upon taking, and at the same time have sufficient force available to immediately hook the fish, then I will obviously improve my chances of a successful hooking. Therefore in order to increase the chances of a hook up I would prefer to fish from the side of the fish and only slightly upstream. I can achieve this by increasing the pace of the fly so that I force the fish to increase its speed and therefore carry more momentum when it hits the fly-end result being a higher chance of hooking (or what is commonly called a good solid take). The problem is that where as I would fish a size 8 fly in the down and across position, and this would look natural, such a fly could not look natural fished sideways to the current. I therefore have to increase my size of fly and its speed to look natural in such a situation, and yet still be proportionate to the water temperature range in order that it is tempting to the fish. I will therefore increase the size of my fly to say a 1 ½ inch copper tube fly, and cast it to a position two feet above (to surprise and get attention in order to trigger feeding habit) the lie of (my reckoning of) the first salmon’s position, upon landing in the water I immediately draw the fly away (as if it were trying to escape the salmon) at an increasing speed (3mph + 2mph for side current=5mph) (but on a level plane. I keep this fishing right into the side but would expect a hard take, I keep as still as possible in order that I don’t scare the fish, this way if this technique doesn’t work I am allowed another opportunity with the same tactic but slightly different angle, or put on the size 8 and fish it slowly from above. However, when I have days where I’m fishing from above and have had a series of fish “falling off”, I know they can feel the hooks and immediately present the lure from the side in order to increase hook ups.

Were I fishing a section of river that was canal like, ie virtually no current, and yet the same temperature, I can use the same basis and tactics! But again have to create a naturally attractive lure and therefore match an appropriate size fly and fish it at an attractive speed. This time I would use a 2 inch copper tube and draw quicker, say at 7 mph. When the salmon hits the fly it will be at such a momentum that it will be well hooked.

In cold water you can use even larger flies than the common 3 or 4 inch flies, I’ve gone up to 9 inches but when you do so you must draw the fly quickly and invariably this is only natural across the current and in slower water.

[flybox]

Great interesting posts, thank you all.

>I’ve gone up to 9 inches

Which suggests that a salmon in a river would cheerfully take a small grilse/sea trout.

[rpsalmon]

A salmon will take quite large lures, but depending on its psychological state, water temp, feeling of security, time of year, time in river etc. I've heard from people to have caught them on 12 inch lures but I've only managed to get them on a 9 inch large but slim Brookes Sunray type lure. I doubt a 12 inch thick bodied trout would work effectively.

As a child I used to fish a revolving salmon parr or trout (5 or 6 inches) slowly across the tails of pools during the smolt run in May, it was a very effective and well practiced method for taking salmon. I have actually seen a resident salmon (20 Ib) get very annoyed at some smaller salmon 8-12Ib that were temporarily resting, he got sick of marking/claiming his lie with a splash and eventually bit one of them!

[tynetraveller]

Two years ago in Russia I hooked a parr through the side of the head. It was badly maimed so I knocked it on the head and threw it in at my feet. I was standing on a rock ledge over twelve feet of water and I saw the massive silver flash below me as a fresh fish took the dead parr as it tumbled down stream. I was using a size 12 at the time, maybe I should have been fishing a big clouser..

On the whole scale speed thing, I personally do not believe that a fish rationalises how fast a prawn can swim.. Fish will often chase a small fly fished fast in fast water and last week I landed two grilse and a sea trout whilst stripping in my shooting head running line fast in a fast stream, on a size 6 and 8 fly. I am far more inclined to think in terms of the kitten chasing a piece of wool. I also hooked a fish two weeks ago on a 3/4 inch bottle tube whilst throwing a long line into slowish water on the other side of a fast stream. The line was bellying dowstream like crazy and the fly was ripping across the pool, it didn''t put off the 13lb long tail sea-licer..

