Well, this whole blog malarkey turned out to be a challenge to maintain. One post in a year is especially lame. I'd call that less maintenance and more dereliction.
I've got some new ideas for posts that I'll write up when I can. The big trip to Montana in 2011 is still on the cards...maybe. My priorities are all messed up at the moment.
I am going on a 'Montana-lite' trip in July (4 rivers 9 days). I'll commit myself now to blogging something about it. That trip is conveniently organised around my sister's wedding. I was able to play the old: "well, since I'm gonna be flying over, might as well get some fishing in while I'm out there" card. I also considered the more direct (and truthful): "I'm coming out for a fishing trip, but I'll try to take some time out and stop by the wedding" approach, but I didn't think it would score me any brownie points with the fam who already feel abandoned for my love of the salmo sisters.
Anyway, on to the good stuff. From about September last year, I started keeping a fishing log in MS Excel. I used to keep a written fishing journal in a lovely, leather-bound book with gold gilt edges that ranks as one of the most thoughtful Christmas gifts I have ever received. However, I found it pretty hard to keep up with, and even tougher to read what I'd written, and so it eventually went the way of all my previous attempts at keeping a journal (about anything).
The new Excel formulation doesn't have quite the old world charm or personalisation of the written journal, but I do update it more regularly and accurately, which is sort of the point I guess. Plus, it appeals to my geeky nature. I can now correlate my number of fish/ hours spent fishing ratio with things like fly pattern, hatches, and weather and stream conditions. Maybe I'll come up with the cosmic anti-skunk equation.
According to the log, I've fished 60 days since 1 September (not bad considering there's a lot of 'off-season' in there) and during that time, I've averaged 1.7 fish per hour. The outliers are days when I blanked (of which there were 14), and 10 days where I averaged over 3 fish per hour. (Of course there is an element of error here, since I don't count fish fastidiously and just tend to estimate if the number was greater than about 5). Most of that time was spent on the Rhymney, Taff, and Ewenny, but 10 days were in America (Colorado and Utah to be specific). A high proportion of my best fish/ time ratio days come from there.
I'm also pleased that I can now claim, with some authority, that I am not a fair weather fisherman. I spent 24 days fishing in mostly cloudy, rainy, or even snowy conditions. On the flip side, I did spend 25 days fishing in conditions labled as 'sunny' or 'mostly sunny,' which goes to show that you can find sunny fishing weather even in deepest darkest Wales, provided that you are sufficiently opportunist and of good enough character to tell a few white lies around the office/ at home.
I won't bore you with any more stats or numbers, but there are some highlights worth mentioning from the 'comments' column:
In September I had my first brook trout on the Snake river, in Colorado. Tiny fish nailed a size 6 olive woolly bugger. I was more pleased with that little trout than the 19 inch rainbow I'd just released a few moments before.
In January, I fell face-first, Superman-style, into the Taff in front of a guy who'd also been present the last time I went in. He laughed as hard as the first time he watched me come up spouting like a dolphin. I did manage to see the humour in it - once I'd dried off a bit and checked the rod wasn't broken.
In mid-February, I caught a good rough olive hatch on the Ewenny that was framed by a pinkish winter sky, snowy fields and lazily drifting flurries. It was truly magical, and it came at a time when I really needed a pick me up as there was some bad shit going on work-wise. I survived the 'restructure,' but I came away even more convinced of the value of fishing as a confessional for a multitude of sins.
Finally, on a less philosophical level, I managed to catch over 20 browns and rainbows last month on a single size 20 biot body olive thorax that I tied up specially for a trip to the Green River (Utah). The Green's trout did not disappoint, nor did the olive hatch. However, on the second day, (due to slight whiskey induced inebriation) I managed to spill my entire box of olives except for that single little fly. The hatch lasted about 4 hours and that little fly held up through some pretty toothy browns. I have since retired it, until I decide whether to frame it, or just fish it again next year.
Sunday, 16 May 2010
Monday, 13 July 2009
I'm still here...watch this space.
Hello world.
I am going to keep this blog alive. I hereby renew my commitment to it.
Since my post last January, I have moved (family in tow) back to South Wales and I have been doing a fair amount of fishing on the Taff (including some of its wonderful tributaries) the Rhymney, Monnow, and the Usk. I have a few posts in mind about those rivers...but they will have to wait for now as the fishing is just too darn good to put down.
I'm planning a big 4 week trip to Montana to hit several rivers in summer 2011. That sounds like a long way away! But then I do indeed find (as did Roger Waters) that 'every year is getting shorter.' In some ways, there isn't enough time to plan for an opportunity like this.
On the other hand, maybe I don't want to plan this too much. The whole concept of the trip fits well with the theme of this blog - I want to wander around Montana with a fly rod, a tent, a vise, and a Good Book. So I guess the most pertinent question at this point in time is about the extent to which I want those wanderings to be structured or not. I'm not yet ready to make this moral choice.
