Pond Boss Forums INTRO Questions & Observations Trophy Fish and Pellet Flies

I would like to raise the question with forum members as to whether a “pellet” fly caught fish should qualify as trophy status?

There was a comment on an earlier thread about BG’s caught on pellet flies:
Meadowlark:
“Sure, you can catch hundreds of BG at a fish feeder using a pellet fly and they will swallow the hook as you mentioned...but those are not trophy BG's.”

ML, would you please clarify if you mean that fish caught on pellet flies do not qualify for trophy status, or that “trophy” BG’s are difficult to catch regardless of bait/lure/fly?

I will be very interested in responses to this question.

George,

If being pellet trained would disqualify a fish, so would any other "unnatural" means of breeding, stocking, keeping, and feeding fish. In another vein, what if bass feed on Tshad that you artificially stocked in your pond, and you make a fly that mimics a small Tshad? I don't really see the distinction between flies.

In my way of thinking, everything about a constructed pond is either natural or everything is unnatural. ( I go with natural!) It all depends how you look at it. What good does it do to use all natural bait when the pond itself is an unnatural hole in the ground?

I can understand how rules would be set up to make things fair in certain competitions, however. How's that for waffling?

George, if you are smart enough to figure out what they will hit you deserve whatever rewards follow.
I caught a pacu with half of a grape and a tilapia on a piece of bread and when company comes I chum with pellets to catch dinner. I wouldn't claim a trophy for the "at the feeder" caught fish but everything else would be fair game, well maybe not the dynamited ones.

Just a question...but if you caught a bluegill at a feeder and felt this fish isn't qualified to be a trophy, then what if you caught a non pellet fed twelve pound largemouth that ate pellet fed bluegill?

It seems to me that we should all decide what constitutes a "trophy" for ourselves, and take great pride in fish that meet our own criteria. Isn't that what it's all about? If you feel a special pride in catching or raising a fish of special size, then to me, you've caught a trophy regardless of how others would diminish it.

George,
I could be wrong, but I imagine what ML meant by "those are not trophy BG" was that most people will not be catching trophy-sized BG at a feeder very often. Based on what I've seen at our BG pond, the mid-range BG disproportionately outnumber both the smaller BG and the trophy BG when taking the feed. Catching a trophy-sized BG by any method is tough enough, much less on a fly when "hundreds" of intermediate-sized BG are in a feeding frenzy.

That being said, if you catch trophy-SIZED BGs on a pellet fly that you thought of AND made yourself, then how could it not be considerd a "trophy," regardless of whether it was at the feeder? There's nothing wrong with adapting to what the BG are eating and adjusting your bait and presentation accordingly. That's just ingenuity. If anything, catching a trophy-sized BG would be more of what I would define as a "trophy" in such circumstances. That's because a "trophy" to me is more than just the size of the fish...it's the fact that you outsmarted a fish that defied the odds to get that big in the first place.

Thanks for all the responses...

Good points...I was hoping ML would clarify his statement.
I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that the largest gills are not always at the feeder, but off making love somewhere this time of the year.

A trophy fish is like beauty, it lies in the eyes of the beholder...
George

FWIW, I’ll relate a personal experience on acceptance of flies for record fish.

A number of years ago I developed a fly called a Spinster.
It had a small spinner/swivel attached.
When it was published in a national fly fishing magazine, there was a huge outcry from the purist fly fishing community that it was not a fly, but a lure.
It was accepted by many fishermen and today is popular among striped bass fishermen in many areas of the country.

Following years, Henry Cowen, fly fishing guide and fly innovator, came up with yet another spin fly version that he had accredited by the board of the IGFA, and the spinner fly will be qualified for any world record class fish.

Another innovation is currently taking place.
Years ago I began tying striped bass flies on a 60-degree bend jig hook, and early on it was frowned upon by the elitist fly fishing community.
It is now widely accepted and has become the “gold standard” for “hook point-up” flies.
An upcoming issue of Saltwater Flyfishing Magazine will recount the history.

