This page has been moved to http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/flytalk
If your browser doesn’t redirect you to the new location, please visit The Fly Talk at its new location: www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/flytalk.
Another Riddle ... Are You Game?
Kim and Amy were fishing a trout stream on a bright afternoon. Both have 20/20 vision. Both are wearing polarized glasses. Kim yelled to Amy, "Hey check out that big fish behind the rock in that run!" But Amy couldn't see it. "No it's right there ..." Kim said. Amy saw nothing, even though she was standing 20 feet from the fish. "Here, I'll show you," said Kim. She made one cast, and caught the fish, right in front of Amy. Why didn't Amy see the fish?
Deeter
kim could see the fish because Kim was standing at an angle to the fish that allowed her to see it's shadow.
Posted by: DayTripper | January 21, 2008 at 11:17 AM
Amy was standing on the wrong side of the rock. Polarized lenses may do wonders for cutting glare, but you still can't see through dark shadows, which is where I'm guessing this fish was hiding.
Posted by: Blue Ox | January 21, 2008 at 11:21 AM
Move your fishing partner exactly to where you are fishing so the glare does not cover the fish!!!
Is she standing on the opposite bank with the sun into her? She may also be standing above the rock and can't see behind it.
Posted by: Anthony | January 21, 2008 at 11:21 AM
The rock was in the way.
Posted by: Evan V | January 21, 2008 at 12:03 PM
kirk, this isn't really a riddle. this is retarded, there could have been a million reasons why amy didn't see the fish. you need to provide at least one more detail. maybe she was looking behind the wrong rock. maybe she didn't pick out the fish exactly (well camouflaged). was she standing up to her *** in water? glare?...inexperience? she had a speck of dust in her eye?
how many times have you been in a flats boat and a guide points out a (bone)fish and you still can't see it? sometimes you just don't pick them out.
Posted by: joey | January 21, 2008 at 12:26 PM
It's all about the angles.....Kim was closer to the water but maybe she is taller or had a higher vantage point? Or Kim was downstream of the fish therefore cutting the glare easier...My vote is AMY is vertically challenged?
Tyler
Posted by: | January 21, 2008 at 01:07 PM
by the way, if i was amy, i woulda slapped that beeyotch for being a smart ass. hope she wasn't her guide.
Posted by: joey | January 21, 2008 at 02:04 PM
You guys are all right ... the answer I was going for was: one angler was on one side of the river, with the sun behind her, Amy was on the other side of the river looking into the glare. Thus underscoring the number one rule for sight fishing, put the sun behind you when you can.
And Joey ... I ALWAYS see the fish.
Posted by: KD | January 21, 2008 at 02:38 PM
ALWAYS, eh?? after they spook doesn't count!!! lol...
Posted by: joey | January 21, 2008 at 03:52 PM
Well, in that case ... maybe not always. You gonna be in BA Feb 7th?
Posted by: KD | January 21, 2008 at 04:01 PM
mmm, no, have a big group up in aluminé i have to be with, then was planning on waiting. patty's coming up. maybe i can arrange for your visit. where are you going to be on the 7th?
Posted by: joey | January 21, 2008 at 04:15 PM
I'll be fishing with Patty.
Posted by: KD | January 21, 2008 at 06:10 PM
Kim had amber colored lenses and Amy had mirror type lenses.
Posted by: ec | January 21, 2008 at 07:24 PM
Some women can't even see past their nose.....if you get my drift.
Posted by: another voice | January 25, 2008 at 01:04 PM