Anyway, I'm going to feature the planning and results of that trip on this blog as it develops. I think it will be a main theme for the next couple of years and I hope it could be a good resource for others who are remotely planning similar trips to Big Sky country.
I'm also heading out to Colorado at the end of August and plan to do some fishing on the Platte and the Blue, so I hope to have some stories to tell from that as well.
So, watch this space.
Mike
I am going to keep this blog alive. I hereby renew my commitment to it.
Since my post last January, I have moved (family in tow) back to South Wales and I have been doing a fair amount of fishing on the Taff (including some of its wonderful tributaries) the Rhymney, Monnow, and the Usk. I have a few posts in mind about those rivers...but they will have to wait for now as the fishing is just too darn good to put down.
I'm planning a big 4 week trip to Montana to hit several rivers in summer 2011. That sounds like a long way away! But then I do indeed find (as did Roger Waters) that 'every year is getting shorter.' In some ways, there isn't enough time to plan for an opportunity like this.
On the other hand, maybe I don't want to plan this too much. The whole concept of the trip fits well with the theme of this blog - I want to wander around Montana with a fly rod, a tent, a vise, and a Good Book. So I guess the most pertinent question at this point in time is about the extent to which I want those wanderings to be structured or not. I'm not yet ready to make this moral choice.
Anyway, I'm going to feature the planning and results of that trip on this blog as it develops. I think it will be a main theme for the next couple of years and I hope it could be a good resource for others who are remotely planning similar trips to Big Sky country.
I'm also heading out to Colorado at the end of August and plan to do some fishing on the Platte and the Blue, so I hope to have some stories to tell from that as well.
So, watch this space.
Mike
Saturday, 24 January 2009
Fishing by the Numbers
Hello out there. This blog is indeed still alive, as am I.
I haven't been fishing as much lately due to the arrival of a new bundle of joy and starting my new job. All of these factors make it more difficult to write about fishing.
However, I thought I might take the time to share this letter that I sent off to Fly Fishing and Tying Journal (IMHO the best fly fishing magazine published), on the subject of '100 fish days.'
A little background first:
A reader had written to FFTJ bragging about how he routinely caught (and released) 100 fish in a day. At first I thought it was a joke, but as I read on, I realised that the author was deadly serious - he even offered tips for keeping track of his target catch rate per hour. Sounds too much like work to me. I also found it somewhat ironic that this particular issue also featured an informed article by Dave Whitlock on the subject of responsible catch and release. Whitlock's article encouraged anglers to exercise restraint when the catch rate became too prolific, in order to minimise the risk of fish dying from being handled. What a concept in this age of over consumption of practically everything!
So, here's my letter to the editor, which pretty much sums up my feelings about 'fishing by the numbers:'
Dear Dave,
I must say I found the 100/day letter by William Krauss printed in the Fall 2008 issue to be in somewhat poor taste. Compared to Whitlock’s gentle admonishment to limit our impact on the fisheries that we treasure, Krauss’ bragging about 100 fish days appears as crass and vulgar as the carnage depicted in fishing and safari photos of yesteryear. Perhaps you were trying to be ironic by printing this letter alongside Whitlock’s article? Perhaps Krauss himself is being facetious? If so, then I have well and truly risen to his bait. How many of those 100/day fish died as a result of Krauss’ desire to prove some dubious point about fishing skill or predatory prowess? If Whitlock’s estimates of 10% mortality from C&R are correct, and the figures that Krauss reports are accurate, then that’s about 2.6k dead trout. I would suspect that mortality rates would be higher in the case of an angler such as Krauss, given that he is admittedly more concerned with catching the next fish than with properly reviving and releasing the fish in hand.
I do not dispute Krauss’ right to catch and release 26k+ trout in his lifetime. I do wish he had better reasons for doing it. I can only hope that in his next 10 years of fishing, Mr Krauss comes to value quality over quantity. I have never regretted losing count on days where I caught lots of fish. But my most vivid fishing memories are of days where the numbers were fairly low – memories of quiet celebration as I release with shaking hands that one fish stalked and taken from a difficult lie. It seems to me that if I routinely caught 100 fish/ day, the magic of these moments would be lost.
Kind Regards
Mike Nye
And here is the response of the editor - the fly fishing legend Dave Hughes - who seems to hold similar views on the subject:
Dear Dr. Nye,
Thank you for your note, and the thoughtful way you expressed what I consider the correct sentiments. (Only God and my publisher know why that particular piece got into print.)
