The whole thing is a jumble of conflicting ideas. When you really start thinking about it, you are left dazed and confused and your pet theories suffer some knockout blows. Perhaps some day we shall know all the answers, but I hope we never do. If ever we eliminate theory, conjecture, and imagination from fishing and make it an exact science, we will rob it of the charm that has made it the refuge of minds seeking relief from life’s burdens.
Fancy being able to fish by formula as you might mix a drink. Suppose you could pick up a book and find just what was needed, written something like this: “For condition B, use formula 1XYT,” or something similar. It would be tragic if fishing could be put on such as exact basis. As it is, we never know when we’re guessing right, and what seems absolutely right today may be all wrong tomorrow. Just when we feel we have everything figured out to our satisfaction, something comes along to upset all our calculations and makes us believe we don’t know a thing about fishing. When you find someone who answers all the questions, you can be sure that he doesn’t fish enough to know what it’s all about, or else — well, just or else.
Philosophy for the day found in a book on fishing for trout.
What more can I ask for than that?
By the way, I went back to the creek/ditch/branch behind Russellville Hospital and saw a good-sized darter, the largest one I’ve ever seen but didn’t have my pocket computer (a/k/a portable mini-me/smartphone) with me. Alas, the memory is all mine and mine alone to savor visually.