Night fishing

[pete41]

There has been a friendly give and take on this subject lately.
Some have quoted noted authors who contend that night fishing for trout is better during the dark of the moon and pretty much of a waste during the bright moon phases.
I don't doubt for a second the examples the authors use to illustrate their point are true-
Its their assumption that trout feed better during the dark of the moon that I question.
Thats not true.
The difference is that the quoted authors are usually talking about smaller Eastern waters where you are usually casting from within the trouts window.Fact is trout can see you within their window on a moonlit night as well if not better than daytime.
On larger waters where long casts are the norm and visual factor does not aid the trout you can have great fishing on moonlight nights.
So on small waters darkness can help as you won't be spooking the trout.
Big trout are like obese people-in the summer when the water gets warmer than they prefer to wait until conditions improve a little bit so whatever moon phase they are likely to rest until predawn hours to waddle out,grab a chub or something and waddle back.I use to watch that parade on the Letort.
December or January they can be seen at hi noon.
I once saw a snowy owl working the river at night but in fifty plus years never saw another nite feeding bird-animals like coons can see just as well in the dark moon phase so its comfort more than safety the big boys look for.

 

[tomgamber]

I saw an article on this just yesterday. I think it was Fly fisherman magazine..Could have been another I read like 4 getting my oil changed. Anyway, they had a chart to support their argument on the subject. If you can find it it'll suggest that both of you are right and wrong and you are trying to over simplify it.

 

[vern]

Trout feed at night when they are hungry and food is plentiful.

My experience with largemouth and walleys has been I always do better around New Moon, or when cloud cover obscures, or when the moon drops early.

My experience with nature has demonstrated directly to me that prey are more mobile under the cover of darkness.

The logic I use to justify it is that it's a survival strategy for prey - voles especially.

Over the millions of years various prey species evolve survival strategy niches - there are several, not just cover of darkness. The cicadae is a well-known example, as are mayfly emergences.

Predators also evolve to fit into survival niches - cover of darkness is one of them.

But as is noted by tomgamber, it's too easy to oversimplify. It's not formulaic. Become intimate with nature and it will show you.

That's the source.

Other's opinions can only serve to give you a indication of what might be happening.

 

[jayL]

The problem with any and all of these analyses is that they are based on nothing but personal experience and heresay. Personal experience is a great indicator of what to do and all, but it's hardly scientific, and does not lead to facts of any kind. We don't live long enough to get enough data to make any valid conclusions.

It's all just posturing and arguing for one side or the other... and that's what makes talking about this stuff so much fun.

 

[vern]

Actually, it is scientific.
Observation and recording events is the foundation of scientific.
Taking into account variables is also key.
For example, the trout tower studies on Spruce that were conducted by Bob Butler and staff, and Bob Bachman.
However, to apply the results of those valid scientific observations to any and all other situations is a failure to understand the nature of scientific inquiry and the applicability of the findings.
For example, if it is a situation where dobsonflies may or may not be the prey, it isn't necessary to know the respiration rate of dobsonfly larvae, though that could be hellpful.
It's more important to observe consistently and record.
There are just too many situations throughout the varying ecosystems to be able to apply indiscriminately the results of specific observations from one.
Each stream is different. Each pool of water is different in what can influence prey-predator relationships and responses. There are however some base consistencies.

 

[jayL]

vern wrote:
Actually, it is scientific.
Observation and recording events is the foundation of scientific.
Taking into account variables is also key.
For example, the trout tower studies on Spruce that were conducted by Bob Butler and staff, and Bob Bachman.
However, to apply the results of those valid scientific observations to any and all other situations is a failure to understand the nature of scientific inquiry and the applicability of the findings.
For example, if it is a situation where dobsonflies may or may not be the prey, it isn't necessary to know the respiration rate of dobsonfly larvae, though that could be hellpful.
It's more important to observe consistently and record.
There are just too many situations throughout the varying ecosystems to be able to apply indiscriminately the results of specific observations from one.
Each stream is different. Each pool of water is different in what can influence prey-predator relationships and responses. There are however some base consistencies.

It's not statistically significant.

In other words, everyone has an opinion on the subject, and until someone comes up with some solid evidence in either direction, the debate will rage on. That's why it's fun. Good post.

 

[PoconoPuke]

A good friend of mine lived and died by the solnar tables published in an outdoor magazine. They claimed to predict major and minor feeding periods for fish and game.
I can't attest to their validity because every time there was a major feeding period I'd have to leave the stream and get something to eat.

 

[jayL]

PoconoPuke wrote:
A good friend of mine lived and died by the solnar tables published in an outdoor magazine. They claimed to predict major and minor feeding periods for fish and game.
I can't attest to their validity because every time there was a major feeding period I'd have to leave the stream and get something to eat.

Did that involve a lot of extra hair sprouting up, and was the meal domesticated sheep and skinny dipping co eds?

If so, I'd get that checked.

 

[ErnieBall]

as long as theres a couple of beers involved, i'll fish any damn night of the week.... no matter what the moon is doing

 

[PoconoPuke]

"Did that involve a lot of extra hair sprouting up, and was the meal domesticated sheep and skinny dipping co eds?"

Jay the best pool on the Big Wop (Powder Hole Pool) was lousy with monster trout. Unfortunately it also had a lot of skinny dipping co eds. This necessitated that I become nocturnal because the trout went nocturnal.
I guess trout don't appreciate a pretty young girl.

 

[Brownout]

The first few times I went night fly fishing for browns, it was on a small freestoner. I tied some big, gawdy caddis and pulled them around the surface. The stream was too filled with debris to do much else. Anyway, I never caught a fish over 10 inches during the day in this stream. At night, every 14 incher and his mother were taking my fly in a foot of water; it was great.

I read Jim Bashline's book, I think it's called Night Fishing, about trout fishing in central PA(I think). Pretty good read. Also some Harvey book with instructions for that monstrosity of a pusher fly.

In your experiences, do you catch more monsters on wets than drys? Do you catch more in general on wets or drys? And what patterns do you generally use? Any info appreciated.

 

[osprey]

Can't really comment on fly fishing at night i've never done it. But on those full moon nights a topwater lure like a jitterbug , in the suskie when i lived in Liverpool was sure alot of fun and got me some really nice smallmouth.