Question:

Good Morning to all,     I have been lerking in this room for about a month now. I really enjoy the information passed and the whit that is flung around the room. I decided to finally make myself known so that I may contribute (what little I do know)if the need arises.     I have been fishing for most of my life, but did not get into fly fishing until about 3 or 4 years ago. I tie, but not too well. Practice makes perfect though. Retired from the military and trying to make my way in the civilian sector. So far, so good. Maryland resident working with frank reid. He told me about this group. Thanks Frank!     Anyways, I look forward to reading more. Dan Mattice Sr.

If you REALLY want to see a bunch of fly fishing junkies, go on over to ROFF  (rec.outdoors.fishing.fly)   — A question is better debated and left unanswered than a question that is answered without debate. -Unknown

Response:

Dan,    Just saw this and welcome to the group.  Flytying is a wonderful diversion for those who like to experience a wider range of fly fishing activity.  Now, get back to work.  ;-)           Frank

Response:

Good Morning to all,      I have been lerking in this room for about a month now. I really enjoy the information passed and the whit that is flung around the room. I decided to finally make myself known so that I may contribute (what little I do know)if the need arises.      I have been fishing for most of my life, but did not get into fly fishing until about 3 or 4 years ago. I tie, but not too well. Practice makes perfect though. Retired from the military and trying to make my way in the civilian sector. So far, so good. Maryland resident working with frank reid. He told me about this group. Thanks Frank!      Anyways, I look forward to reading more. Dan Mattice Sr.

Response:

Question:

For Christmas one year, I got a large wooden "book like" router bit holder. and let me tell ya! It works great as a tackle holder, too!!! I sure got some funky looks for that one from my family……hopefully, I get another one this year! Mike

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I keep my hooks, jigheads, and other such terminal gear in a Plano plastic box. The one I am using now has lids on each side. It would be much better if it opened like a book, or, err, uh, a fly box. I saw such a thing a Home Depot by Dewalt, but it is not quite big enough. It is *very* nice though. And, it might just be big enough… — Citizen Fisherman

Response:

What does it look like??? — regards, RichG

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – For Christmas one year, I got a large wooden "book like" router bit holder. and let me tell ya! It works great as a tackle holder, too!!! I sure got some funky looks for that one from my family……hopefully, I get another one this year! Mike I keep my hooks, jigheads, and other such terminal gear in a Plano plastic box. The one I am using now has lids on each side. It would be much better if it opened like a book, or, err, uh, a fly box. I saw such a thing a Home Depot by Dewalt, but it is not quite big enough. It is *very* nice though. And, it might just be big enough… — Citizen Fisherman

Response:

It’s a hinged wooden box with compartments in the inside that hold bits. They are just the right size to hold a med spinnerbait that has the two ends squeezed together, various worms, rapala, etc.  good for when your shore fishing….even though I haven’t shore fished in years……. but, you can bring just the necessary stuff and that is it. Mike

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – What does it look like??? — regards, RichG For Christmas one year, I got a large wooden "book like" router bit holder. and let me tell ya! It works great as a tackle holder, too!!! I sure got some funky looks for that one from my family……hopefully, I get another one this year! Mike I keep my hooks, jigheads, and other such terminal gear in a Plano plastic box. The one I am using now has lids on each side. It would be much better if it opened like a book, or, err, uh, a fly box. I saw such a thing a Home Depot by Dewalt, but it is not quite big enough. It is *very* nice though. And, it might just be big enough… — Citizen Fisherman

Response:

Question:

Putting all that together, I gather that I haven’t broken a rod while casting because I use a roll cast or retrieve enough of a wet line to avoid that overload on the lift, and I’m never over bending the rod while casting.  The fatal errors come in the heat of battle. The more I think about it, I see what you mean about casting being the heaviest force on the rod. Thanks for your help, Chas

Response:

The force generated by "hauling" is not "applied directly" to the line. It’s applied though the loaded, and increasingly loaded, rod.

If it’s done right the rod is already fully loaded and you are just accelerating the line and, more importantly, the tip of the line. — Charlie…

Response:

The force generated by "hauling" is not "applied directly" to the line. It’s applied though the loaded, and increasingly loaded, rod. If it’s done right the rod is already fully loaded and you are just accelerating the line and, more importantly, the tip of the line. — Charlie…

Charlie, Your analysis of hauling to increase line speed and thus increasing casting distance is correct.  If it was a matter of loading the rod as rw says the caster would only have to apply more power to accomplish this. Ernie

Response:

rw, If the haul is done correctly the rod is fully loaded and any additional speed must be imparted to the line by foreword movement of your arm and by pulling "hauling" the line through the guides. Ernie – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I have to doubt that additional rod loading is minimal, Mike. The only way the caster can increase the speed of the line is by accelerating it. The only way he can accelerate it is by exerting a force on the line at the rod tip. (F=ma). An equal and opposite force is exerted on the rod at the tip, which results in loading the rod.