I was just fishing a remote mountain stream that had potential to provide me the sort of day written about, with some surprisingly nice trout thrown in now and then…I always like it best when the trout are of varied sizes, so that surprise is a part of the catch. I started at noon, took time for lunch, and quit at 4:00, and found myself pausing longer and longer to ponder after a nice trout…my catch fell 80 or more short of the specified goal, but somehow I went away thinking I’d had a good day.
My mistake. I need to buy a clicker.
Dave Hughes
Editor of Flyfishing & Tying Journal
I haven't been fishing as much lately due to the arrival of a new bundle of joy and starting my new job. All of these factors make it more difficult to write about fishing.
However, I thought I might take the time to share this letter that I sent off to Fly Fishing and Tying Journal (IMHO the best fly fishing magazine published), on the subject of '100 fish days.'
A little background first:
A reader had written to FFTJ bragging about how he routinely caught (and released) 100 fish in a day. At first I thought it was a joke, but as I read on, I realised that the author was deadly serious - he even offered tips for keeping track of his target catch rate per hour. Sounds too much like work to me. I also found it somewhat ironic that this particular issue also featured an informed article by Dave Whitlock on the subject of responsible catch and release. Whitlock's article encouraged anglers to exercise restraint when the catch rate became too prolific, in order to minimise the risk of fish dying from being handled. What a concept in this age of over consumption of practically everything!
So, here's my letter to the editor, which pretty much sums up my feelings about 'fishing by the numbers:'
Dear Dave,
I must say I found the 100/day letter by William Krauss printed in the Fall 2008 issue to be in somewhat poor taste. Compared to Whitlock’s gentle admonishment to limit our impact on the fisheries that we treasure, Krauss’ bragging about 100 fish days appears as crass and vulgar as the carnage depicted in fishing and safari photos of yesteryear. Perhaps you were trying to be ironic by printing this letter alongside Whitlock’s article? Perhaps Krauss himself is being facetious? If so, then I have well and truly risen to his bait. How many of those 100/day fish died as a result of Krauss’ desire to prove some dubious point about fishing skill or predatory prowess? If Whitlock’s estimates of 10% mortality from C&R are correct, and the figures that Krauss reports are accurate, then that’s about 2.6k dead trout. I would suspect that mortality rates would be higher in the case of an angler such as Krauss, given that he is admittedly more concerned with catching the next fish than with properly reviving and releasing the fish in hand.
I do not dispute Krauss’ right to catch and release 26k+ trout in his lifetime. I do wish he had better reasons for doing it. I can only hope that in his next 10 years of fishing, Mr Krauss comes to value quality over quantity. I have never regretted losing count on days where I caught lots of fish. But my most vivid fishing memories are of days where the numbers were fairly low – memories of quiet celebration as I release with shaking hands that one fish stalked and taken from a difficult lie. It seems to me that if I routinely caught 100 fish/ day, the magic of these moments would be lost.
Kind Regards
Mike Nye
And here is the response of the editor - the fly fishing legend Dave Hughes - who seems to hold similar views on the subject:
Dear Dr. Nye,
Thank you for your note, and the thoughtful way you expressed what I consider the correct sentiments. (Only God and my publisher know why that particular piece got into print.)
I was just fishing a remote mountain stream that had potential to provide me the sort of day written about, with some surprisingly nice trout thrown in now and then…I always like it best when the trout are of varied sizes, so that surprise is a part of the catch. I started at noon, took time for lunch, and quit at 4:00, and found myself pausing longer and longer to ponder after a nice trout…my catch fell 80 or more short of the specified goal, but somehow I went away thinking I’d had a good day.
My mistake. I need to buy a clicker.
Dave Hughes
Editor of Flyfishing & Tying Journal
Sunday, 26 October 2008
Goodbye little Fenland river
I fished the RTMBN for what was probably the last time on Saturday. This was the last weekend of the trout season here. I shall not be returning to it next year because we are moving 'back home' to south Wales in the spring. This means putting our move 'back home' to Colorado on hold for a while. That's fine with me. Wales is my second home, and the fishing is pretty damn good in those green valleys.
I can't say that I shall miss much about Norwich. The city and people are nice enough, but if you don't have an extended family living here (most people seem to), it feels very isolated. I will, however, miss the wild Fenlands very much, and especially this little chalkstream that flows through it.
Phillip Pullman (whose philosophies on God I don't agree with) nevertheless describes the Fenlands in a particularly eloquent way, which I have adapted here:
...the Fens - that wide and never fully mapped wilderness of huge skies and endless marshland in eastern Anglia. The furthest fringe of it mingled indistinguishably with the creeks and tidal inlets of the shallow sea, and the other side of the sea mingled indistinguishably with Holland...parts had never been drained or planted or settled at all, and in the wildest central regions, eels slithered and waterbirds flocked. (Adapted from: Northern Lights).