[rpsalmon]

While a salmon isn't capable of thinking in the way we do, and doesn't, it has an instinct for survival and that included being wary of unusual and unnatural things. Once a salmon's instinct has been raised to chase and kill an object, as long as you can keep the fish focused on the object and do not distract him, you can move a lure faster than any creature of that size is capable of moving and the salmon will still nail it. The problem is, the faster and longer time frame you move the lure, the likelihood increases that the salmon will recover his senses and turn away. Grilse and sea trout are more likely to follow a fast fly because their sea feeding experience/habit is more recent. Whichever direction to the current you were retrieving the fly, and wherever the fish were in relation to you/the current, surely the fact you were stripping fast in a fast stream indicates how quickly you can fish a lure and catch fish, if you were to fish that fast all the time in such water temperatures, do you think your catches would increase?

[tynetraveller]

I honestly don't know how fast is optimal, but I know even quite small sunrays- say three inches long and as thin as a few strands of hair- will catch fish in cold water on a sinking line, whilst being stripped roly-poly with the rod under the arm. Similarly, I often fish size 14s on the middle Spey when others are on tens or even eights- Again I think that the higher scale speed of the small fly makes it more attractive to salmon.

I have done a lot of trout stocky bashing on crystal clear lakes where the amount of follows, often multiple fish to a single cast, without any takes is often amazing, and my only conclusion on how to get those fish to take is to do anything, Stop, slow, fast, short sharp pulls, very long fast pulls, until something works. I fish for salmon in good conditions with a similar belief that many fish see my fly on every single cast and on many if not most casts a fish has probably at least reacted to my fly in some way. The more fishing I do, the less sure I am of whether there is a right way- I just experiment and try things that have worked before. My own catches reflect that a small fast fly is as likely as anything to result in a take. I do not claim this to be the way everyone should do it, or to understand why..


There are no rules in fishing, I know of salmon coming up from 15ft down to take a skated bomber at 2 degrees centigrade, I have seen fish take a 3 inch clouser in low water and bright sun. Whenever the brits and scandis fish the same water, fish are taken equally on very different tactics.( Frodin excluded!) Two weeks ago we fished with Norwegians and caught 148 fish in a week. A look at the book at the end of the week proved nothing- fish were taken on sinking lines and 3" copper tubes, through to trout nymphs and bombers. The conclusion- The best tactics are those used in the same pool as a bunch of fresh fish.

[paulsewin]

rpsalmon said:

Grilse and sea trout are more likely to follow a fast fly because their sea feeding experience/habit is more recent.

Really?

I understand that sea trout feed in coastal waters and even in the mouths of estuaries, but do grilse?

I am unaware of any scientific research which suggests that grilse feed in separate parts of the North Atlantic to "salmon". I also didn't appreciate that these separate feeding grounds were near enough to the UK coastline to validate this statement.

I am also interested to explore this feeding response in deciding a tactical approach to a pool.

It has been suggested that if a salmon takes a fly in slow moving water, it must be hooked fairly quickly otherwise it will eject the hook. This suggestion not only contradicts my own limited fishing experience but it doesn't make any sense.

Surely salmon get used to sharp objects in their mouths when they are feeding at sea. A prawn, small fish and other crustacea all have sharp bits. Are we to believe that salmon are suddenly sensitised to this because they are now in fresh water?

Such ideas would be greeted with incredulity on the Moy in Ireland, where anglers have more than enough experience of fishing canal-like stretches of river.

The other experience that is likely to be shared by people who have caught a few fish throughout the season and completely destroys this assumption is the fish which "eats" your fly. I don't mean one which swallows it. I mean one which takes it and seems to chew it as if it were taking a worm.

The rod tip dips as the fly is taken, quite positively, perhaps 4 or 5 times during the course of the same cast. Eventually, assuming you haven't tried to hook the fish yourself, it will turn with the fly and be hooked by your chosen method. I simply cannot believe the fish didn't feel the hook during this performance.

"as such, in what we humans class as warm water, since the salmon is more likely to be chase a lure moving quickly it makes sense to capitalise upon this and fish quickly."

It never ceases to amaze me how many times this half truth gets an airing.

