Reading the Water

[pcray1231]

Swattie, the 18 incher there is the only one in your description that might fit the description of "monster". The others are very good fish for a stream like that, but perhaps not nice enough to completely dominate the pool due to their mere presence.

Pools vary, of course. You can have an enormous hole that can hold several monsters. That's not uncommon.

But you can also have a pool that can really hold only one huge one. Depends on the food/cover situation. Holes like this will often "cycle".

What I mean by that is that it may hold 1 monster and absolutely nothing else. At some point the monster is no more, for whatever reason. At that time a large number of small/averaged sized fish invade. Over time a small handful of them get to the "big" range, in your case probably your 12 to upper teens range. The little ones disappear and you got a few of those buggers. And at some point one of them takes over and kicks the others out, and this fish becomes the monster again. This cycle can be over a 3-5 year time frame is typical.

But like i said, sometimes the pool is so big and productive that it can hold several monsters. In which the "kicking out" never really happens, and you can have 3-5 seriously big fish in there. Even if one dies, the others are still there, and you never really start the cycle over. There are streams where you are normally catching typical 5-10" fish but there's one hole with 4 fish in it that are 18+". Take note of those holes. They can produce big fish year after year.

 

[Swattie87]

pcray - Largely agree and subscribe to the same theory behind your analysis.

The stream in the above post is very small at the location of this culvert pool. It grows fairly quickly not that far downstream thanks to some limestone springs, but at the location of this pool it’s perhaps one step in stream to get across it, hop across still in some spots. The pool in question isn’t all that big…perhaps 12’x10’ in total surface area with the “good” holding water being maybe 1/2 of that, but it’s a good set up for a big fish with the undercut culvert footer at the head.

My one point of disagreement perhaps is that I do think in some small streams a 12-14” range fish (usually a Brown in a stream with mostly Brookies) is big enough to “Pool Boss” a hole and hold it solo. It’s relative to the size of the other fish in the stream and what it’s capable of producing, and the set-up of the hole itself of course. In small streams that are mostly, or nearly all Brookies, the Pool Boss rogue Browns I usually catch run 12-14”…maybe had a couple top out at 15”. Can’t say I’ve had any bigger than that. In some streams though, as you note, you do get massive pools that can hold several very large Browns...18”+ type fish. While still “small streams”, these are usually a little bigger and have a higher relative ratio of Browns to Brookies to start with…Cedar would be the type of stream I’m talking about here. These fish are extremely difficult to catch by the way…high, dirty water or nighttime strategies usually required as you mentioned.

Back to the stream in question above, outside of this one hole, the biggest fish I’ve caught in the stream is an 8”…Brookie. Granted, a good portion of the downstream limestone water is posted and then it deteriorates in quality as it reaches a more urban area and ultimately becomes a relatively junky ATW.

 

[Hook_Jaw]

Sorry pcray I don't think its a skill at all to read the water. If you can't look at the water and see where you should cast to catch fish you might as well find something else to do.

 

[ryansheehan]

Hook_Jaw wrote:

Sorry pcray I don't think its a skill at all to read the water. If you can't look at the water and see where you should cast to catch fish you might as well find something else to do.

Couldn't disagree more, there is far more to reading water than where to cast.

 

[pete41]

I found after many years of floundering I developed an instinct which seldom failed---There WILL be fish at a certain spot even if the stream was new to me---there WILL be a best time to work it.Make me an expert at outsmarting the other type of peabrain ? No,just some one who fished a lot.[and caught and released a lot of fish] So I go with experience and desire to get better.Inclined to be in Hook jaws camp.KISS

 

[Hook_Jaw]

Ryan explain what you think reading the water is then and why it's a skill so I can respond to it.

 

[troutbert]

pete41 wrote:
I found after many years of floundering I developed an instinct which seldom failed---There WILL be fish at a certain spot even if the stream was new to me---there WILL be a best time to work it.

Make me an expert at outsmarting the other type of peabrain ? No,just some one who fished a lot.[and caught and released a lot of fish]

So I go with experience and desire to get better.

Yes, reading the water is something people learn from experience, that you get better at over the years.

Newbies are generally not nearly as good at reading the water as those who have been fishing a long time.

Experienced people can help newbies out with this. Pointing out the differences between the good spots and the "walk past" water.

And good articles and books can help with this too. And Rosenbauer is very good at this. He knows the topic and explains it clearly.

 

[Hook_Jaw]

I guess It all depends to me what kind of stream your fishing too. \
I have fished with new people that read the water fine to me of course as you fish a stream and fish more you know the stream better but to me that doesn't make it a skill at all.

 

[NewSal]

Hook_Jaw wrote:


I guess It all depends to me what kind of stream your fishing too. \
I have fished with new people that read the water fine to me of course as you fish a stream and fish more you know the stream better but to me that doesn't make it a skill at all.

I'd love to know your definition of skill.
Reading water isn't a skill?
It would be far fetched to call it an art, but a skill? Absolutely.