There is something magical and wonderful about the stark beauty of this place and the little river that flows through it on its short journey to the North Sea. Here is one of my favorite views on the river - looking down from an improved, gravelly section that holds lots of little wild browns with deep red spots. I have deliberately tried to capture more of the fen itself here. A huge barn owl lived and hunted in those far trees:
Here's another, looking upriver towards an old church and a stone bridge that marks the edge of what I consider to be the 'good water.' It was just lovely to stand here on a long summer evening, casting in slanting light to the soft accompaniment of church bells carried on the wind.
I owe a lot to this river in terms of my fishing technique and style. I had to endure 2 months (about 8 sessions) of my own personal longest silence before I managed to catch one of it trout. A nice mayfly hatch helped in that case. But the river did teach me some things, and part of the reason that I did start catching fish more regularly was because I listened to what she had to say.
Above all, she taught me to slow down. I learned that sometimes (more often than not as it turned out) good fishing requires not fishing at all: standing still, watching, and listening, rather than casting. As the season progressed, I moved on from this basic lesson to a better understanding of its application: how to ambush fish.
I was also fortunate to have the place itself, and its surroundings. A place where I could escape, either alone or with my family. Amongst the settled landscape that is England, wild places like the Fenlands are few and precious. Neither the sight of old churches, nor the sound of their bells could detract from the natural beauty of this place. An unquenchable wild spirit awoke in me every time I set off in search of trout amongst the rustling reeds.
I can't say that I shall miss much about Norwich. The city and people are nice enough, but if you don't have an extended family living here (most people seem to), it feels very isolated. I will, however, miss the wild Fenlands very much, and especially this little chalkstream that flows through it.
Phillip Pullman (whose philosophies on God I don't agree with) nevertheless describes the Fenlands in a particularly eloquent way, which I have adapted here:
...the Fens - that wide and never fully mapped wilderness of huge skies and endless marshland in eastern Anglia. The furthest fringe of it mingled indistinguishably with the creeks and tidal inlets of the shallow sea, and the other side of the sea mingled indistinguishably with Holland...parts had never been drained or planted or settled at all, and in the wildest central regions, eels slithered and waterbirds flocked. (Adapted from: Northern Lights).
There is something magical and wonderful about the stark beauty of this place and the little river that flows through it on its short journey to the North Sea. Here is one of my favorite views on the river - looking down from an improved, gravelly section that holds lots of little wild browns with deep red spots. I have deliberately tried to capture more of the fen itself here. A huge barn owl lived and hunted in those far trees:
Here's another, looking upriver towards an old church and a stone bridge that marks the edge of what I consider to be the 'good water.' It was just lovely to stand here on a long summer evening, casting in slanting light to the soft accompaniment of church bells carried on the wind.
I owe a lot to this river in terms of my fishing technique and style. I had to endure 2 months (about 8 sessions) of my own personal longest silence before I managed to catch one of it trout. A nice mayfly hatch helped in that case. But the river did teach me some things, and part of the reason that I did start catching fish more regularly was because I listened to what she had to say.
Above all, she taught me to slow down. I learned that sometimes (more often than not as it turned out) good fishing requires not fishing at all: standing still, watching, and listening, rather than casting. As the season progressed, I moved on from this basic lesson to a better understanding of its application: how to ambush fish.
I was also fortunate to have the place itself, and its surroundings. A place where I could escape, either alone or with my family. Amongst the settled landscape that is England, wild places like the Fenlands are few and precious. Neither the sight of old churches, nor the sound of their bells could detract from the natural beauty of this place. An unquenchable wild spirit awoke in me every time I set off in search of trout amongst the rustling reeds.
Sunday, 7 September 2008
Perfection?
It has been a bit longer than I planned since my last post. I guess there are good reasons for that. I've spent some time in S Wales getting reacquainted with the nuances of fishing freestone rivers.
I've also built a fly rod. The blank is from a New Zealand company called CTS - that stands for 'composite tube systems.' They build all sorts of tubes from the amazing material that is carbon fibre, but tubes for fishing are their specialty. More importantly for you technofiles - these blanks do not have a fiberglass scrim. They are all carbon fibre (and a little bit of resin to hold it together). Currently, only a handful of companies (Sage is one of them) have the technology to build an all carbon rod that won't blow up the moment it flexes deeply.
The CTS blank is superb. A nice smooth action with a lot of power on hand when you need it. An almost perfect balance of finesse and zing. You've got to get the timing right to get the most out of it, but when you do - wow. More accurate and 'tight' than any of my Sage rods. Sorry ZXL.
