The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1894-10-02
TROUT AND FLIES
SUPERSTlTlONS THAT ANGLERS IN
VARlABLY FOLLOW.
An Angler Discourses on the Taboos Of
the Sacred Fish-There seems to Be No
Reason why Other Bait Than Flies May
Not Be Used in Hooking Trout.

vi usluS any nyInlbB SrOSSer tndu al dluei'
Nearly all etAuettes, howsoever difficult
it may be to ,yerceive what originally gave
rise to then fare rational at bottom; but
this one seems an exception. There is no
obvious reason why worm or gentles or the
Alexandra fly or even minnow should be
tabooed. At least there is none that we
can see.
Perhaps If one were venturesome enough
to ask Hampshire fisherman in what
respect a minnow is offensive, we should
be told that it falls into the water with
shocking splash. The splash is undeniable;
but surely it is an inadequate explanation
Of the taboo. A minnow is not the only
thing that splashes. We have seen the
lightest dry fly splash abominably, to the
obvious terror of the trout; and the Hamp-
shire fisherman himself splashes, for he in
variably wades, and in that act disturbs
the water in half an hour more than all
the minnows in the tackle shops could pos
sibly do in day.
tits equally impossible to think that the
Objectionable characteristic Of the minnow
is that it is too killing. The minnow is not
killing at all. He who could do any good
with minnow in the pellucid waters of
chalk stream would be an artist of incom-
parable skill. The trout usually flee an
anglers minnow in perturbation COM
pared with which the author of "Salome's"
displeasure with the lord chamberlain is
equanimity. Can it be, then, that in ta-
booing the minnow our fishermen are
making virtue of necessity, and not
countenancing it merely because it is use
less? We might incline to this conjecture,
if it were not that the best managed dry
fly is usually useless too. Why are our
modern fishermen so fastidious as to the
means by which they achieve failure9
Illumination on tl.e gentle makes the
subject darker than ever. Indeed gentles,
which may be defined as maggots, wasp
grubs, caddis or any other white creeping
things, are treated according to code Of
angling morals which is quite inexplicably
arbitrary. You must not use a gentle
when it is "stone bait;" but you do
highly meritorious action when, ten min
utes afterward, he has taken to himself
the wings Of the greendrake and you seize
him TO adorn tail. You must not use
maggot from the butchers; but you are at
liberty to put bit of white leather on
fly hook, and that oddly enough is some
times lure more deadly than the gentle,
of which it is intended to be an imitation.
You must not use an Alexandra, but no
body will hinder you from working with
pinch Jock Scott if you are fool enough
toprefer that means of failure.
There is, however, reason for this par
ticular taboo. 1t is founded upon wis
dom akin to that of Theophile Gautier's
cat, which, hearing parrot speak, re-
marked refectively: "This is not bird.
This is gentleman. Listen to his CONVEX
sationw In the estimate of the conscien-
tious fisherman, the Alexandra fly is not a
fly. 1t is a minnow. Its dressing of feath-
ers looks like wings; but there are three
hooks underneath, and when the thing is
in the water it has the appearance Of a
green minnow.
Thus far the philosophy of the taboo is
unimpeachable; but we can 60 no further
The Alexandra's resemblance to aminnow
is no closer than that Of a brown hackle to
spider, which is so little close that we
have the audacity to doubt whether the
trout feels himself to be rising at a spider
when we feel that it is a spider we are Of
fering him. What cause indeed have we
to believe that fish take our lures in the
spirit in which they are given? Is it not
pretty well ascertained that there is no fly,
no shrimp, no prawn which has any like
ness to the blue devils, the thunder-and-
lightnings and other engines ON which
salmon willingly impale themselvesP What
can trout be thinking Of when it snaps at
parr tail? Let us hope that anglers will
not allow this so called Nineteenth century
to pass away with the premises of their
science unrevised. 1t is high time they
were considering the possibility that fish
take some lures merely for the fun of the
thing, or by way Of resenting an insult,
and not because the lures seem something
good to eat.
Having gone so far in heresy, we may as
well say word for the worm. Any one
caught in the act of fishing in Hampshire
with worm would be promptly expelled
by his cl4b. AS he would have broken the
rules, that would serve the rascal right
but really the taboo Of the worm is, like
crimes acts in the eyes of the Liberal par.
ty when it is the other party which has
passed them, means Of turning innocence
into wrong.
The worm in itself is inoffensive. Very
often, especially on bright summer day
it would be less of failure than fly usu
ally is, but that should not be accounted
to its discredit. The streams on which il
is forbidden are SO we'll stocked that nc
harm would be done, although all the fish
ermen on them tried worm now and then
and succeeded as often and as abundantly
as their skill permitted. Successful worm
fishing in clear stream is no mean art
1t might be rated higher than success with
the dry fly, for while it is true that tht
trout as rule prefer a worm to an in
sect, it is also true that to cast worm Sc
as to attract the fish is much more difficult
than to "place" dry fly neatly.-Londor
Saturday Review.
Chemistry OF Tear.
A tear from the eye Of a representative
Of the Caucasian races is found to be com.
posed of water, salt, soda, phosphate Of
line, phosphate of soda and mucus. From
the eye of an African the elements com
posing the tear are found to be the same as
the above, with the single exception Of the
phosphate of soda, and with the addition
Of a slight trace Of ammonia The Eski
mos and the fishing Firms seldom shed
tears, but when they do chemists say they
are exceedingly salty.
The chemical elements in the Caucasian
tear arrange themselves into particles that