Response:

Charlie, Your analysis of hauling to increase line speed and thus increasing casting distance is correct.  If it was a matter of loading the rod as rw says the caster would only have to apply more power to accomplish this. Ernie

I’m not saying that the *point* of hauling is to load the rod. I’m saying only that one *effect* of hauling is additional loading of the rod. It has to have that effect — there’s no way around it. Hauling accelerates the line, which generates a force on the rod tip. (F=ma) Consider three cases: 1. After loading the rod on the forward cast (with no hauling), you accidently lose your grip on the line with your noncasting hand. The acceleration of the line vanishes, the force on the rod tip vanishes, the rod straightens without appreciably affecting the line, and the line falls on the water in a bloody mess. 2. You make a normal forward cast without hauling, just holding the line tight. A force is applied to the line by the rod tip, causing acceleration of the line. An equal and opposite force is applied to the rod top, causing loading of the rod. 3. You make a forward cast while hauling. The action of the noncasting hand, pulling on the line, causes an *additional* acceleration of the line. This additional acceleration causes an *additional* force on the rod tip, resulting in additional loading of the rod. If you ignore things like friction, you could replace the effect (on the rod) of hauling by a transient additional stress in the line, and the rod would have no way of "knowing" the difference. It would simply load more. (The line would behave very differently, though.) These three cases are really just points in a continuum. Whether you consider this additional rod loading to be significant is your business, but it’s nonetheless real. This is just elementary physics. — visit my web site: http://home.earthlink.net/~royalwulff/

Response:

Whether you consider this additional rod loading to be significant is your business, but it’s nonetheless real. This is just elementary physics.

It also ignores the fact that the line is not attached to the tip of the rod and that the rod is very nearly, if not fully, loaded. There may be some additional loading, but what makes the haul work is the additional acceleration applied directly to the line. This is just elementary geometry<g. — Charlie…

Response:

http://www.mikeconnor.de You didn’t comment on my second reason.  Does this make sense to you?      A second reason that the loading is not the key is that you could achieve the same additional loading if you just applied a bit more casting force.  We know that a man of modest strength and a good haul can outcast a muscle man who doesn’t haul. Thanks Chas

This is also correct.    The amount of linespeed any particular rod may generate in a flyline by direct action is limited by various things, one of which is the strength and speed of the caster. ( assuming once again perfect technique). If you haul, you do not increase the loading, as you do not use direct rod action, but your line hand, and you do not require any more strength and speed to obtain similar results to someone who does not haul. However, a powerful person with good technique will always cast better ( assuming distance casting here of course), than a weaker person, simply because he has more power per se. TL MC

Response:

– "Where fishing is concerned, most anglers are basically manic excessives" http://www.mikeconnor.de – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If it were so that hauling dramatically increased rod loading, then hauling on an already optimally loaded rod would cause it to fold up. I’ve been mean to a few rods at times, putting a #10 line in a #8 rod and casting Pike flies for instance, but I’ve never managed to break one casting.  Is this because most of my fishing has been with Graphite or Glass? I have to dig back into some old Physics books to get the details, but I remember stress and strain curves for various materials showing a linear relationship until a limit was released, and then additional stress produced excessive strain until the material failed.  Certainly with an old shoe or a fish on the line and a stout leader it’s easy enough to pass the elastic limit, but does that happen in casting as well? Thanks Chas