The blank is a 9'6" 4wt, which I was originally intending as a nymph rod, but after fishing dries with it for 3 days straight, I might have to rethink that classification. I must admit that it was romantic visions of nymphing my way delicately through the mist of cold S. Wales mornings that initially prompted the purchase of this rod. That, and the fact that I had recently tried a Z Axis in the same weight and length. In the end, I decided that the Z Axis wasn't worth the money. But I was now acutely aware of a gaping 9'6" hole that had materialised in my 4wt collection. After careful weighing of bank balances and obsessive perusal of manufacturer's websites, I decided to have another go at building a fly rod. Building a rod is cheaper, and theoretically, you get exactly what you want in terms of finish and fittings.
So how did it turn out? Well, if you've ever built a fly rod, you will understand the obsessive pursuit of perfection that goes into building these things. And I'm also pretty sure that at some point in the process you will have come to the realisation that perfection can never be achieved. I found myself going through several classic phases in my eventual (re)acceptance of this premise: denial, bargaining, melancholy and eventual peaceful resignation to the fact that I will always be aware of the minor imperfections in the rod that others will never notice. OK, so some of them are noticeable. But still very minor. I guess you could call it adding 'character' to the rod. I wonder if the major manufacturers ever bother with this concept? Probably not. I'm sure they reached the resignation phase after the first day or so of cranking out 20 rods. I could also make some deep philosophical arguments about pursuing perfection in fishing rather than fishing rods, but I don't think I'll bother. I think I'll go fishing with my new rod instead.
I've also built a fly rod. The blank is from a New Zealand company called CTS - that stands for 'composite tube systems.' They build all sorts of tubes from the amazing material that is carbon fibre, but tubes for fishing are their specialty. More importantly for you technofiles - these blanks do not have a fiberglass scrim. They are all carbon fibre (and a little bit of resin to hold it together). Currently, only a handful of companies (Sage is one of them) have the technology to build an all carbon rod that won't blow up the moment it flexes deeply.
The CTS blank is superb. A nice smooth action with a lot of power on hand when you need it. An almost perfect balance of finesse and zing. You've got to get the timing right to get the most out of it, but when you do - wow. More accurate and 'tight' than any of my Sage rods. Sorry ZXL.
The blank is a 9'6" 4wt, which I was originally intending as a nymph rod, but after fishing dries with it for 3 days straight, I might have to rethink that classification. I must admit that it was romantic visions of nymphing my way delicately through the mist of cold S. Wales mornings that initially prompted the purchase of this rod. That, and the fact that I had recently tried a Z Axis in the same weight and length. In the end, I decided that the Z Axis wasn't worth the money. But I was now acutely aware of a gaping 9'6" hole that had materialised in my 4wt collection. After careful weighing of bank balances and obsessive perusal of manufacturer's websites, I decided to have another go at building a fly rod. Building a rod is cheaper, and theoretically, you get exactly what you want in terms of finish and fittings.
So how did it turn out? Well, if you've ever built a fly rod, you will understand the obsessive pursuit of perfection that goes into building these things. And I'm also pretty sure that at some point in the process you will have come to the realisation that perfection can never be achieved. I found myself going through several classic phases in my eventual (re)acceptance of this premise: denial, bargaining, melancholy and eventual peaceful resignation to the fact that I will always be aware of the minor imperfections in the rod that others will never notice. OK, so some of them are noticeable. But still very minor. I guess you could call it adding 'character' to the rod. I wonder if the major manufacturers ever bother with this concept? Probably not. I'm sure they reached the resignation phase after the first day or so of cranking out 20 rods. I could also make some deep philosophical arguments about pursuing perfection in fishing rather than fishing rods, but I don't think I'll bother. I think I'll go fishing with my new rod instead.
Friday, 15 August 2008
Second chances
Sometimes fly fishing offers us those golden moments of second (and even third) opportunity where everything works out perfectly...in the end at least. This is different from the last cast phenomenon. There are more opportunities for second or third chances in an average fishing day, whereas a last cast by strict definition should only occur once, although I will admit to taking several successive 'last casts' from time to time. There is nothing cosmic about second chances. We make these opportunities for ourselves in two ways - either through deliberately leaving ourselves a way out, or, more commonly, through deep character flaws like impatience, poor drift technique, inaccurate casting, casting a shadow or stepping too heavily. The former, I call higher probability second chances, the latter are low probability second chances. Either way it puts a positive spin on things.