Just because the salmon's metabolic rate now permits it to move quickly doesn't mean that it is going to do so. It has limited reserves of body fat to allow it to complete its journey and mature sexually. If this were actually true, every river would experience the equivalent of duffers fortnight with mayfly hatches and all the ghillies would have to do is take the temperature of the water, give their anglers a big fly and lie about the correct angle of cast to a suitable lie.

By all means fish for the 5%, probably an exaggeration, of the population that will chase a fly. This method, along with some of the Scandinavian tactics have their place.

I'll fish for them after I've tried the 95% with a "modern" lively pattern, fished as slowly as possible to make it as easy as possible for the salmon to take. The one that really wants it will travel across the pool to meet it early anyway.

As I'm packing a calculator into my waistcoat, I've had a terrible thought. How fast is 3 mph? Will I be able to discern 2mph?

So far, I'm assuming this discussion is actually talking about the speed of the water surface, but is that valid? Our salmon is probably lying on or close to the river bed.

The current on the river bed will be considerably slower, less that 25% of the surface speed. If we're going to get serious about the size/speed of our lure, we need to give some serious though to how deep the fly is fishing and to what speed, relative to our salmon, we are actually try to control.

If you take this to its logical conclusion you find 150 years of salmon fishing turned on its head. To fish deep and slow, you should be using small flies, they will fish correctly in the slow flows, the reverse is also true.

I don't know what is normal for a salmon. It could be lying on the river bed, watching a leaf barely moving along the river bed while 5 feet above it, similar leaves are flashing overhead.

And finally, what size is a size 8 anyway? Single, double, treble, long shanked, low water - and that's just the hook. Ally shrimp, pot belly shrimp, Stoat Tail, Jeannie, Usk Grub or Irish Shrimp?

I think it might be a good idea to start considering and then defining some of these parameters before dispensing advice. This lack of context diminishes the value of much of what has been said.

[flybox]

If you take this to its logical conclusion you find 150 years of salmon fishing turned on its head. To fish deep and slow, you should be using small flies, they will fish correctly in the slow flows, the reverse is also true.

I'm no expert, but I don't think this statement is the corollary of anthing that has been written on this thread.

Firstly, a small fly will never get down that far, so that assertion just doesn't work at all.

Secondly, whilst it is true that a small animal would not move too quickly, it is not true that a large animal can never move slowly. It is thus appropriate to fish a large fly either quickly or slowly, but not appropriate to fish a small fly quickly.


Finally, I think you're getting too worked up about the 2mph/3mph thing. Most of the time I'm sure that you will slow down a small fly if you think it's moving too quickly. Don't you?

[rpsalmon]

Dear paulsewin

I’m afraid I am going to limit my response to you because I note the gross misrepresentation of my actual words and intent.

You stated and therefore suggested, not me, that: “I am unaware of any scientific research which suggests that grilse feed in separate parts of the North Atlantic to "salmon”.

You stated and therefore suggested, not me, that : “It has been suggested that if a salmon takes a fly in slow moving water, it must be hooked fairly quickly otherwise it will eject the hook”

I have yet to see the prawn, shrimp or fish that has hard & sharp metal points, or is hard and inflexible in itself.

Since the basis of your hooking comments, is to ignore the basis of mine, you will forgive me if a don’t bother to repeat myself.

You stated, not me, that: “Just because the salmon's metabolic rate now permits it to move quickly doesn't mean that it is going to do so.” Of course not, so what? I never said it was going to do so! But as we are dealing with a creature of habits, and it has a habit to chase to feed it is entirely sensible to use tactics that will take advantage of that habit. The only person who suggests it would work the majority/all of the time is you-in that statement.

I can assure you, 5% of salmon is a gross underestimate of the salmon that will chase a fly. 100% is nearer the mark.

You state: “The one that really wants it will travel across the pool to meet it early anyway.”. In this statement you indicate an opinion that it doesn’t matter what you use, yet in your previous statement you mention a lively pattern that indicates it does matter what you use, this doesn’t make sense. The idea that a salmon, a voracious and highly successful predator that has survived the river an seas, needs help to take the fly is astonishing. The purpose of presenting a slow moving fly is to show an astonishingly easy and tempting target to the fish, in the hope that it will be too tempting not to take.

