SALMON-FISHING 239 



Judging from experience and observation, these are 

 fishing conundrums past the wit of man accurately, 

 or finally, to solve. 



Here, for example, is a concrete case. I was 

 fishing a comparatively small Orkla pool one day 

 with a friend. We often fished in couples. The 

 whole of the particular stream could be covered 

 casting from the bank. I fished it carefully down 

 first with a medium Jock Scott ; saw a good fish 

 show, but did not move him to my fly. Then my 

 friend followed after with a Wilkinson, also without 

 result. As if deriding our efforts, the fish now 

 leaped again, a fine fresh-run salmon. Without 

 great hope of getting him, I fished the pool yet 

 a third time with the same fly. On this occasion, 

 as the Jock Scott came over him, there was the boil 

 and the draw which meant a taking rise, then a tight 

 line and bending rod, and the fish, a fifteen -pounder, 

 was duly killed. 



Now, mark the argument. If I had changed my 

 fly to something different neither Jock Scott nor 

 Wilkinson and so killed the fish, the theorist would 

 confidently have said, and stuck to it, that the change 

 of fly was the cause of the success. Unfortunately 

 for the theorist, I had not changed my fly. 



Then, again, having refused two flies in succession, 

 why did the salmon take the third, and this third fly 

 one that he had already seen and sternly refused a 

 few moments before ? There seems to be no reason 

 in it. Does a salmon take a fly for fun, like a terrier 

 catching bluebottles, or is he simply hungry ? And 

 if hungry, why does his hunger come and go at 

 a moment's notice ? 



In my weaker moments I am prepared to maintain 



