TROUT FLY-FISHING IN AMERICA 



when the wet-fly is cast and fished upon or just under the 

 surface, so far as being "within the range of vision" is 

 concerned. 



Now consider the flies mentioned and determine for 

 yourself which fly is most Hkely to deceive the wary trout, 

 the one most nearly representing the natural fly or the 

 one which is a poor imitation? 



And to which fly would you expect the trout to rise, 

 assuming the attraction to be solely the fly and nothing 

 else? 



Can it be other than self-evident, first, that the dry- 

 fly would better deceive the trout, and, second, that the 

 trout would naturally rise to the most natural-looking 

 fly? 



Is it not fair and just, then, to say that so far as the fly 

 alone is concerned the dry-fly has the advantage over the 

 wet-flyf 



Now consider the dry-fly and the wet-fly when it is 

 fished below the surface of the water to a depth of twelve 

 inches, or so deep that the angler cannot see the fly, yet 

 not so deep as to prevent his seeing the rise or swirl of the 

 trout. 



The dry-fly is "within the range of vision," and the 

 wet-fly is without or beyond "the range of vision" . . . 

 With which fly, the wet or the dry, would it be easier to 

 strike and hook a rising trout, and with which fly would 

 the greater skill be required? 



Again, is it not self-evident, first, that it would be 



62 