It is clear to me that you catch most of your fish on easy fly water, that they are fresh fish, but when it comes down to low/slow water and your fly water has disappeared, your tactics will bore the fish to death and educate them.

The basis on your speed/depth approach ignores what I have written, I suggest you look at it again. If you don’t like what I have written I suggest you look at the books of Richard Waddington, Hugh Falkus, Neil Graesser, Balfour-Kinnear, Francis T. Grant, Jock Scott, Anthony Crossley etc, as they are more eloquent than myself and seem to have no problem in understanding it.

[flybox]

"educating the salmon"

I've read this a couple of times on here. What please does it mean?

[rpsalmon]

By fishing for salmon at certain times or in certain ways, ways that are not only the most ineffective but which are pretty much guaranteed not to catch a salmon, the salmon learns (or is educated) to associate the fly/lure/fly line/angler/disturbance from casting as something to be concerned about, feels less secure and may even become spooked or scared whenever it sees such an object.

Example 1. Angler tempts and hooks a fish but, fish is lost. Fish associates feeding with an extraordinary experience and is unlikely to take again-at least for some time or unless an angler can trigger a take! The fish that are hooked and lost, legally or illegally, and/or have lures thrown at them for long periods are naturally unsettled to the point that they will jump out of the water if they have been disturbed enough. These fish are on nerves, and unless given time to recuperate are probably uncatchable.

Example 2. Angler casts out into pool and fly drifts unnaturally/lifelessly downstream, deeper and across the river, not looking alive. Fish looks at unnatural object, wonders what on earth is this thing that appears to be acting contrary to any living object its ever seen, and naturally unable to find out, simply ignores it and any other like object. The fish is therefore educated to ignore flies, because someone fished through a lie inappropriately and unnaturally. If a lure is fished too unnaturally/inappropriately then a salmon will often move out of the way every time it comes near. Poachers often use this tactic to catch fish, casting into a lie in order to move the fish out, they wait for the fish to return, then pull their weight/hooks up wards to foul hook the fish. I know of a lie where, judging by the scales on near by rocks, the poachers find this to be very productive.

Example 3. One afternoon an angler casts into a pool that has had low water for weeks and fishes sink and draw with a conehead. Obviously the fish are virtually in a sleep mode and have reduced their metabolic rate so they can conserve energy at the bottom of the pool, they aren't fresh and so are feeling insecure, their feeding habit reduced by weeks in fresh water and unlikely to take in their condition. From the sink and draw motion of an object who's shape/size/motion is something the salmon will see as quite extraordinary, unnatural and unlike anything they've seen before, the salmon will probably stay well clear (yes, I know a fish might take but I am working on a realistic basis, not for the 1% or 3% of fish that may take). They have been educated to stay clear of such crazy looking objects and unless there is some major change in conditions they are unlikely to take. However, that fish would have probably been a taking fish just before dusk, the time when it wakes up and makes its tour of the pool. If the pool had a large piece of oxygenated white water at the head, the salmon would probably have taken turns throughout the day to move out of the deep water and go into the white water at the head, at this point all uneducated salmon may have been catchable if fished for carefully.

[duncanm]

rpsalmon said:

Example 1. Angler tempts and hooks a fish but, fish is lost. Fish associates feeding with an extraordinary experience and is unlikely to take again-at least for some time or unless an angler can trigger a take! The fish that are hooked and lost, legally or illegally, and/or have lures thrown at them for long periods are naturally unsettled to the point that they will jump out of the water if they have been disturbed enough. These fish are on nerves, and unless given time to recuperate are probably uncatchable.

.

This is interesting stuff - how does example 1 above tie in with the theory that a fish that has been moved by a collie dog (or similar) will agressively take a smaller fly fished through the lie immediately after?

[rpsalmon]

There are no absolute rules in salmon fishing. I have actually hooked and lost a salmon, and for this to happen on each of the next two casts, on the forth it stayed on the hook. However, I think this was definitely an exception.