I can't tell if your actually serious, or just trolling.

Either way, that's ridiculous.

Maybe you're just not actually that great of a fisherman, and think that everyone isn't that great and just gets lucky sometimes.

A great fisherman knows where the trout are, without actually being able to see them. Reading water is a skill, and without that skill the fish you catch are just a reflection of you getting lucky.

 

[Swattie87]

Hook_Jaw wrote:
Ryan explain what you think reading the water is then and why it's a skill so I can respond to it.

No need for him to. I think your own posts acknowledge and pretty much lay out exactly why it's a skill...It's something that you improve on over time with more experience and knowledge, hence it's an acquired ability or skill:

Hook_Jaw wrote:
I have fished with new people that read the water fine to me of course as you fish a stream and fish more you know the stream better but to me that doesn't make it a skill at all.

 

[ryansheehan]

Hook_Jaw wrote:
Ryan explain what you think reading the water is then and why it's a skill so I can respond to it.

I am going to try to keep this reasonably short so Im sure I will leave some out.
1. Finding your prime lies and your sub-prime lies.
2. Creating a plan to fish all the lies as best you can with out disturbing the lie you want to fish next.
3. Adjust your positioning in the water so that you have the best chance at a drag free drift on your first cast through a good lie.
4. Anticipating what technique will get your fly into the correct spot in the water column while also maximizing strike detection.
5. Adjusting weight and fly depending on the water type, I'm not fishing the same flies through pocket water that I would through a long slow pool.
6. Understanding which way I will be setting the hook when I strike, up, downstream, upstream. This is something I have been working on but often forget.
7. Anticipating my mends, know wheather I will be mending up or down depending on the currents before my cast.

That is all for now, there is a lot more. For me reading water is not just knowing where fish are. Reading the water is gathering all the information you can before you make a cast. I believe in the 7 p's proper,prior planning prevents **** poor performance.

 

[foxtrapper1972]

And if you do 1 thru 7 properly and hook a nice one you will hopefully also have a plan of how to keep the fish out of logs and fast current etc so you can actually land it. (Which should be considered ahead of time especially with bigger fish).

 

[ryansheehan]

There's number 8, that one I'm working on too.

 

[Hook_Jaw]

My definition of reading the water differs from what some of you are thinking which is fine most of those things are to me techniques not reading the water.

Fighting the fish and landing it has nothing to do with reading water. Also depends on what your fishing nymphs, dries, streamers.

Everyone can think how they want that's what makes fishing great everyone has there own thoughts on things way and way do things.

Reading the water to me is knowing where the fish is laying and also where they are feeding all the other stuff casting it, getting a good mend etc. are techniques to me

Sal send me your email I'll send you some pics and you tell me If I'm not a good fisherman. Give me a shout when your up at penns I'll show you how to "read the water".

 

[NewSal]

Hook_Jaw wrote:

My definition of reading the water differs from what some of you are thinking which is fine most of those things are to me techniques not ready the water.

Fighting the fish and landing it has nothing to do with reading water. Also depends on what your fishing nymphs, dries, streamers.

Everyone can think how they want that's what makes fishing great everyone has there own thoughts on things way and way do things.

Sal send me your email I'll send you some pics and you tell me If I'm not a good fisherman. Give me a shout when your up at penns I'll show you how to "read the water".

Id be more then happy to fish with you, I don't wanna see your fish pics though, all fish look the same to me anymore. Ill let you know when I plan on fishing penns next, if you ever come fish the little j let me know as well.

 

[Hook_Jaw]

lol suit yourself then. Im more then happy to send you some pics

 

[ryansheehan]

I consider any mental prep before casting as reading the water, but of course I'm sure my definition might vary. I want to see some pics from penns.

 

[NewSal]

ryansheehan wrote:
I consider any mental prep before casting as reading the water

Dang, that's really broad, I kinda get what your saying though. To each his own, whatever you call it, I still think its a skill.

 

[ryansheehan]

Maybe it is generic but alll those things change according to what kind of water is in front of me. 90 percent of fishing is half mental

 

[sarce]

Just adding my two cents, no intention to make this flare up again, but I would have to disagree with Hook Jaw here. I've taught dozens of people how to fly fish, most of them with no fishing experience whatsoever (like, they show up asking how we catch the flies to fish with).

At that much of a novice level people have no concept of where fish live in the stream - because their idea of fishing is probably the same as most of the country, which is you go to a lake, cast out at random, sit on the bank, and hope a hungry fish swims by. Now take someone with that little knowledge and try explaining that the river in front of you only has fish in certain specific spots and you have to try to use what you see on the surface to predict where those spots are...it is definitely a skill that must be learned.

Another point I'll make is that just because someone has fished a lot does not mean they are good at reading water. Some people are more SKILLED at this than others. Yes it is a result of time and experiencing different situations on the water, but some people are better than others at applying that experience when faced with a new piece of water.