Nymphing for Trout

Frank Sawyer said this about Nymphing for Trout:

On South Country chalk streams, I think that by the use of the nymph in the daytime during the months of July and August you can reach the peak of the fascinating sport of trout fishing.  At this time it calls for the highest skill of both the wet and dry-fly fisherman, and to them the nymph fisher brings every wile at his command into the true art of deception.

 In the spirit of Francis Francis:

  No murderous wand
  Would I command,
  That slaughters but for slaughtering’s sake
  But win by skill
  Enough to fill
  The wants that Nature’s self doth make.

To my mind, the great joy in trout fishing comes with the knowledge that you have deceived a trout into taking an imitation of the natural insect on which it happens to be feeding.  If the fisherman is a fly-tier there is added pleasure, for in the occupation of making an artificial, he will be filled with the anticipation of seeing his creation accepted by a trout in mistake for the insect he has been at such pains to copy.  In imagination he will be by the riverside, see the trout moving without suspicion towards the hook his nimble fingers have so artfully concealed, see the mouth of his fish open and close, and in advance get the thrill as, in his mind, he lifts the rod to drive home the hook.

An artificial nymph can be used with deadly effect throughout the trout season, but I think it is only during the months of July and August that it can give the fisherman the highest degree of sport, and the knowledge that he is accomplishing something beyond the powers of the ordinary wet or dry-fly enthusiast.  During these two months the water of our chalk streams is usually at its clearest.  There are days of sun blazing from cloudless skies, when not a breath of air disturbs the surface of the river; when it is possible for the angler to see every movement of a trout in the water, and, conversely, for the trout to see every movement of the angler, unless he uses the greatest caution in approach.  Truly these are the days when the utmost enjoyment of nymph fishing can be obtained, for trout already have had a severe hammering with the dry-fly and most of them have a good knowledge of the fisherman and wiles.

A very long experience has left me astonished at the failure of fishermen to take the trouble to learn what flies may be expected on the water throughout the fishing months.  Some do not even know that duns change into spinners, and cannot tell the difference between one and the other, even when held in the hand.  I have encountered anglers who do not know that most of the river flies spend most of their life under water and that fish take them in various stages of their existence.

I think the late Mr. G. E. M. Skues, whom I met once or twice towards the end of his life, got the greatest joy in fishing, from the practice of deception, at which, indeed, he was a master.  He spent years studying the various insects and in learning from others all he could about them.  He tied flies beautifully, and he had an immense collection of them.  They were made with the most careful attention to detail, of size, colour and general appearance, and he had great success with them.  He was a man who understood something of the trout’s angle of view.  He paid great attention to the body of the fly, and his pattern was not encumbered by overmuch hackle.  When fishing he would take a fly off the water – a fly he had reason to think the fish were taking – study it thoroughly, and then search through his fly boxes for the most exact imitation.  I believe that in fifty years he had hardly ever thrown a fly over a fish, which he had not tied himself.  In this, I am sure, consisted a large part of his enjoyment.

Mr. Skues understood the art of nymph fishing, and in his excellent book Nymph Fishing for Chalk Stream Trout, he tried to pass on his knowledge of this fascinating sport to others.  He knew where to look for a fish and, what is more, he knew what the trout expected to see.  And here is the true art of deception.  It is in knowing that a fish is expecting to see a certain insect in a certain area, and in being able to place an artificial at this point without raising suspicion; it is in having a clear view of a feeding fish so that you can study its reactions to what you offer it.  Times without number I have been amused to see a trout discover the deceit, to watch the fish move boldly towards my artificial, then sheer away at the last moment and bolt for cover.  I then know I must make something better and I get joy in doing so.

This is where a slight knowledge of entomology can be of assistance to the angler, for if he is familiar with the habits and appearance of these insects underwater he then stands a much better chance not only of presenting the right fly at the right time, but of presenting it in a manner that is life-like.  Though a good copy of an insect is essential, this is not always enough, one should know what the trout expect this insect to do, and be able to show it to them in this light.