It is common for a lure to be used in order to move a fish and another or the same lure to catch the salmon. The collie dog may well have just grabbed the salmon's attention or awakened its feeding habit, whether it came to its senses or just saw through the charade, I don't know. It may well have taken a smaller lure after wards because it was something of the correct size and speed, or because it was annoyed by the first lure and simply defending its lie, or because after having its feeding habit aroused the lure was the next thing it saw that it could feed upon. You mention aggression, therefore perhaps it was defending its lie.

These factors can happen with salmon of virtually any type (resters or residents, fresh or stale) and in various types of lies. The collie dog tends to be more successful on fresh salmon (especially grilse) fish and in northern climes, where salmon retain more of their recent feeding habit and feel more secure, boisterous and aggressive.

[paulsewin]

I clearly didn't explain myself properly.

You stated and therefore suggested, not me, that: “I am unaware of any scientific research which suggests that grilse feed in separate parts of the North Atlantic to "salmon”.

How do you explain your statement that "Grilse and sea trout are more likely to follow a fast fly because their sea feeding experience/habit is more recent."? Your words. Where are they feeding at sea, the most recent feeding time, that salmon don't use? Either they are feeding in a different place or the statement is inaccurate or "grilse" is intended to cover salmonb as well. It's a straight forward question.

You stated and therefore suggested, not me, that : “It has been suggested that if a salmon takes a fly in slow moving water, it must be hooked fairly quickly otherwise it will eject the hook”

Enlighten me, what exactly did you mean by "However, because the water is warm, also there being a moderate current, the salmon won’t have much momentum when it takes and will be able to quickly spit out any slow fly after it feels the points of the hooks."

I have yet to see the prawn, shrimp or fish that has hard & sharp metal points, or is hard and inflexible in itself.

Have you ever handled any of them? Gill covers, dorsal fins, the spike on the front of a shrimp or prawns head, the very hard tail.

Since the basis of your hooking comments, is to ignore the basis of mine, you will forgive me if a don’t bother to repeat myself.

Was there a point to this?

You stated, not me, that: “Just because the salmon's metabolic rate now permits it to move quickly doesn't mean that it is going to do so.” Of course not, so what? I never said it was going to do so! But as we are dealing with a creature of habits, and it has a habit to chase to feed it is entirely sensible to use tactics that will take advantage of that habit. The only person who suggests it would work the majority/all of the time is you-in that statement.

You've championed the writings of Falkus, pity you didn't read all he had to say about why a salmon may take instead of selecting one explanation which fits your theory.

I can assure you, 5% of salmon is a gross underestimate of the salmon that will chase a fly. 100% is nearer the mark.

And in a later post you say "From the sink and draw motion of an object who's shape/size/motion is something the salmon will see as quite extraordinary, unnatural and unlike anything they've seen before, the salmon will probably stay well clear (yes, I know a fish might take but I am working on a realistic basis, not for the 1% or 3% of fish that may take).

If you're not confused, I am!

You state: “The one that really wants it will travel across the pool to meet it early anyway.”. In this statement you indicate an opinion that it doesn’t matter what you use, yet in your previous statement you mention a lively pattern that indicates it does matter what you use, this doesn’t make sense. The idea that a salmon, a voracious and highly successful predator that has survived the river an seas, needs help to take the fly is astonishing. The purpose of presenting a slow moving fly is to show an astonishingly easy and tempting target to the fish, in the hope that it will be too tempting not to take.

I think you ought to do a bit of careful reading before jumping to conclusions. "I'll fish for them after I've tried the 95% with a "modern" lively pattern, fished as slowly as possible to make it as easy as possible for the salmon to take. The one that really wants it will travel across the pool to meet it early anyway."

Put another way, I will fish a pattern that has a lot of life in it (movement) as slowly as possible. A fish that will chase a fast moving fly will also move to a slow moving fly which represents an easier target (prey, if you like)

It is clear to me that you catch most of your fish on easy fly water, that they are fresh fish, but when it comes down to low/slow water and your fly water has disappeared, your tactics will bore the fish to death and educate them.