If you ask most people at what point a rod is stressed the most, then many of them will tell you that it is in playing a fish.  This is not the case. The basic maximum stress condition for a rod, when used correctly, is when casting. Most modern rods can stand a great deal more stress in this respect than is generally realised.  What they can not stand is shock loading under stress. If you jerk a rod when it is already loaded with a "dead weight", either played out fish, old shoe etc etc then it is highly likely to break. Solid glass fibre rods were probably the most robust rods to date.  Carbon fibre suffers from one or two disadvantages here. Even a slight nick in the surface of a blank can cause sudden massive failure, sometimes the blank will simply shatter without warning. More rods are broken by various extraneous factors than by casting.  The failure might indeed occur when casting, but is usually the result of some other fault. Car doors, falling down on the rod, excessive heat, leaning a rod on a stone and nicking it, ramming the tip into a tree, etc etc. Constantly overloading a rod by casting full lines etc, which are way over the rated weight will usually cause a blank failure as well of course. Most rods broken while actually fishing, do so for a number of reasons, the main one directly fishing related, is getting snagged, putting a good bend in the rod, and then jerking it.  This will quite easily snap a carbon fibre blank, or shatter it . The sudden extreme shock loading under stress is more than the rod can handle. The second most common reason is trying to lift a long line, especially a sunken one, without first roll-casting the line to the surface. Attempting to do this will break most rods. The sudden massive loading is once again more than they can stand. The third most common reason is attempting to land a fish by holding the rod almost vertically, and allowing it to bend over ninety degrees from the vertical. The fish plunges, and the rod simply snaps at the tip. No major exertions are required here by the way, doing the same thing while threading a line through the rings  will also snap a rod tip quite easily. What often happens here, is that the rod is bent, and then the blank "rolls" suddenly changing the stress patterns in the blank walls, and causing it to break. Occasionally rods are broken when fighting very large fish, but this is again an error on the part of the angler. It should normally be impossible for a fish to break a rod, given sufficient angling skill, and correct tackle.. Holding a rod in the fingers and bending it, is also very dangerous. Especially with fine tips. Assuming a rod in good condition, no nicks etc. And also assuming correctly matched line, and reasonable casting, and correct use, then the likelihood of breaking a rod is actually very low indeed. TL MC

Response:

"Mike Connor" wrote This is not a matter of taking sides I hope. Otherwise I will simply retire from the discussion. This is a technical discussion and nothing more.

Of course, my sloppy wording betrayed me. Apart from that, you are perfectly correct. Although the rod loading generated by hauling is inconsequential, irrespective of the current loading state of the rod.  When the rod is already optimally loaded, and as you say at its stiffest, the added loading generated by hauling is so small as to be insignificant. This is just as well, as if hauling did in fact appreciably increase rod loading, then an already optimally loaded rod would simply fold up under the added strain.

You didn’t comment on my second reason.  Does this make sense to you?      A second reason that the loading is not the key is that you could achieve the same additional loading if you just applied a bit more casting force.  We know that a man of modest strength and a good haul can outcast a muscle man who doesn’t haul.

Thanks Chas

Response:

If it were so that hauling dramatically increased rod loading, then hauling on an already optimally loaded rod would cause it to fold up.

I’ve been mean to a few rods at times, putting a #10 line in a #8 rod and casting Pike flies for instance, but I’ve never managed to break one casting.  Is this because most of my fishing has been with Graphite or Glass? I have to dig back into some old Physics books to get the details, but I remember stress and strain curves for various materials showing a linear relationship until a limit was released, and then additional stress produced excessive strain until the material failed.  Certainly with an old shoe or a fish on the line and a stout leader it’s easy enough to pass the elastic limit, but does that happen in casting as well? Thanks Chas

Response:

When you haul you’re loading the rod by making it work harder against the inertia of the line. I don’t really think "shortening the line" is a good way to look at it. A haul takes in maybe two or three feet of line, and you have maybe 30 feet or more out. I agree with what you’re saying, but I can "cast" nearly thirty feet by using only my right arm as the rod (with fingers in O shape to act as the tiptop) and a lefthand haul. So there’s more to it than just the rod tip.

Your finger is playing the role of the rod tip in that case. — visit my web site: http://home.earthlink.net/~royalwulff/