On the RTMBN, the best way to access the beat I fish is through a reasonably dry meadow on the upstream side. You can access the river further downstream, but you'll have to walk aways upstream to where the fish are and you risk being stung to death by nettles or sinking in marsh muck depending on the season. I normally start upstream because I am impatient to begin fishing. Starting upstream puts you right in amongst the beautiful wild trout, but most of them will be downstream from you. This is a tremendous disadvantage on a chalkstream and so creates endless opportunities for second chances. These fish are exceedingly spooky. I've noticed that they aren't so concerned about seeing an angler on the river bank, but they are incredibly sensitive to hearing/ feeling one (I fish better when I wear sandals and have to pick my way very very carefully). They are also exceedingly line and leader shy. On a faster flowing freestone river, drifting a fly downstream can be a good way to catch line/ leader shy trout. But on a glass-smooth chalk stream, this is a really risky strategy. If the fish doesn't take the first time, you have two options: you can either try to lift the line and leader off the water quickly and gently (a tough combination when your line is being pulled away from you and only possible if there are no overhanging trees around), or you can gently strip the fly upstream in the hopes that the fish won't mind that a strange looking bug is defying the laws of physics. The second option rarely yields a second chance. It is decidedly low probability. The first is somewhat more reliable. I'd say it counts as a successful second chance about 25% of the time depending on what the fish sees. If the fish sees the fly line, that probability goes down to about 5-10%.
So, I guess the lesson thus far is to concentrate on more than getting it right the first time. This really just boils down to thinking ahead. There is a tendency in fly fishing to think so immediately about things - you see a rising fish, and you think (probably very briefly) about how to get the fly over him before you fire off a cast and a prayer. The angler that thinks in terms of what will happen after will create more opportunities for successful, higher probability, second chances. There is also something to be said for persistence. You should always take the opportunity for a second chance no matter what the odds. It is still possible, if not probable, that you will raise that difficult fish no matter how badly you flubbed the first presentation. In a way, a poor first attempt takes the pressure off the second (or third etc) try.
Sometimes things go perfectly the first time and still you find that you must hang your hopes on a second chance. Last night the RTMBN, was particularly glassy and still, save for the occasional tsk! noise of trout sipping spent caddis from the surface film. There is a trout in one particular stretch that I have been trying to hook for several weeks now. This fish happens to be conveniently located upstream from the access point, which theoretically increases my odds a little bit. He's not in a particularly difficult spot in terms of current and vegetation, but he lives out in the open, away from the shadow of the trees. He's big and he's very very spooky. You can't get anywhere near him or he just evaporates into the river. The required cast is about 40 feet upstream and to the other side of the river to a spot about 3 feet above him. Tippet only please.
Last night my first cast to that trout was absolutely perfect. I couldn't replicate it in 100 tries. I held my breath as my CDC and deer settled down ever so gently and began its journey. Every angler knows this feeling. Time slows. You experience a moment of absolute mental clarity as you tune into that primal, electrifying tension common to all carnivores about to spring on their prey.
The fly drifted past....nothing. Maybe he's gone hunting for himself? Maybe the otter got him. Maybe someone else caught him and (God forbid) took him. Once the fly was well clear, picked my line off the water and false casted over the field a few times (shaking droplets of water from the leader on the river is another great way to create opportunities for low-probability second chances). I changed direction and fired off a second cast upstream. This one was pretty poor. About 3 feet to the left of where I wanted to be, splashy, and way too much of the thicker butt end of the leader involved. The fly drifted for a second and then transformed itself into a crater in the surface of the river. I set the hook hard and the trout leapt from the water. Two minutes later, as I slipped the barbless hook from his mouth without touching him, I thanked him for giving me a second chance. Did I deserve it? Hard to say. I'm not going to worry too much about it.
On the RTMBN, the best way to access the beat I fish is through a reasonably dry meadow on the upstream side. You can access the river further downstream, but you'll have to walk aways upstream to where the fish are and you risk being stung to death by nettles or sinking in marsh muck depending on the season. I normally start upstream because I am impatient to begin fishing. Starting upstream puts you right in amongst the beautiful wild trout, but most of them will be downstream from you. This is a tremendous disadvantage on a chalkstream and so creates endless opportunities for second chances. These fish are exceedingly spooky. I've noticed that they aren't so concerned about seeing an angler on the river bank, but they are incredibly sensitive to hearing/ feeling one (I fish better when I wear sandals and have to pick my way very very carefully). They are also exceedingly line and leader shy. On a faster flowing freestone river, drifting a fly downstream can be a good way to catch line/ leader shy trout. But on a glass-smooth chalk stream, this is a really risky strategy. If the fish doesn't take the first time, you have two options: you can either try to lift the line and leader off the water quickly and gently (a tough combination when your line is being pulled away from you and only possible if there are no overhanging trees around), or you can gently strip the fly upstream in the hopes that the fish won't mind that a strange looking bug is defying the laws of physics. The second option rarely yields a second chance. It is decidedly low probability. The first is somewhat more reliable. I'd say it counts as a successful second chance about 25% of the time depending on what the fish sees. If the fish sees the fly line, that probability goes down to about 5-10%.