Amazing! How do you have the slightest idea of the type of water I fish? You could not be more incorrect, unless of course, you regard spate rivers in West Wales, at summer low levels, as easy fly water.

The basis on your speed/depth approach ignores what I have written, I suggest you look at it again. If you don’t like what I have written I suggest you look at the books of Richard Waddington, Hugh Falkus, Neil Graesser, Balfour-Kinnear, Francis T. Grant, Jock Scott, Anthony Crossley etc, as they are more eloquent than myself and seem to have no problem in understanding it.
[/quote]

I think I have read the major works by all the authors you mention and a good many others.

My point was that the speed of the fly, in relation to the salmon rather depends on the depth it is being fished at. Why else do you think skillful wormers take so much trouble over the speed at which they trot worms through a pool? The bait is trundling along the bottom of the river, in the slower current, as slowly as possible. Could we fish small flies on a sunk line the same way? Just a thought.

I am sorry that you chose to ignore my question about fly sizes. You clearly understand what you mean, it was a genuine question.

I do hope I haven't bored you with my desire to learn something which does not conflict with my own experiences and observations.

[rpsalmon]

Dear paulsewin

Having only recently got back from fishing I shall reply to your points tomorrow.

Dear springer

I do not think I am a god and I have not implied or stated such.

You ask me to state the scientific foundation for suggestions and then, before receiving a reply, automatically conclude that there is no foundation. Clearly you are not interested in a reply and this conclusion is supported by your last statement. If you are bored by the thought of the reply, then perhaps you are bored by your questions. Is your posting, not in fact, an example of sheer frustration.

I am not aware that I have awarded the salmon an intellect or reasoning ability beyond that of a fish.

I’ll take the opportunity in replying to “paulsewin” tomorrow, in order to answer the scientific basis for a fish’s ability to do other than eat, swim & reproduce. At this point I will give you one simple example to think of in the mean time that doesn’t involve eating, swimming or reproducing and that all salmon anglers will be aware of, this is a salmon jumping out of the water in a pool, it doesn’t involve eating, swimming or reproducing.

Your penultimate statement is quite extraordinary, it suggests the accumulated scientific work carried out around the world by generations of reputable scientists is nonsense. It also suggests that the accumulated experience of generations of anglers, barristers/ghillies/ministers/biologists etc etc, over hundreds of years are worth nothing. Take a step back and look at salmon fishing and you will immediately realise that we can see patterns in the behaviour of salmon and patterns in successful methods of catching salmon, in order for these patterns to exist we must have recognised the salmon’s psychology/habits/reasoning to some extent.

[flybox]

Even if Springer won't read it, do reply. I'm sure I'm not the only one reading with fascination.

[rpsalmon]

Answer one: I note that you state you are unaware that there is scientific research which suggests that grilse feed in separate parts of the North Atlantic to Salmon, fine, ok, I am happy to accept that you are unaware of such.

Compared to humans, a fish doesn’t have anywhere near the same brain capacity/sophistication/powers. With their lower brain functions Sea trout (as well as salmon/grilse) are creatures of habit and instinct, also sea trout are known to be normally coastal feeders. When they move into rivers the habit and instinct to feed is suppressed to quite a high degree, though obviously this subsides on occasions. Because a sea trout is likely to have reached their river quite quickly (in relation to a salmon from Greenland) they retain more of their habit/instinct to feed and are proportionately less likely to engage that feeding process the longer it has been since they stopped feeding normally at sea, if indeed particular sea trout do stop the feeding process because I’ve caught lots while they were feeding miles up stream in rivers. Grilse are like the sea trout in terms of their lower suppression of the feeding instinct, and actually are more likely to take than salmon because of this. While I note YOUR suggestion that Grilse and Salmon may not feed in the same parts of the sea, and while the difference between a Grilse and Salmon can be next to nothing in some cases, I do think that it is highly probable that since the grilse is generally smaller than a salmon and has spent less time at sea, that they do not venture as far as large multi winter salmon. If our grilse did venture as far as Greenland then I believe, in consideration of a realistic top average speed of say 30 miles per day, that by the time they found the coast and entered their river their feeding instinct would have been suppressed as much as a salmon and this clearly isn’t the case.

