What's the most technically demanding.....

Cap'n Fishy

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2008
Messages
24,115
Location
Embra
If you look at the posts on river nymphing and the number of variations in set ups and techniques there's a great deal of confusion. In essence because you can't see what's going on underwater it's an unknown quantity with many assumptions.

If you strip it back to it's basics with a fly line, leader and fly, it's not complicated, however too many jump in with both feet without understanding the basics which later causes problems.

For many it's a dark art and for this reason and the fact you can't see what's going on under water, I feel it's one of the more technically demanding methods you will find however like dry fly fishing once you have got your head around the intricasies it's not as complicated as some imagine.
So, what is your answer to the question in the original post?
 

darans

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Messages
401
Location
near River Tees
For me, the most technically difficult, and therefore rewarding, aspect of fly fishing is dry fly fishing to rising Grayling on a flat, calm, clear river. If they are locked onto midges or tiny flies you can be driven mad..........
 

Cap'n Fishy

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2008
Messages
24,115
Location
Embra
Maybe catching trout at the peak of a Caenis 'white-out'?



Or catching salmon and sea trout when they simply aren't there? Dunno?
 

suzzy buzzer

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2020
Messages
321
Rivers are not that demanding on a technical level, for the most, some basic knowledge of reading the currents will tell you where the fish will likely to be. Then, you present to them an item of food that they have very little time to inspect, and will more often than not take it in if it looks remotely like food, and acts remotely like food.
So while it is not quite as pretty as a stretch of wild river in the middle of nowhere, I would suggest a large stillwater/reservoir to be the more technically demanding, especially if you err towards more natural patterns. You have none of the clues afforded to you by a river.
 

taffy1

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2014
Messages
10,381
Location
Well within my comfort zone
Rivers are not that demanding on a technical level, for the most, some basic knowledge of reading the currents will tell you where the fish will likely to be. Then, you present to them an item of food that they have very little time to inspect, and will more often than not take it in if it looks remotely like food, and acts remotely like food.
So while it is not quite as pretty as a stretch of wild river in the middle of nowhere, I would suggest a large stillwater/reservoir to be the more technically demanding, especially if you err towards more natural patterns. You have none of the clues afforded to you by a river.
Try all that in darkness on a river pursuing the spookiest of fish, a sea-run brownie, they don't take up expected lies, sometimes, if not mostly, not feeding, imagine fishing your usual stretch with a bucket over your head.
 

suzzy buzzer

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2020
Messages
321
Try all that in darkness on a river pursuing the spookiest of fish, a sea-run brownie, they don't take up expected lies, sometimes, if not mostly, not feeding, imagine fishing your usual stretch with a bucket over your head.
Now, I can not disagree with that in any way. I was only speaking from experience in discussing aspects of fly fishing I have experience in.
I’ve never fished for sea trout, in a river, in the dark. It’s an activity that sits on the wrong side of my line of safety/sensibility.
 

ohanzee

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
35,954
Rivers are not that demanding on a technical level, for the most, some basic knowledge of reading the currents will tell you where the fish will likely to be. Then, you present to them an item of food that they have very little time to inspect, and will more often than not take it in if it looks remotely like food, and acts remotely like food.
So while it is not quite as pretty as a stretch of wild river in the middle of nowhere, I would suggest a large stillwater/reservoir to be the more technically demanding, especially if you err towards more natural patterns. You have none of the clues afforded to you by a river.
When someone is really good in a particular environment they have probably learned more than they realise over a period of time, they make it look easy because it has become easy for them, masters of their environment, good people to learn from.
I think this applies to any fishing environment, we become specialists in fishing the environments we choose and learn the subtle signs and indications for those sorts of places, when I fish a river I spend the first hour being reminded that the water is moving strangely quick :)
 

bobmiddlepoint

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2017
Messages
2,276
Location
STAYING AT HOME!
So while it is not quite as pretty as a stretch of wild river in the middle of nowhere, I would suggest a large stillwater/reservoir to be the more technically demanding, especially if you err towards more natural patterns. You have none of the clues afforded to you by a river.
I'm thinking more about browns (and salmon/sea trout in natural stillwaters rather than rainbows here (because that is what I know best) but I would say the clues are there. The clues will be different to on a river but just as obvious to those that have the experience.
Wind direction, windlanes, foam streaks, the edge of the ripple, bankside contours, bankside vegetation, weeds and reeds, inflowing (and outflowing) streams, ditches, islands and skerries, coloured water stirred by the waves, changes in colour showing changes in depth, birds over the water, livestock on upwind shores and all sorts of other things I can't bring to mind just now will help you find the fish.

