owen
Active Member
Posts: 184
|
Post by owen on Jun 29, 2008 10:34:37 GMT
Was fishing a stretch yesterday which is has a fairly long & rapid streamy neck into a pool.
Thinking about fly size I was wondering if I should have a bigger fly on in the rapid part and a smaller one in the pool?
Remembered reading somewhere about the fly moving across the stream needs to be realistic i.e. of a size where its ability to sweep across the the stream and not just get washed downstream is believable.
I.e. should I avoid using small flies in fast flows??
|
|
conwyrod
Advisory Board
Autumn on the Conwy
Posts: 4,659
|
Post by conwyrod on Jun 29, 2008 13:09:37 GMT
Owen, what you say is generally correct - a classic salmon fishing tactic is to start with a larger fly at the faster head of a pool and reduce in size in the slower body of the pool. Intention is to use a fly that looks natural in the prevailing water speed.
As an alternative, just vary the angle of cast and use mending to speed up or slow down the fly, to avoid constantly changing fly size.
Grilse and sea trout sometimes like a small fly fished fast, so try different things if there's fish about and you're not getting takes!
|
|
|
|
Post by sinkingtip on Jun 29, 2008 17:20:51 GMT
Agree with all of the above - especially the reference to "mending" in order to have a greater say in the speed / depth of your flee.
Being open to suggestion (some might call it gullible) I believe in the principle that a single iron, due to its slender profile, will cut through the surface film of fast water more speedily than its double / threeble counterparts therefore, in a very fast throat I would certainly consider, as I have done on many occasions, sticking on a single iron if I felt it was needed.
Where were you fishing - Grandtully Rapids ? ;D
STip
|
|
owen
Active Member
Posts: 184
|
Post by owen on Jun 30, 2008 7:44:21 GMT
Thanks for the feedback chaps. ST - was fishing the cottage stream at Kercock, the neck is quite narrow in this height of water so fairly horses through (for 200yds or so), till it widens out into the pool (just about level with the cottage on the left bank and where the lupins start, if you know it). The tail of the neck looked really fishy but nothing gullible doin'.  Cheers, Nolon. |
|
|
|
Post by tweedside on Jul 19, 2008 23:46:56 GMT
Agree with all of the above - especially the reference to "mending" in order to have a greater say in the speed / depth of your flee.
Being open to suggestion (some might call it gullible) I believe in the principle that a single iron, due to its slender profile, will cut through the surface film of fast water more speedily than its double / threeble counterparts therefore, in a very fast throat I would certainly consider, as I have done on many occasions, sticking on a single iron if I felt it was needed.
Where were you fishing - Grandtully Rapids ? ;D Pure A.H.E. Wood !! How very 1930s!!  Seriously though, Jock Scott's book, "Greased Line Fishing" is stillworth a read. (As is Anthony Crossley's "The Floating Line for Salmon and Seatrout". Both books cover this topic very well indeed....even down to the use of singles rather than doubles ...also a lot on line control. STip[/quote] |
|
conwyrod
Advisory Board
Autumn on the Conwy
Posts: 4,659
|
Post by conwyrod on Jul 20, 2008 0:11:11 GMT
I often think that some writers grossly overcomplicate fly fishing for salmon and sea trout. If there's a taking fish in the pool, size of fly and speed/depth of presentation, if sensible for the water conditions, are all that really matter. In certain conditions, both species are no harder to catch than mackerel. Discuss.  |
|
tweedsider
Active Member
Quietness is best
Posts: 993
|
Post by tweedsider on Jul 20, 2008 9:21:54 GMT
The old story conwyrod- the right place at the right time you cant beat it. Having said that I have had some recent success in the depths of pools on a small river where the fly was fishing around so slowly the line could barely be seen to travel. Takes were visual of the line drawing away, one fish gave a tap, then it took a yard of line, then it hooked itself. Line was a floating spey line with 9ft intermediate leader. The fly varied from a 15mm bottle tube to a size 14 Ken Sawada double. It does take some patience to fish these places with the fly line going so slowly, but it works.
tweedsider
|
|
lamson
Active Member
Posts: 429 
|
Post by lamson on Jul 20, 2008 19:30:24 GMT
I often think that some writers grossly over complicate fly fishing for salmon and sea trout. If there's a taking fish in the pool, size of fly and speed/depth of presentation, if sensible for the water conditions, are all that really matter. In certain conditions, both species are no harder to catch than mackerel. Discuss. Well, a lot has to be written to justify the cost of the book. Who would pay £20 - £30 for the 20- 30 pages that would be needed if the author took a totally utilitarian approach ? Sadly, this approach would render the great literary angling books redundant, this would be a pity, as these are the ones that give great pleasure . Regards Steve |
|
conwyrod
Advisory Board
Autumn on the Conwy
Posts: 4,659
|
Post by conwyrod on Jul 20, 2008 20:35:34 GMT
You are probably right, but I do think Falkus waffled on a bit in his Salmon book - as if he felt obliged to make it the same thickness as his excellent Sea Trout book. ;D
|
|
lamson
Active Member
Posts: 429
|
Post by lamson on Jul 21, 2008 17:36:22 GMT
Agreed , Sea Trout was a very visceral exercise, Salmon more calculated IMO..
|
|
conwyrod
Advisory Board
Autumn on the Conwy
Posts: 4,659
|
Post by conwyrod on Jul 21, 2008 19:00:52 GMT
visceral - obtained through intuition rather than from reasoning or observation.
Intuition, or gleaned from his Cumbrian sea trouting pals? ;D
|
|
lamson
Active Member
Posts: 429
|
Post by lamson on Jul 21, 2008 22:09:10 GMT
Visceral, take it in the figurative sense , something felt deeply.
|
|