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text —— Original Message —– Newsgroups: rec.outdoors.fishing.fly Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2000 6:33 AM This would be correct if the line was fixed at the rod tip. When hauling it is not. It moves more or less freely through the guides. The force applied is applied directly to the line, independent of the rod loading.  The "equal and opposite reaction" in this case, is immediate line acceleration due to a direct pull, and is independent of the rod. Some of this force( a relatively small amount actually ) does indeed go towards the total rod loading, but compared to the force which is transferred to the line, this may be more or less ignored. I’m afraid you’re missing the point, Mike. It’s really irrelevant whether the line is fixed or free to move through the guides. There is a force exerted on the line, by the rod tip, that accelerates the line. There is a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the rod tip. That force has the effect of bending the rod. The greater the force, the more the line is accelerated, and the more the rod is bent (i.e., loaded). None of this force can be "ignored". The force generated by "hauling" is not "applied directly" to the line. It’s applied though the loaded, and increasingly loaded, rod. The acceleration is induced by a direct pull on the line, and is only possible because the line is indeed able to move independent of the rod tip. The point is, that when you haul, the line moves, and the rod does not, or only slightly. Thread your rod up with a line. Lay the line out and point the rod straight down the line.  Grasp the line at the butt, and pull sharply. The rod has not been loaded in any way, but the line will spring towards you. The direct pull moves the mass directly. Do the same thing holding the rod at an angle to the line, The same thing occurs, with a relatively small proportion of the applied force bending the rod tip slightly, if at all. Progressively increase the angle until the rod is at right angles to the line. At this point the maximum possible rod loading, under these circumstances, will occur when you pull on the line, nevertheless, the majority of the energy involved still goes towards moving the line, the tip will barely move. It is quite immaterial how hard, how long, or how fast you pull. The energy is transferred directly to the line. The rod is barely affected. The angle of the rod changes the vector, and the rod loads a little, due to friction mainly, but the majority of the energy involved goes into moving the line. If it were so that hauling dramatically increased rod loading, then hauling on an already optimally loaded rod would cause it to fold up. This is not the case. The result of hauling is dramatically increased linespeed, because of the direct application of force to the line.  You dont have to believe me, just try it. This is also incidentally why striking a fish with a pull on the line is better than doing it with the rod. The force applied is transferred more or less directly, with very little loss, to the hook point. The rod does not move much,  and  is not loaded appreciably. Only the line moves. If you strike with the rod, you must first load it, before you can apply any force at all, and because of the mechanical disadvantage involved, the force you transfer will be minimal, and indirect. The principles are the same in both cases. In one case you are transferring energy to accelerate a mass using the short end of a flexible lever, and in the other case you are doing it by giving a direct pull.  The lever is in the second case quite immaterial, and may be ignored. TL MC Again, there’s no "direct" pull on the line. ALL the force affecting the airborne line is generated at the rod tip. If you lay  a piece of string along a table top, and pull one end, depending on the force and speed with which you pull, you can accelerate the string quite easily, giving it very considerable momentum. The string accelerates immediately, simply as a result of the pull. No rods etc are involved. The only force involved is the direct pull. Sure, but that’s not what’s happening when the line is strung though a rod. You (the caster) can exert a force on the line in your left (hauling) hand, but the only force that can be exerted on the airborne line *outside* the rod is exerted at the rod tip. Before hauling was discovered, the line momentum was indeed totally dependent on the acceleration of the rod tip. With hauling, this is no longer the case.  When hauling, the extra line velocity is independent of the rod tip. I’m not saying *anything* about the acceleration of the rod tip. I’m only saying that the force on the line (outside the rod) is generated ONLY at the rod tip. Where else? — visit my web site: http://home.earthlink.net/~royalwulff/ "Where fishing is concerned, most anglers are basically manic excessives" http://www.mikeconnor.de

Response:

This is not a matter of taking sides I hope. Otherwise I will simply retire from the discussion. This is a technical discussion and nothing more. Apart from that, you are perfectly correct. Although the rod loading generated by hauling is inconsequential, irrespective of the current loading state of the rod.  When the rod is already optimally loaded, and as you say at its stiffest, the added loading generated by hauling is so small as to be insignificant. This is just as well, as if hauling did in fact appreciably increase rod loading, then an already optimally loaded rod would simply fold up under the added strain. TL MC — "Where fishing is concerned, most anglers are basically manic excessives" http://www.mikeconnor.de – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – RW,     I have to side with Mike here, for a couple reasons.  If the haul is done right, it happens when the rod is fully loaded.  At that point it’s at it’s stiffest, and the flex isn’t increased much by the added force.  The reaction force is actually the force you apply with your line hand when you haul the line in.      A second reason that the loading is not the key is that you could achieve the same additional loading if you just applied a bit more casting force.  We know that a man of modest strength and a good haul can outcast a muscle man who doesn’t haul.      Also, there is direct pull on the line, the guides are like pulleys.  If you consider an 18 inch haul, and watch the effect on the rod tip, I bet it’s drawn back less than 4 inches.  The other 14 inches were directly applied to the line. Chas

Response:

This would be correct if the line was fixed at the rod tip. When hauling it is not. It moves more or less freely through the guides. The force applied is applied directly to the line, independent of the rod loading.  The "equal and opposite reaction" in this case, is immediate line acceleration due to a direct pull, and is independent of the rod. Some of this force( a relatively small amount actually ) does indeed go towards the total rod loading, but compared to the force which is transferred to the line, this may be more or less ignored.