So, I guess the lesson thus far is to concentrate on more than getting it right the first time. This really just boils down to thinking ahead. There is a tendency in fly fishing to think so immediately about things - you see a rising fish, and you think (probably very briefly) about how to get the fly over him before you fire off a cast and a prayer. The angler that thinks in terms of what will happen after will create more opportunities for successful, higher probability, second chances. There is also something to be said for persistence. You should always take the opportunity for a second chance no matter what the odds. It is still possible, if not probable, that you will raise that difficult fish no matter how badly you flubbed the first presentation. In a way, a poor first attempt takes the pressure off the second (or third etc) try.
Sometimes things go perfectly the first time and still you find that you must hang your hopes on a second chance. Last night the RTMBN, was particularly glassy and still, save for the occasional tsk! noise of trout sipping spent caddis from the surface film. There is a trout in one particular stretch that I have been trying to hook for several weeks now. This fish happens to be conveniently located upstream from the access point, which theoretically increases my odds a little bit. He's not in a particularly difficult spot in terms of current and vegetation, but he lives out in the open, away from the shadow of the trees. He's big and he's very very spooky. You can't get anywhere near him or he just evaporates into the river. The required cast is about 40 feet upstream and to the other side of the river to a spot about 3 feet above him. Tippet only please.
Last night my first cast to that trout was absolutely perfect. I couldn't replicate it in 100 tries. I held my breath as my CDC and deer settled down ever so gently and began its journey. Every angler knows this feeling. Time slows. You experience a moment of absolute mental clarity as you tune into that primal, electrifying tension common to all carnivores about to spring on their prey.
The fly drifted past....nothing. Maybe he's gone hunting for himself? Maybe the otter got him. Maybe someone else caught him and (God forbid) took him. Once the fly was well clear, picked my line off the water and false casted over the field a few times (shaking droplets of water from the leader on the river is another great way to create opportunities for low-probability second chances). I changed direction and fired off a second cast upstream. This one was pretty poor. About 3 feet to the left of where I wanted to be, splashy, and way too much of the thicker butt end of the leader involved. The fly drifted for a second and then transformed itself into a crater in the surface of the river. I set the hook hard and the trout leapt from the water. Two minutes later, as I slipped the barbless hook from his mouth without touching him, I thanked him for giving me a second chance. Did I deserve it? Hard to say. I'm not going to worry too much about it.
Friday, 1 August 2008
52
3 years ago at Christmas I was given a fishing journal by a relative who knows little about the pastime. I was so touched that I was literally speechless. (A very different reaction from the "oh hey...what do you know...that's great" reaction when I open another 'world's greatest angler' towel or socks with coarse fishermen on them).
The book is a pretty little thing, complete with gold gilt edges and spaces to record dates, species, weights and 'remarks' about the fishing. There's not a whole lot of space there, and my handwriting is sometimes difficult for even me to read, but it is enough to record the big events (if there were any) and otherwise to report things like what flies worked and where you fished.
Ideally, one could use this book as a memory marker for every single day of fishing recorded, turning it into a sort of card catalogue of the fishing experience. However, I've found it doesn't exactly work that way, although I am convinced that it does help me remember more. I can easily recall the days for which I have recorded something out of the ordinary: falling in, first time with a new rod, unexpected sea trout etc. The details for more ordinary days are a bit more fuzzy in terms of actual memories. But then, without the journal I probably wouldn't have any recollection of days like that, which goes to my point about remembering more.
I guess the lesson here is to try to record something unique in every entry. That does add to the workload of maintaining the fishing journal though. I try to update the journal after each day of fishing. When I do that, I have little trouble writing a detailed entry that will probably jog my memory about the experience for years to come. However, as with fishing blogs for instance, sometimes you just don't feel like writing all of this stuff down after a long session on the river. Retrospectively reconstructing a day or a week's worth of fishing can be difficult.
Recording details also helps you to better understand your favourite rivers in terms of things like hatches, water temperatures, fish activity and the ways the river changes with the seasons. If put to good use (and recorded in a fairly systematic manner) this sort of data could make you a more effective fisherman. Then again, doing it this way could detract from the fun of keeping a fishing journal, making it seem more like work. I prefer to keep mine as a memory tool rather than a database, and so my entries are more sporadic in nature. I do try to record things like hatches (when I know what they are) water clarity and outside temperature.
I hate to admit it, but when it comes to recording fish sizes and weights, I'll sometimes catch myself exaggerating a little bit. Or maybe a better way to put it is that I sometimes have to stop myself from doing so. When I think about it rationally (out of the fishing mindset), this amounts to the pointless activity of lying to myself. No one else would ever be interested in reading this thing, so who the hell am I trying to impress? Maybe I'm subconsciously trying to construct more grandiose memories. Or maybe my tendency to exaggerate fish sizes and numbers when recounting tales to other fishermen has begun to affect my perceptions of what really happened. Whichever it is, keeping a fishing journal is a great way to self-test your moral character. I'm quite certain I'm not the only angler who has found himself bemusedly correcting an entry of a 15" fish to a 12" fish. I guess its nothing to worry about unless (until) I stop correcting myself.