Point Two: My statement that “However, because the water is warm, also there being a moderate current, the salmon won’t have much momentum when it takes and will be able to quickly spit out any slow fly after it feels the points of the hooks.” is explained within exactly the same posting. I am at a loss to explain it further, other that to expand individual parts of that statement in the hope that you will be able to look it again, this time with an open mind. A salmon that is swimming in moderate currents and which isn’t exerting itself, and able to match its speed and direction with that of the lure is not going to be carrying much momentum at the time of take. As it is not carrying much momentum, and has absolutely no need to suddenly exert itself and direct its potential speed/momentum/energy into the take, at the time of the take there is no great force of energy involved in the taking process that would result in a solid self-hooking situation. Since with this momentum-less take, the salmon will have taken the lure into its mouth and automatically felt/sensed it, if it likes the object and as long as it doesn’t feel the pull from line drag before changing direction then you may well have a successful hooking. However, if the salmon with its higher level of feeling in warm water, senses it is something unnatural then during that feeling/sensing process, most probably between tongue and roof of mouth, will be a precursor to the salmon ejecting the fly almost immediately.
It was you, and not me who stated and suggested that “It has been suggested that if a salmon takes a fly in slow moving water, it must be hooked fairly quickly otherwise it will eject the hook” and your statement doesn’t reflect my stated views.

Point Three: I have never handled even part of a prawn, shrimp or fish that has felt like a metal point. While I have felt various fishes dorsal spines and the antenna of shrimp/prawn/krill, I never felt anything that resembled hard metal or a sharp metal point. Even after completing experiments on the preservation of shrimp/prawns/capelin etc, I never came across an antenna or other part that felt unnatural like metal.

Point Four: The basis of my comment “Since the basis of your hooking comments, is to ignore the basis of mine, you will forgive me if a don’t bother to repeat myself.”, was that since you didn’t read or take notice of my remarks I didn’t see the point in repeating part of a previous post.

Point Five: Much of Hugh’s book goes into considerable detail on a number of subjects, including those covered by my comments, but I am unable to agree with a number of the opinions/conclusions stated within Hugh’s book. I didn’t take an explanation to fit my theory, that is not the way I work or think, firstly I look at the evidence and see whether I am able to form conclusions from that evidence, a theory then came into existence for the practical purposes of helping me learn more and enjoy my fishing. It took about five years for me to arrive at a basically complete theory I am happy with, this will evolve over time as new evidence and research comes out.

Point Six: No, I am not confused at all. Of all the salmon entering fresh water I can not believe there is one single fish that has had its natural instincts and habits suppressed to the point where at some point it would not chase a fast moving object. Whether one salmon or another does chase an object or not will depend on a range of environmental facts and its history/mental processes at that time. What is a good basis for fishing, is that as our salmon has been a voracious and highly successful predator at the top of the food chain, and in being such it has to chase quickly moving shrimp/prawn/squid/fish, that we should present an imitation of such food in the manner a salmon is habitually used to performing as part of their natural feeding process. This has been proved to work by anglers for over a century, including he who has been writing in trout and salmon recently and who seems to be a favourite of this website’s members. You take a part of an example that concerns the behaviour of salmon in low water conditions that doesn’t involve a chase or the instinct of the chase, but since I obviously admit to that method (involving a sink and draw motion) and by implication any method not working 100% of the time I am simply abiding by my absolute rule in that there is no absolute rule in salmon fishing.

Point seven. You emphasise the word “modern” in terms of a lively fly but I didn’t see how that is relevant, salmon anglers have been using marabou, heron, peacock and various fibres/hairs for years. Surely the relevant point in your statement is not whether someone considers a pattern modern or vintage, but that it is lively. A salmon doesn’t know whether a fly is modern or vintage, but it will most probably recognise its liveliness. I see no reason to revise my previously stated views…….. “…you indicate an opinion that it doesn’t matter what you use, yet in your previous statement you mention a lively pattern that indicates it does matter what you use, this doesn’t make sense. The idea that a salmon, a voracious and highly successful predator that has survived the river an seas, needs help to take the fly is astonishing. The purpose of presenting a slow moving fly is to show an astonishingly easy and tempting target to the fish, in the hope that it will be too tempting not to take.”

