Dry fly subtleties

MIKE DUXBURY has learned to scale down and vary his stillwater dry flies to bring further success

Last month I was raving about the effectiveness of the dry fly for stillwater trout. After an initial honeymoon period with the technique I was faced with various challenging circumstances.
I found that some days the trout would rise to a dry fly with an aggressive abandon (on these occasions all you have to do is hang on to your rod!) and yet the very next day they could be frustratingly fickle. The dry fly is still attracting the attention of numerous fish; however, they are far more circumspect and wary, creating a boil near the fly which appears to be a take but does not result in a hook up. This may be due to either the trout recognising your fly as an artificial and swirling away at the last moment; rapidly rejecting the fly once taken; or trying to drown the fly first and then taking it at its leisure.

When this first happened to me I spent the whole day experimenting with the timing of the strike, but to no avail. This was clearly a problem that needed to be solved before I went out again. That evening I searched through back issues of FF&FT in order to find out how the experts had approached this problem, and found Ian Gaskell's Slow on the Draw (June 1996 issue) which dealt with it in detail.

On my next visit I was drifting across Eyebrook in a light ripple. Once more the trout were turning away from the fly at the last moment. However, this time I had some tricks up my sleeve. My team of size 10 Hoppers were clearly too big for this light ripple. I therefore scaled down to a size 12 on the point and size 14 on the droppers (I usually use a 15ft leader with two droppers five feet apart). I also scaled down from an 8lb BS copolymer leader to a 6lb BS (copolymer has several advantages over fluorocarbon in that it is not as dense and therefore does not sink so readily, thus the flies are less prone to sinking. It is also really thin relative to its breaking strain). Once the size of the fly was reduced the trout became much less cautious and would take the flies with more confidence. Even so, I would still find that there would be occasions where after striking to a rise there was still no hook up.

I found that by following Ian Gaskell's advice I could greatly increase my chances of success if I responded to a rise with an initial slow, steady draw of the line instead of striking. If resistance is felt on the draw I could convert this into a full strike. If nothing is felt during the draw then the fly (which by now has sunk) has only been moved about 18 inches and is then left static slowly sinking (the trout's window of vision is very restricted when it is cruising just below the surface thus a firm strike snatches the fly well away from the fishes visual field). This presentation often results in a much more positive follow up take as this provides further triggers to the trout such as a drowned fly or one that is attempting to escape. Failing this, the sunken dry can be retrieved as if it was a wet fly with a slow steady draw.
I also discovered that it is well worth varying the type of dry flies on my leader. I noticed that the fish can switch from day to day or even within the same day to having a preference for Emerger patterns such as Klinkhamers or Shuttlecock Buzzers. In a changeover period or where the takes to a dry pattern such as a Hopper tail off, it is well worth having a mix of Emergers and dries on the same leader.

I found that some days the team of dry flies are more effective when fished static and on others a very slow retrieve (which does not sink the flies) creating a tiny wake can make all the difference.

Mike Duxbury writes about learning and developing his stillwater flies and techniques every month in Fly Fishing and Fly Tying.