I once made some copies of the B.W.O., and, when comparing them under the microscope with the natural insect in water and looking at the body, had difficulty in telling the two apart.  I was exceedingly pleased with my efforts and, as Blue Winged Olives were then hatching, I tried them on the trout.  I had tied them so that they had a good entry into the water and, on being presented, they immediately sank towards the bottom.  Though two fish made a move towards one of the nymphs, six or seven more totally disregarded them.  I failed to get a fish to take any I had made.  I could not quite understand it, for I had often deceived trout with Iron Blue and Olive patterns fished in a similar manner.

Then it occurred to me that the Blue Winged Olive swims to the surface in a jerky, undulating movement; that, once it has risen to hatch, it seldom returns to the bottom but often stays wriggling in the surface film for a few moments before hatching to a fly.  Good as my artificials had seemed to me they had not deceived the trout.  These fish knew there was something wrong in my presentation.  I then also knew what it was and went home to make other patterns.  The trout wanted something which showed life near the surface of the water.  They should have it.

I used exactly the same materials for a body as I had for the previous patterns, but instead of adding a few turns of fine copper wire to the hook to make it heavy, I dressed my new copies as though I were making a dry-fly.  My rejected patterns had been finished with a soft hen hackle at the head, but these new ones I dressed with a cock hackle and then cut off the fibres so that they stood out rigid from the thorax.  My one idea was to make an imitation that would sink just through the surface film, and appear to the trout as though it had spread its legs and tails in an effort to hold itself up in the water.  My finished efforts pleased me.

When cast lightly, like a dry-fly, the artificials did as I wanted, and sank just beneath the surface; and, in sinking, the stiff cock hackles, spread one from another with the action of the water and appeared like the moving legs and tails of the nymph I had copied.  Six trout took my offerings.  I could have hooked them all, but I did not want to.  I had sufficient pleasure in deceiving them.

Though you may not be able to follow exactly the progress of an artificial nymph in the water after it has sunk, you can have a good idea of its relative position when nearing the trout.  I would say good eyesight is a most essential part of a nymph fisher’s equipment, for without it he would be advised to stick to the dry-fly.  I have seen hundreds of fish missed by striking too late, or too early.

Often there is not the slightest indication on rod, line or cast, that a trout has taken a nymph into its mouth.  The angler has to rely entirely on his own powers of perception; be able to see the fish move towards the artificial, and to see it open and close its mouth.  With the dry-fly he has the advantage of seeing the fly floating on the water and, even if the artificial cannot be seen, the rise form made by the trout is sufficient to tell him the fish has risen.  In most cases it is possible to see the head of the fish as it breaks the surface, and the precise moment of lifting the rod to tighten is at once apparent.  In nymph fishing there are also times when the trout can be lured upwards to that it takes near the surface as, for instance, when fishing the B.W.O. nymph, but far more often the trout are taking the natural insects at depths which vary from six to eighteen inches, when they take so slowly and so gently that no disturbance to the surface is caused by their moving bodies. An artificial must be fished down to them.

There is, in the late Dr. J. C. Mottram’s book, Thoughts on Angling, a most surprising statement, which shows, at all events, that, at the time he wrote, he had no conception of the proper way of taking trout on a nymph.  This is what he says: “If I wish to give a novice or a duffer his best chance of catching a trout on a chalk stream, I remove his dry-fly, soap half his cast, and tie on a nymph.”  He goes on to say: “Other things apart from drag make fishing easier; the hooking of the trout is simpler and more sure, though drag alone answers our question.  Nymph fishing is much easier, is, therefore, a less delicate art, and, therefore, gives less sport.”