Point Eight: I made an assessment of the water you fished and based upon:
1. A presumption you caught at least a reasonable number of fish or you wouldn’t have the confidence to make strong and forthright statements.
2. That unless you are a fool/idiot and discount or forget about a high percentage of fish that are lost, that you wouldn’t lose many fish.
3. That the only way you could maintain a high catch rate with salmon on a slowly fished lure throughout the summer was if there was a sufficient degree of momentum at the time of take. Since you’re not drawing the fly it must be either a reasonably strong current or a demented salmon, somehow I think it is a good current.
4. That you can not fish a small fly slowly across a slow pool and make it temptingly enough to catch salmon on a regular basis, unless the salmon you’re after are unlike any salmon I’ve ever heard about.

There are others but the above are the main ones I can think of at the moment.

Point Nine: I am delighted that you have read a great many books, but if you’ve read them as closely as my postings, and on the basis of your views, I think it has perhaps been a waste of time. My views are not extraordinary and the vast majority are included within books such as those mentioned.

Point Ten: I know depth is one of the factors that is usually involved in calculating the presentation of a lure, and this is a factor to be borne in mind when deciding the speed of lure/size of lure. Yes, a small lure can be fished at depth with success. I have successfully fished a size 6 double within one foot of the bottom in clear water of 3 centigrade (spring) as well as a size 8 double on the bottom in rather coloured water of probably about 13 centigrade.

Point Eleven: You made a point about the length of a size 8 double, treble, single and various patterns. Obviously you measure the body of the lure with a ruler, I have scratched ruler measurements on my boxes and sort flies mainly based upon length-the odd lure creeping into the larger/smaller section because it is fat or slim and has more/less presence. I usually discount the tail of a shrimp because they don’t represent the bulk of the lure, anyway mine are normally slim. Some of the tails on shop flies are fatter than the body and I would have to make a judgement based upon how they look in the water, some shrimp flies I would class as more like waddingtons/tube flies because their tails are so fat.

Point Twelve: I don’t mind anybody learning, in fact I enjoy learning.

[rpsalmon]

Dear springer

While I gave an immediate example of a salmon jumping in a pool, which doesn’t involve eating, swimming or reproducing I will go onto expand with other practical situations, of which there are many. When salmon are in a pool during a period of low water they will probably be up to the streamy water in the morning but when the temperature rises/light becomes too bright they move to the coolest part of the pool which will invariably be the deep water. They do this because they reason that they will have to expend more energy in regulating their metabolism/body functions than in shallow warmer water that in the cooler deep water, the ultimate purpose of this activity is saving energy/surviving to spawn. Therefore a salmon has used his brain to weigh up the options and has reasoned that one option is preferred over another. When a salmon comes up to an obstruction, say a weir, it usually swims its way along the water coming over the weir to assess which is the main current. In doing so it is constantly using its brain to assess the smells, feeling of current strength and even what it sees when it pokes it head above the water, and uses reason to make a conclusion that it acts upon. I could go on but the examples are endless. In experiments fish have even learned to press buttons in a particular order to get food, many fish have been observed to actually “play”.

We already know that the part of a salmons brain called the cerebellum controls the basic movement and bodily functions, this was proved over a hundred years ago and is supported by countless evidence available in reports, books and online. However, of the other parts of the salmons brain there is the cerebral cortex and this is where salmons thinking takes place, I could go on but because again the information is available in countless papers, books and online I have absolutely no intention of spending time explaining something to someone who can’t be bothered to look at even Wikipedia.

You seem to be claiming that the mass of scientific work and evidence that has been available for decades is nonsense, this is as I have previously stated, astonishing. I just hope you open your mind, learn, and advance yourself.