There is no question in my mind that the pellet fly is a “match the hatch” fly and should qualify for any “private water” record.

I love driving those guys nuts... :p

A fly is anything that can be cast on a fly line...

Well stated, Davatsa. I may have misunderstood what Eric was saying, but I thought he was saying that because it was very easy to catch pond BG, then they aren't a fish worthy of a trophy label. Eric, if I'm wrong then please correct me.

I don't know of any easier way to catch BG, short of dynamite or electro-fishing than with a pellet fly thrown out right next to a fish feeder. It is automatic. It is can't miss. It would almost be impossible for anyone, regardless of angling skill, NOT to catch loads of BG at a fish feeder...but, in my experience, you won't catch any of the older, smarter, and generally larger BG that way.

Some people like no challenge fishing, some don't. I understood Eric to say he was one of those who relish a challenge. Anyone who would enlarge his pond with a shovel must indeed like a challenge and has my respect.

I can understand Eric's position if all he ever sees in ponds are easy to catch, small and mid-size BG. Those are the primary fish feeder BG in ponds. They can be caught without any angling skill or effort at a fish feeder.

However, the savy, larger BG are not the same fish as those that slurp down anything and everything thrown at them at a fish feeder, IMO. In the ponds, they offer an angling challenge equal to that of most any sport fish in the world, again IMO. I love those trophy BG and hate to see anyone's opinion of them based on what goes on at a fish feeder in a pond.

I repeat my offer to Eric, come to my place and let's go trophy BG fishing and then see what you think of them...there won't be any fish feeder fishing involved, I can promise you that.

:p

Good question Bruce...however the premise is wrong....at least as related to what I stated. I never said a feeder caught fish wasn't qualified to be a trophy...I said or meant to communicate that in my experience, the larger, older, more savy BG are not often caught at the feeders.

In spite of the incorrect premise, I'll take a shot at answering your qestion from my perspective...

In my view, it is a very personal decision in what one calls a trophy fish....no right or wrong, just personal choices. I have "trophy" fish on my wall that you would probably laugh at and ridicule. My application of "trophy" to a fish caught depends on the total environment/experience of the catch. For example, I recently had a Permit mounted. It wasn't large by any standard, won't set any records anywhere, wouldn't even deserve a second look by most folks...but that Permit was my first on the fly after many years of trying and was also part of a grand slam that was accomplished with a bunch of great guys in a terrific setting. I want to always remember that event. That's what makes a "trophy" to me.

One person's "trophy" may well be another person's trash. I've only caught one trophy pond fish in my lifetime...a huge CNBG that was caught and released without any documentation...just another fish story... That particular CNBG fought unlike any other I have caught in my lifetime. It left a "V" wake in the water as it zoomed in toward my fly, then took off like a bonefish. A full moon was rising, the fish charged the fly in shallow water, aggressively ate the fly, then proceeded to fight for its life unlike any other BG I have caught. It was a very special fish and I take great personal satisfaction in knowing that it was born and raised in my pond.

At some point in its life in my ponds, that fish presumably ate pellet feed. Heck, it may have even been caught by my grandkids at one time at a fish feeder. I call it a trophy, and the only pond fish I have designated as such, because of the total environment surrounding the catch.

Judge me, if you wish, but that is my personal definition of trophy and how I apply it and will continue to apply it as long as I fish.

As Bruce and ML and many others before have stated, the trophy is in the eye of the beholder. And I'd love to be beholdin' a great many fish whose photos have been posted here - most recently those BG of george's.

When I was a scrawny little 10 year old, I caught a 6 lbs carp. I was fishing for BG with my cousin and my Grandpa in my cousin's boat, sitting out on the hood (front deck?) in front of the windshield. I don't remember exactly how long it took me to land that carp, but it was a real fight and for most of the time I had two pairs of adult arms reaching over the windshield and holding me on the boat.