I’m afraid you’re missing the point, Mike. It’s really irrelevant whether the line is fixed or free to move through the guides. There is a force exerted on the line, by the rod tip, that accelerates the line. There is a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the rod tip. That force has the effect of bending the rod. The greater the force, the more the line is accelerated, and the more the rod is bent (i.e., loaded). None of this force can be "ignored". The force generated by "hauling" is not "applied directly" to the line. It’s applied though the loaded, and increasingly loaded, rod. The acceleration is induced by a direct pull on the line, and is only possible because the line is indeed able to move independent of the rod tip.

Again, there’s no "direct" pull on the line. ALL the force affecting the airborne line is generated at the rod tip. If you lay  a piece of string along a table top, and pull one end, depending on the force and speed with which you pull, you can accelerate the string quite easily, giving it very considerable momentum. The string accelerates immediately, simply as a result of the pull. No rods etc are involved. The only force involved is the direct pull.

Sure, but that’s not what’s happening when the line is strung though a rod. You (the caster) can exert a force on the line in your left (hauling) hand, but the only force that can be exerted on the airborne line *outside* the rod is exerted at the rod tip. Before hauling was discovered, the line momentum was indeed totally dependent on the acceleration of the rod tip. With hauling, this is no longer the case.  When hauling, the extra line velocity is independent of the rod tip.

I’m not saying *anything* about the acceleration of the rod tip. I’m only saying that the force on the line (outside the rod) is generated ONLY at the rod tip. Where else? — visit my web site: http://home.earthlink.net/~royalwulff/

Response:

Additional rod loading when hauling is  minimal.  Most of the force used is transmitted directly to the line, increasing its speed immediately and drastically. Momentum = Mass * Velocity

I have to doubt that additional rod loading is minimal, Mike. The only way the caster can increase the speed of the line is by accelerating it. The only way he can accelerate it is by exerting a force on the line at the rod tip. (F=ma). An equal and opposite force is exerted on the rod at the tip, which results in loading the rod. — visit my web site: http://home.earthlink.net/~royalwulff/

Response:

This would be correct if the line was fixed at the rod tip. When hauling it is not. It moves more or less freely through the guides. The force applied is applied directly to the line, independent of the rod loading.  The "equal and opposite reaction" in this case, is immediate line acceleration due to a direct pull, and is independent of the rod. Some of this force( a relatively small amount actually ) does indeed go towards the total rod loading, but compared to the force which is transferred to the line, this may be more or less ignored. The acceleration is induced by a direct pull on the line, and is only possible because the line is indeed able to move independent of the rod tip. If you lay  a piece of string along a table top, and pull one end, depending on the force and speed with which you pull, you can accelerate the string quite easily, giving it very considerable momentum. The string accelerates immediately, simply as a result of the pull. No rods etc are involved. The only force involved is the direct pull. Before hauling was discovered, the line momentum was indeed totally dependent on the acceleration of the rod tip. With hauling, this is no longer the case.  When hauling, the extra line velocity is independent of the rod tip. TL MC — "Where fishing is concerned, most anglers are basically manic excessives" http://www.mikeconnor.de – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Additional rod loading when hauling is  minimal.  Most of the force used is transmitted directly to the line, increasing its speed immediately and drastically. Momentum = Mass * Velocity I have to doubt that additional rod loading is minimal, Mike. The only way the caster can increase the speed of the line is by accelerating it. The only way he can accelerate it is by exerting a force on the line at the rod tip. (F=ma). An equal and opposite force is exerted on the rod at the tip, which results in loading the rod. — visit my web site: http://home.earthlink.net/~royalwulff/

Response:

One other point.  Inertia is the direct measurement of a mass.  The only way to change inertia is to change the mass. One may not "break" inertia.  One may overcome it, ( move the mass) by applying force. Newtons laws explain this relatively simply. The first law states that:  " A body will remain at rest, or continue to move steadily in a straight line without acceleration unless it is acted on by an unopposed force. The second law states: "The acceleration of a body depends directly on the force acting on it but inversely upon its mass" The third law states: "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" Force is a measure of the rate at which momentum is changed. TL MC — "Where fishing is concerned, most anglers are basically manic excessives" http://www.mikeconnor.de – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Additional rod loading when hauling is  minimal.  Most of the force used is transmitted directly to the line, increasing its speed immediately and drastically.