All I can say in reply to this is that I am a river keeper and, as such, I am not likely to advocate a method by which a stock of trout can be sadly depleted.  A gamekeeper would not suggest that the pheasants he had reared could be killed easier on the ground or while they were at roost.  He would be far more likely to arrange drives where his birds could be presented to the guns as high targets, and at a variety of angles – where, in fact, they could be killed in the most sporting manner. And so it is with me.  I like rods to kill trout, but I also like them to get the utmost enjoyment in doing it.

Dr. Mottram may possibly have been thinking of wet-fly methods.  It is of such importance that nymphs should be used legitimately, that I make no apology for repeating that they should be thrown only to a particular fish, a fish that is obviously taking sub-aqueous food, and not cast at random.  Only if this done, can the angler get the full savour from his skilful deception.

Most of our trout flies spend one or two years under water in their larval and nymphal stages and during this under-water life are taken freely by fish.  But there are many different species which have habits that are greatly at variance.  Some spend their under-water life in the river-bed, some live under stones and cling to them like limpets; others crawl about on the river-bed and in vegetation; and still more range freely in all places and can swim like little fish.

Some of them prefer one type of water, some another, some hatch at the beginning of the season and others at the end, with still more in the intermediary period.  They are of varying sizes, shape and colouration, and when hatching into flies each species has its characteristic method of approaching the surface.  For instance, the mayfly nymph, the largest of them all, swims direct from the river-bed to the surface to hatch; trout seldom see it in larval or nymphal form until it is nearing the surface to change into a fly.  I am not, by the way, suggesting the use of a mayfly nymph representation – far from it.  When trout take hatching mayflies they will also take floating flies, and I consider the use of an artificial mayfly nymph to be, to put it plainly, little better than poaching.

But in converse to the mayfly we can take the Olives, or the Spurwings.  There are several species of each of these genera, and they have habits that are similar.  Their larvae and nymphs are of the swimming group – that is, they can move from point to point, by swimming freely through the water like fish.  They live on the river-bed, on vegetation, and may be found everywhere, at varying depths.  But whereas the Olives prefer well aerated water, the Spurwings like water of a sluggish nature.  They may make journeys to the surface long before they are ready to hatch into flies, and return once more to a lower level.  They may move through the water from one feeding place to another and, in a score of ways, form an attraction the trout find hard to resist.  Trout know of the habits of these insects, and of all the others, and position themselves in places where they can easily take them.

As further examples we have such flies at the Little Yellow May Dun – the Turkey Brown and the Claret Dun.  These are seldom seen by fish while in their larval or nymphal stages.  They spend their life clinging to substances on the river-bed, they are seldom found in mid-water, and when hatching to a fly they crawl up the banks – on vegetation, or anything which extends from the river bed to the surface.  An artificial nymph of either would, therefore, be useless fished in mid-water, and I am doubtful if there is anyone in the world who could make one appear to crawl up a weed stem.

It is very difficult to explain the varying habits of all these nymphs, and I have no space to do so here, but I would like to suggest that during the trout season an hour or two could be very profitably spent by the would-be nymph fisherman in studying the under-water habits of the insects he wishes to imitate.  The actual nymphs are quite easy to obtain in any chalk stream.  A fine meshed net run through a bunch of ranunculus near the surface will produce many mature nymphs of the kind most suitable to copy.  They can be carried home in a small container and will, if kept moist, retain their colours perfectly for at least twenty-four hours.

If you can sit in a boat, or stand in waders near the down stream end of a weed bed, or at a point where a clear view of the river-bed can be obtained, and look closely into the water, a considerable movement of insect life will soon come into view.  I have often lain for hours on a river bank near a bunch of weeds, with my nose nearly touching the water, and have had flies hatch so near to me that I could have taken them in my mouth.  In this and other ways, I have discovered the identity of the various larvae and nymphs.  I have seen their movements in the water as they feed and sport, and the various methods they have of approaching the surface to hatch into flies, and I have seen trout take them in all stages.  Only by knowing what a trout expects to see can the true art of deceiving them be accomplished.   Thank you for visiting Nymphing for Trout