Identifier: favoritefishfish00hens (find matches)
Title: Favorite fish and fishing
Year: 1908 (1900s)
Authors: Henshall, James A. (James Alexander), 1836-1925
Subjects: Fishing
Publisher: New York, The Outing publishing company
Contributing Library: Harvard University, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Ernst Mayr Library
Digitizing Sponsor: Harvard University, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Ernst Mayr Library

View Book Page: Book Viewer
About This Book: Catalog Entry
View All Images: All Images From Book
Click here to view book online to see this illustration in context in a browseable online version of this book.

Text Appearing Before Image:
ing, andlook askance, If not with disdain and con-tempt, at the wet fly-fishers, whom they des-ignate as the chuck and chance It sort. I can not think that the position theyhave assumed can be justly maintained, orthat It Is warranted by the facts of the case.As dry fly-fishing is being taken up by afew American anglers, it may be wellenough to give the alleged superiority ofthe method some consideration.Modus Some years ago the modus operandi of Operandi ^^^ fly-fishIng was explained to me, person- ally, by Mr. William Senior, editor of theLondon Field. The angler waits beside theswim until a trout betrays Its whereaboutsby rising to a newly hatched gnat or fly,creating a dimple on the surface. Theangler then, kneeling on one knee, some-times having a knee-pad strapped on, cau-tiously casts his floating May-fly, withcocked wings, and anointed with parafl^nor vaseline. The fly Is deftly and lightlycast up-stream, a little above the swirl ofthe trout, and is permitted to float down, as
Text Appearing After Image:
The Trout naturally as possible, over the fish. Therebeing no response after a cast or two, theangler switches the fly In the air to dry It,and awaits the tell-tale evidence of a fishbefore again offering/ the buoyant lure.Now, I cannot Imagine why this method Isclaimed to be on a higher plane of anglingthan the chuck and chance It method.Certainly a knowledge of the habits of thetrout Is not essential, Inasmuch as the an-gler makes his cast only on the appearanceof the fish. On the other hand the wet fly-fisher, wad- The Wet Fiy- , , . . Fisher mg down stream or up stream, brmgs to hisaid his knowledge of the habits and hauntsof the trout, and casts his flies over everylikely spot where his experience leads him tothink a fish may He. It Is this eager ex-pectancy, or fond anticipation, with everycast, that makes up much of the real pleas-ure of angling, and which Is utterly lost tothe dry fly-fisher, who waits and watches onthe bank, like a kingfisher on his perch. While there can be

Note About Images