We kept that carp in Grandpa's freezer for a couple of years afterwards (inquisitive minds wondering where the famous Gallus wit came from may be interested to know that it had a large red radish thrust into it's mouth, ala apple and roast pig), occasionally taking it out to remininisce. I think we were both ticked off when Grandma threw it out while defrosting.

Now I don't care for carp, won't ever stock any, and don't care if I ever catch one in the future. But if forced to pick the memory of catching just one fish over the thousands of others I have landed, I will pick that 6 lbs carp. It was my first Trophy Fish.

Great story, Theo. It brings back wonderful memories of catching carp in the Ohio River and bullheads in my grandpa's pond on an old Zebco 202 almost 50 years ago. I remember those fish much better than the ones I caught 2 weeks ago.

Here's a personal observation that may, or may not, have application to any other situations.

I have a feeder on the pond that I gave to my Dad. The yellow perch eat almost exclusively pellets, and the bluegill probably get 1/3 to 1/2 of their nutrition from pellets. There is an excellent population of large invertebrates that the bluegill eat at their leisure, but quite a few of them slurp some pellets in the evening.

It is virtually impossible to catch a bluegill on a pellet imitation in this pond. My Dad and I have spent hours and hours concocting, inventing and dreaming up pellet imitations and ways to hook pellets. It's fun, and a great way to spend time together laughing and enjoying the weather and watching the feeding In about twenty total man-hours of trying, we caught a total of two bluegill using these methods all of last year. The bluegill are way too selective to the way the pellet floats, drifts, smells etc.

So why is this any different than using an artificial minnow imitation to fool and capture bluegill that are well fed on minnows? I don't see any difference. If I stock minnows in my pond, or any other forage fish, then use an imitation of that minnow to catch a fish isn't this the essence of fishing?

I wholeheartedly and emphatically disagree with the premise that all bluegill are easy to catch at a feeder. The bigger, smarter ones are significantly harder to catch in many circumstances. Not all circumstances, but enough to not make a blanket statement concerning how simple it is. There seems to be an underlying implication that a person who fishes around a feeder is dumb, or in some way cheating, which I think is unfair.

I'll give a blanket invitation to fish any of my ponds around a feeder with a pellet imitation and catch a trophy bluegill.

Good luck.

:D That carp was caught on a little 5'6" (Bronson) rod with the Zebco 202 Grandpa gave me! It was the first reel I mounted on a pole; I remember thinking what a huge improvement it was over the reel that came with the rod.

That rod, now sporting a Zebco 33 Legacy, is currently my daughter's favorite. She gets some "reely" good casts out of it.

"That carp was caught on a little 5'6" (Bronson) rod with the Zebco 202 Grandpa gave me! It was the first reel I mounted on a pole; I remember thinking what a huge improvement it was over the reel that came with the rod.

That rod, now sporting a Zebco 33 Legacy, is currently my daughter's favorite. She gets some "reely" good casts out of it."

Theo, my update was to a Zebco 33 I got for Christmas when I was 11 or 12. Still have it and it still works!

I had a spinning rod I used as a kid of 10 that I bought with babysitting money. I used it so much I wore grooves in the guides. Hung it up later for sentimental value and found it missing. My dad loaned it out to my ex brother-in-law and he slammed it in a car door. I was destroyed!

One last thought from me on this discussion.


Does anyone on this Forum have a small pond stocked with Georgia Giants? I do. Next to feeder fishing, and a very close second I might add, my Georgia Giant pond is the least challenging pond fishing I have ever seen or done.

Does it make me dumb for enjoying such a pond? (I can certainly predict the answer to that from some on here). Would you label someone who completely enjoys the pure, non-technical fishing in that pond as less of a fishing person than others? Then if you do, I'm the least, lowest ranked fishing person on this Forum, because I completely enjoy fishing that small pond for the TGG's. It is the purest form of fun fishing I have or have ever experienced.

Place your value judgements on your thoughts, not mine please. For me, I love all kinds of fishing and fish including the highly technical physically demanding saltwater flats fishing and the pure simple fishing for TGG's in a small pond. I try not to assign value judgements to anyone's choice of fishing forms or types...it's all fun to me, some less challenging than others, but all fun. Thanks.

