Caught today

whelzer

Guys, the book I mentioned further up the thread details "every" type of nymphing going - they are very different. He has great sections on leader make up and very detailed photgraphs of the various nymphing styles, the water they suit, etc. The language is dull at times but I could not fault the content - I would go as far as saying the author is nymphing expert!

stylie

floattuber_lee wrote: »

yeah but im kind of fed up reading books that say czech nymphing and they mean french style or polish style or high sticking, no 2 people seem to be calling the same style by the same name. so i refer to upstream nymphing as the act of putting nymphs upstream. i know they are all different and meant for different water types but ill be buggered if im changing my leader every five minutes as i move up 1 stream to change back again on the next. i've adapted a style that seems to work fairly well on most water. except flat still water. b using a P.T.N on the point i can fish the tail end of runs as a more traditional upstream nymph then fish the faster water by maybe changing to a heavier fly to suit rather than change the entire leader setup.

Im fed up with the whole style nonsense that has crept it fly fishing recently. 30yrs ago my father used to fish teams of weighted nymphs on the river Lee Cork. Used a floating line or a slow sinker if the dam was generating. Fished them dead with the current, or tweaked them across the stream. If I was to do it they would call it Czech nymphing back then it was just fishing. Sometimes the heaviest fly was on the point sometimes the middle he was too scientific about it.
FFS its fishing no need to make things technical and attach stupid names to it.

Flysfisher

whelzer wrote: »

Guys, the book I mentioned further up the thread details "every" type of nymphing going - they are very different. He has great sections on leader make up and very detailed photgraphs of the various nymphing styles, the water they suit, etc. The language is dull at times but I could not fault the content - I would go as far as saying the author is nymphing expert!

I don't agree that they are very different. slightly different ways of casting and presentation maybe, but heavy nymphs are still heavy nymphs and trout are still trout.

Flysfisher

stylie wrote: »

Im fed up with the whole style nonsense that has crept it fly fishing recently. 30yrs ago my father used to fish teams of weighted nymphs on the river Lee Cork. Used a floating line or a slow sinker if the dam was generating. Fished them dead with the current, or tweaked them across the stream. If I was to do it they would call it Czech nymphing back then it was just fishing. Sometimes the heaviest fly was on the point sometimes the middle he was too scientific about it.
FFS its fishing no need to make things technical and attach stupid names to it.

you are completely correct, nonsense as right.

whelzer

Flysfisher wrote: »

I don't agree that they are very different. slightly different ways of casting and presentation maybe, but heavy nymphs are still heavy nymphs and trout are still trout.

Just take two methods... czech nymphing you'd use a 9 foot leader and less than 3 foot of fly line out of the rod tip, no casting (you couldn't if you tried), just a simple lob of 1-3 heavy flies upstream, french nymphing you'd use a 27-40 foot leader and no flyline with "normal" casting. For my money these methods are extremely different.

Flysfisher

whelzer wrote: »

Just take two methods... czech nymphing you'd use a 9 foot leader and less than 3 foot of fly line out of the rod tip, no casting (you couldn't if you tried), just a simple lob of 1-3 heavy flies upstream, french nymphing you'd use a 27-40 foot leader and no flyline with "normal" casting. For my money these methods are extremely different.

I think Your missing my point nymphs are nymphs, it's all nymph fishing! It's all to achieve the same thing.

whelzer

Flysfisher wrote: »

I think Your missing my point nymphs are nymphs, it's all nymph fishing! It's all to achieve the same thing.

Obviousily nymphs are nymphs and the the aim is the same but the fact remains czech nymphing is very different from french nymphing, different rods, different leader/flyline requirements, different casting styles, diferrent flies, used under different circumstances/conditions. Czech suited to fast, deep, coloured water where you can get close to the fish and french for low water clear conditions when the fish spook very easily. The skills required to master each technique are very different. You could learn and master czech nymphing in a few sessions, mastering french nymphing would take a whole lot longer.

I really can not see what the issue is here - folks in different places developed different techniques to suit their water. The czechs (poles) were nymphing long before 1984 when it became known to the wider world.

This is no different to fly development - clyde style flies, used funnily enough near the Clyde, North country spiders in Yorkshire, Catskill dries and so on and so on....the same for techniques. These things are far from recent either, when WC Stewart "invented" upstream spider fishing in 1850s, he was derided, called a fool, even had a few violent confrontations...

Actually on this point, would you consider upstream wet and downstream wet fishing the same?

To go further, would you consider pike/bass fishing with fly rod and spinning rod the same - a lure is a lure?

Would you consider soccer and gaelic football the same - similar ball, same aim??:eek:

Not fly fishing but still fishing is the recent "invention"/split of LRF and HRF from what my dad would have called spinning. Again I can't see a problem here - natural human progression. Little tweaks on something that went before, given a name so we can discuss it and tweak again.

Just food for thought - I'd fish dry all the time if I could!:D