So why is this post entitled 52? Well, for some time now it has been my goal to fish on at least 52 days in a year (so once per week on average). Whilst many fishermen would probably claim offhand to fish that many days in a year, I can tell you that it is no easy feat - my journal proves it. 52 leaves no room for mistakes or lapses in priorities. If you miss two weeks at Christmas, or whilst on summer holiday in Majorca, then you've got to make them up. Taking extended fishing holidays helps, but that can create serious problems for us married guys. My wife happens to be very understanding of my fishing obsession. She allowed me to take a 9 day fishing trip to Utah/Colorado this year, which boosted my numbers considerably, as did getting a rod on the RTMBN. I try to fish the little chalkstream at least once a week, but of course the trout season only lasts half a year, which means making up the numbers there is more difficult.
Anyway, last night I added up my fishing days for this year so far. I was pleased and surprised to find that I had already fished on 50 days. Barring an act of God (I don't discount the possibility for that) I will have no trouble reaching my goal and more. I am also happy to say that it has all been worth it - at least judging from what I have written and what I can remember.
The book is a pretty little thing, complete with gold gilt edges and spaces to record dates, species, weights and 'remarks' about the fishing. There's not a whole lot of space there, and my handwriting is sometimes difficult for even me to read, but it is enough to record the big events (if there were any) and otherwise to report things like what flies worked and where you fished.
Ideally, one could use this book as a memory marker for every single day of fishing recorded, turning it into a sort of card catalogue of the fishing experience. However, I've found it doesn't exactly work that way, although I am convinced that it does help me remember more. I can easily recall the days for which I have recorded something out of the ordinary: falling in, first time with a new rod, unexpected sea trout etc. The details for more ordinary days are a bit more fuzzy in terms of actual memories. But then, without the journal I probably wouldn't have any recollection of days like that, which goes to my point about remembering more.
I guess the lesson here is to try to record something unique in every entry. That does add to the workload of maintaining the fishing journal though. I try to update the journal after each day of fishing. When I do that, I have little trouble writing a detailed entry that will probably jog my memory about the experience for years to come. However, as with fishing blogs for instance, sometimes you just don't feel like writing all of this stuff down after a long session on the river. Retrospectively reconstructing a day or a week's worth of fishing can be difficult.
Recording details also helps you to better understand your favourite rivers in terms of things like hatches, water temperatures, fish activity and the ways the river changes with the seasons. If put to good use (and recorded in a fairly systematic manner) this sort of data could make you a more effective fisherman. Then again, doing it this way could detract from the fun of keeping a fishing journal, making it seem more like work. I prefer to keep mine as a memory tool rather than a database, and so my entries are more sporadic in nature. I do try to record things like hatches (when I know what they are) water clarity and outside temperature.
I hate to admit it, but when it comes to recording fish sizes and weights, I'll sometimes catch myself exaggerating a little bit. Or maybe a better way to put it is that I sometimes have to stop myself from doing so. When I think about it rationally (out of the fishing mindset), this amounts to the pointless activity of lying to myself. No one else would ever be interested in reading this thing, so who the hell am I trying to impress? Maybe I'm subconsciously trying to construct more grandiose memories. Or maybe my tendency to exaggerate fish sizes and numbers when recounting tales to other fishermen has begun to affect my perceptions of what really happened. Whichever it is, keeping a fishing journal is a great way to self-test your moral character. I'm quite certain I'm not the only angler who has found himself bemusedly correcting an entry of a 15" fish to a 12" fish. I guess its nothing to worry about unless (until) I stop correcting myself.
So why is this post entitled 52? Well, for some time now it has been my goal to fish on at least 52 days in a year (so once per week on average). Whilst many fishermen would probably claim offhand to fish that many days in a year, I can tell you that it is no easy feat - my journal proves it. 52 leaves no room for mistakes or lapses in priorities. If you miss two weeks at Christmas, or whilst on summer holiday in Majorca, then you've got to make them up. Taking extended fishing holidays helps, but that can create serious problems for us married guys. My wife happens to be very understanding of my fishing obsession. She allowed me to take a 9 day fishing trip to Utah/Colorado this year, which boosted my numbers considerably, as did getting a rod on the RTMBN. I try to fish the little chalkstream at least once a week, but of course the trout season only lasts half a year, which means making up the numbers there is more difficult.
Anyway, last night I added up my fishing days for this year so far. I was pleased and surprised to find that I had already fished on 50 days. Barring an act of God (I don't discount the possibility for that) I will have no trouble reaching my goal and more. I am also happy to say that it has all been worth it - at least judging from what I have written and what I can remember.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
