Our questionings turned to the legitimacy of catching trout on a wet fly as opposed to a dry.
The classic empirycist's utilitarian argument versus a kind of Socratic idealism.
Dave is what most anglers call a dry-fly purist, a small sect of rigid, uncompromising traditionalists.
He asserts with conviction that the only trout worth catching is one caught on bits of feather and fur that imitates the adult form of a mayfly, caddis or whatever. Whereas, nymphing or dredging for trout sub-surface is an ignoble and wretched pursuit left only to the dissolute and damned fly-angler (perhaps one micro-step up from the bait and lure chuckers.)
He asserts with conviction that the only trout worth catching is one caught on bits of feather and fur that imitates the adult form of a mayfly, caddis or whatever. Whereas, nymphing or dredging for trout sub-surface is an ignoble and wretched pursuit left only to the dissolute and damned fly-angler (perhaps one micro-step up from the bait and lure chuckers.)
My reply: "Sometimes you just gotta catch fish, Dave."