ONE OF THE MYTHS of spring-creek fishing is that you can't catch trout unless you know exactly what the trout are feeding on and select a fly that precisely matches the insect they're eating. I have known some very good anglers who carry only a few simple patterns that catch a lot of fish. Their theory is that if you make a perfect presentation it doesn't matter what fly you use. Art Lee makes a case for this approach in his book, Fishing Dry Flies for Trout on Rivers and Streams. Lee credits Ernest Schwiebert with popularizing the term "matching the hatch" in 1955. Lee notes that matching the hatch requires substantial investments of both time and money as we waste countless hours changing flies every "twenty seconds" at the "right time" for the "right fish."

Lee writes of a fishing friend, Ed Van Put, who uses only three patterns — the Adams, the Royal Wulff, and the Pheasant Tail Midge — and catches as many fish as anybody he knows. Gary LaFontaine, in The Dry Fly New Angles, defines anglers who tackle fly fishing with only a limited number of flies as generalists. "Presentation is everything," the generalist insists.

I must confess that Lee's book really raised my hackles. I can recall more than one angler who came to fish the Henry's Fork with his true favorite fly pattern only to be thrashed by the ultra-selective trout. Nothing can be more frustrating for an angler than having your pattern completely ignored while trout feed leisurely all around you. It has happened to me many times, once when a big brown was sipping midges on the Big Spring in Pennsylvania. I finally hooked the fish, but not until I had gone through almost all of my midge pupa patterns. If you want to waste some time, try fishing to a fish like that for several hours stubbornly lock-stepped to the same fly. I'd like to meet the guy who could have caught that old boy on an Adams. The problem with some guys who got their butts kicked on the Henry's Fork was that in their minds, it wasn't the fly. I guess the only thing that gave me solace when I read Art Lee's book was when he said, "No fly is right unless it's fished correctly." On that point I completely agree.

Gary LaFontaine said that the three main methods of deciding on a particular fly are empiricism (trial and error tempered by previous experience), generalism (actually a denial that fly choice is very important), and naturalism (bug watching).

Empiricism—"I'm going to use a Pink Lady because that fly worked last year at this time when the river was in this condition."

Generalism—"These fish will take any fly as long as I present it properly."

Naturalism—"I'm going to use a Hendrickson to match these mayfly duns that are on the water."

To a certain degree, all of us are empiricists. We have favorite streams that we fish as often as possible, and the experiences of the past influence the way we approach the water and the fly patterns we use. Vince Marinaro had his beloved Letort. I connected with him when I read A Modern Dry Fly Code because the Henry's Fork was my Letort. There are, however, only a few streams that I can fish using the empirical approach. Experience doesn't mean much on waters I don't fish enough under the same conditions, but I do spend enough time fishing other waters to understand that I can catch fish if I use the naturalist approach — studying what the trout are feeding on and using a pattern to match.

The best hatch-matching anglers do not change flies every twenty seconds. If they see fish feeding, they spend the necessary time to learn what the trout are eating before they ever tie on a fly. Once they know what the trout are feeding on, they know what fly to use. They use a very calculated approach; they are naturalists because they study the water and the insects to determine the feeding activity of the trout. They are empiricists because they know from experience what fly to use when a specific insect is on the water. Fishing a hatch of pale morning duns on the Henry's Fork isn't different from fishing the same hatch on Fall River in California or Nelson's Spring Creek in Montana.

The problem that results from the debate between the overenthusiastic hatch matchers and the practitioners who depend on precise presentation with a few dependable patterns is the focus that is placed solely on catching trout. Both methods will catch trout and, more importantly, bring satisfaction and enjoyment to the angler. If you match the hatch, you'll learn to understand and appreciate the trout's diet and aquatic environment. The study of trout food can provide a real challenge. On the other hand, tying on a fly of your own choosing, without regard to what the trout is feeding on, can bring its own reward. Doing it your way and hooking a tough trout can be a most satisfying experience.

The best way to catch trout on spring creeks and get the most enjoyment from the experience is to be a generalist, an empiricist, and a naturalist. From the day that Alfred Ronalds published The Fly-Fisher's Entomology in 1836, anglers have been fascinated with aquatic insects and the flies to match them, and although matching the hatch is the essence of fly fishing on spring creeks, it isn't always the best or most effective approach. Sometimes matching the hatch can actually be counterproductive.

Continue Reading "Unmatching the Hatch"   1 2 3 4