Meadowlark,

I wouldn't judge you for that. Different strokes for different folks. After all what is the ultimate purpose anyway? Isn't it catching fish?

I know some guys that fish a local river for put and take trout. They go complete with the expensive fly rods, fancy flies, vests, etc. etc. They try to match the hatch yada yada yada.They act like such purists, but the trout knew nothing other than a concrete raceway before thy were dumped in! On top of that these guys pride themselves on catch and release although the river gets so warm in the summer most of them die! To me that makes a lot less sense than fishing your pond with hybrid bluegills. In fact, what you are doing makes sense. What they are doing is a waste of resources IMPO.

Had one of those guys and his wife out with his fancy tackle one day a few years ago when the trout pond was full of browns up to 12 lbs. I told them the browns would not be interested in their flies. They didn't listen. They flailed the water with their fancy flies for several hours taunted by an occasional monster brown clearing the water as if to laugh at them. Finally after a few hours I felt sorry for them and offered them some "pellet flies" and explained to them the browns really don't feed until about an hour before dark. They declined (didn't want to stoop to that level I guess) and left without a hit. Later some friends came over and had no problem using the pellet flies. They landed 9 browns in an hour up to 9 lbs. When I told one of these friends about the couple he laughed and said, "Heck we're just matching the hatch. We're giving them what they're used to. That's what fishing is all about along with catching isn't it?"

As you know I have another bent on my fishing. Since I sell my feed trained fish for top dollar every time I catch one I hear a Cha Ching! I love that sound! :p I have to pinch myself knowing not only do I get the satisfaction of growing these fish to large sizes, and get to catch them on hook and line, I get paid for it! What's even better is part of the profit goes to planting more. And you can bet I have been judged harshly when I post pics of my big fish on a regular fishing site. I've been told that is no more difficult than fishing in a bathtub but if they only knew even these fish are not always cooperative. And of course they tell me feeding fish is not fair as anyone can do that. We as pondmeisters know it's more complicated than that. Do you think Bruce could grow the fish he does by simply feeding them? I think we know better.

Gotta admit, I spend a lot of time catching perch (bluegills) with nightcrawlers.

For what it's worth, I can catch bluegills on nightcrawlers, pellet flies, and midge type topwater flies. I can catch them for awhile. Then, no matter what I do, they realize that there is a string attached and ignore my offers. However, they keep hitting the real pellets. I do occasionally, but rarely, catch a really big bluegill.

No matter what the size, I never measure them. I return them to the water ASAP. They seldom take a pellet fly deeply but always swallow my homemade pipe cleaner sinking flies.

One thing I think is clear on this Forum from all involved - that it is about the journey not the destination - its your pond and if its fun for you to fish no matter the method, and not illegal , then have at it and enjoy. I often fish with a pole and crickets for BG and RES. I never fish competitively with people. Just me vs. the fish and it wins most of the time no matter the method.

This is extremely well put. I couldn't agree more, Dave.

I like what ewest has to say. I believe the art and science of fishing should not be mixed with competition. Competition may take away from the true enjoyment of raising and catching fish. Now that's not to say that we aren't "competing" with the fish that we are trying to catch....

We should share pics and stories with each other for obvious and beneficial reasons, for the collective knowledge quest. But too much competition amongst each other tends to add weight and length to fish, and when it is obvious that this is the case, all the magic disappears quicker than a minnow can swim a dip-net.

Well said. I like the dip-net analogy. It really is about you and the fish, and nothing else really matters.

Good discussion guys.
Since I began this post, I should offer an explanation.

The pellet fly demo was tremendously popular at the PB conference, but I knew there would be “purists” that would offer challenges to it being a “legitimate” fly, and such was the case.

Personally I’m not into records, but I do document my fish with photo records for size and weight. I don’t like to spend my fishing time keeping written records.

I thank the respondents and agree with all pondmeisters – it’s your pond – enjoy.

George Glazener