Stillwaters aren't harder or easier to read than rivers, just different.


Andy
 

dave b

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 24, 2010
Messages
3,134
Location
UK
Colin the Op has asked for members to identify methods which is exactly what I've done.

You just have to read some of the posts on the forum to see how much confusion there is in respect to river nymphing. If I had to state the most difficult aspect it's probably presenting a nymph on a long leader at range without being too technical and going into sight fishing or stealth which are other dimensions that all role into one.

Some may argue that dry fly fishing or lake sub surface fishing is just as technical and they may have a valid point however they don't tend to create as much confusion as river nymphing for many anglers, who still try to avoid it at all costs despite being arguably the most productive way of fishing a river.
 

lhomme

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 21, 2010
Messages
3,603
Location
Antwerp
Three of the most challenging techniques that I loved practicing.
Casting and presenting a fly in the same way you can with your favourite hand (arm) with the other one.
Knowing (feeling) when to strike on an undetectable take.
Wading like a heron in all types of water when it is absolutely necessary.
 

squimp

Well-known member
Joined
May 18, 2008
Messages
1,010
At least bonefish usually eat the fly; try presenting it to a permit !
 

original cormorant

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 3, 2016
Messages
648
Standing on a skiff with a 25 mph wind from the right, back hand casting to tailing bonefish.
On a trip a couple of years ago, first day, first up, first cast guide says "backcast 4 o'clock ...... more right" . Result: brain freeze as I tried to compute that meant 5 o'clock, though in reality we were already past them.
 

caeran

Active member
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
31
I took up fly fishing 12 years ago . I had one basic lesson in casting a fly. I have fished the same 400 metre stretch of the same river in that time very rarely fishing elsewhere. I fish alone so have had no influence / advice from anyone else . Not many other anglers fish the same stretch as it is private and restricted .
I am purely self taught apart from that first casting lesson, I very rarely read angling magazines. Yes I get some advice from the people in the tackle shop as I buy my monthly dozen or so flies that I have lost in the bank side trees.
I cast sideways to avoid trees and I can put the fly almost anywhere I want it now.
My technique would probably horrify a purist but the fish don’t seem to mind.
Technical knowledge I have none
I choose whatever fly looks the part on the day - I don’t know their names.
A wee white one often works when sent downstream LOL
Most days I don’t catch a fish, and I fish most days when I am staying on the river bank in my caravan which grants me fishing rights - there are 50 caravans and only 3 or 4 of us fish .

Being the only person on the river , the birds and the wildlife seem to either ignore or accept me and I see kingfishers, dippers and all manner of wildlife even the odd deer early on or in the evening in their natural habitat.

With more technical knowledge I might catch a few more fish - small wild brownies and the occasional run of sea trout.

But I think I would find that would introduce some stress and confusion.

So I put on a fly , cast and put the fly where I choose , I can cast without concentrating or worrying if my action is good bad or ugly ( probably all 3)

I am probably the worst fly fisherman ever to attach a fly
I fish several times a week on a shoestring

But devoid of any technical knowledge I couldn’t say what’s the most difficult thing to do.

I just fish
And I am very contented standing on the river bank and hardly worrying whether I am doing it right or whether I will catch a fish
Who cares about catching fish anyway ?
Fly fishing is much much more than that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

BobP

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
8,162
Location
Wiltshire
The whole object of going fishing, whether it be coarse, game or sea, is to catch fish or, at least, to make every attempt at doing so. There is no point to it otherwise.

caeran would save himself a few quid on his monthly order of flies if he just dispensed with the flies about which he, by his own admission, knows absolutely nothing, and just ties a tuft of wool to the end of his leader and goes and casts in a field. He can be just as happy doing that.
 

PaulD

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2020
Messages
807
Location
South Northants
The whole object of going fishing, whether it be coarse, game or sea, is to catch fish or, at least, to make every attempt at doing so. There is no point to it otherwise.

caeran would save himself a few quid on his monthly order of flies if he just dispensed with the flies about which he, by his own admission, knows absolutely nothing, and just ties a tuft of wool to the end of his leader and goes and casts in a field. He can be just as happy doing that.
You've missed the point that Caeran enjoys what he's doing.
 
Top