Response:

I sure hope you’re not breaking your wrist with this arm cast, which would be very bad form, you know. JR – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I agree with what you’re saying, but I can "cast" nearly thirty feet by using only my right arm as the rod (with fingers in O shape to act as the tiptop) and a lefthand haul. So there’s more to it than just the rod tip. In fact, in a blindfold test I can’t tell the difference between a Cabelas rod and my own arm

Response:

So, In your estimation, does your wrist have a fast action or slow action and how does it affect your distance?

Well, it’s not a limp wrist I’ll tell you that much And while it *is* acting as the rod tip, it’s not loading in the same sense as a fly rod is it? Isn’t most of the line action due to acceleration because I’m pulling on it (and not wrist flip caused by the pulling)? –Steve

Response:

RW,     I have to side with Mike here, for a couple reasons.  If the haul is done right, it happens when the rod is fully loaded.  At that point it’s at it’s stiffest, and the flex isn’t increased much by the added force.  The reaction force is actually the force you apply with your line hand when you haul the line in.      A second reason that the loading is not the key is that you could achieve the same additional loading if you just applied a bit more casting force.  We know that a man of modest strength and a good haul can outcast a muscle man who doesn’t haul.      Also, there is direct pull on the line, the guides are like pulleys.  If you consider an 18 inch haul, and watch the effect on the rod tip, I bet it’s drawn back less than 4 inches.  The other 14 inches were directly applied to the line. Chas

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – This would be correct if the line was fixed at the rod tip. When hauling it is not. It moves more or less freely through the guides. The force applied is applied directly to the line, independent of the rod loading.  The "equal and opposite reaction" in this case, is immediate line acceleration due to a direct pull, and is independent of the rod. Some of this force( a relatively small amount actually ) does indeed go towards the total rod loading, but compared to the force which is transferred to the line, this may be more or less ignored. I’m afraid you’re missing the point, Mike. It’s really irrelevant whether the line is fixed or free to move through the guides. There is a force exerted on the line, by the rod tip, that accelerates the line. There is a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the rod tip. That force has the effect of bending the rod. The greater the force, the more the line is accelerated, and the more the rod is bent (i.e., loaded). None of this force can be "ignored". The force gener ated by "hauling" is not "applied directly" to the line. It’s applied though the loaded, and increasingly loaded, rod. The acceleration is induced by a direct pull on the line, and is only possible because the line is indeed able to move independent of the rod tip. Again, there’s no "direct" pull on the line. ALL the force affecting the airborne line is generated at the rod tip. If you lay  a piece of string along a table top, and pull one end, depending on the force and speed with which you pull, you can accelerate the string quite easily, giving it very considerable momentum. The string accelerates immediately, simply as a result of the pull. No rods etc are involved. The only force involved is the direct pull. Sure, but that’s not what’s happening when the line is strung though a rod. You (the caster) can exert a force on the line in your left (hauling) hand, but the only force that can be exerted on the airborne line *outside* the rod is exerted at the rod tip. Before hauling was discovered, the line momentum was indeed totally dependent on the acceleration of the rod tip. With hauling, this is no longer the case.  When hauling, the extra line velocity is independent of the rod tip. I’m not saying *anything* about the acceleration of the rod tip. I’m only saying that the force on the line (outside the rod) is generated ONLY at the rod tip. Where else? — visit my web site: http://home.earthlink.net/~royalwulff/

Response:

So, In your estimation, does your wrist have a fast action or slow action and how does it affect your distance? Paul

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – When you haul you’re loading the rod by making it work harder against the inertia of the line. I don’t really think "shortening the line" is a good way to look at it. A haul takes in maybe two or three feet of line, and you have maybe 30 feet or more out. I agree with what you’re saying, but I can "cast" nearly thirty feet by using only my right arm as the rod (with fingers in O shape to act as the tiptop) and a lefthand haul. So there’s more to it than just the rod tip. In fact, in a blindfold test I can’t tell the difference between a Cabelas rod and my own arm –Steve

Response:

Additional rod loading when hauling is  minimal.  Most of the force used is transmitted directly to the line, increasing its speed immediately and drastically. Momentum = Mass * Velocity A very short haul of a couple of inches is sufficient to increase line speed drastically, and thus increase its momentum, allowing the mass to be thrown a greater distance. The harder(force), longer ( distance) and faster( time) the haul, the greater the resulting line momentum, independent of the rod.  The same effect may be observed without using a rod at all. Shortening line decreases the mass, and therefore reduces momentum.  As far as hauling is concerned this is more or less negligible. Shortening the line by even a couple of feet, does not reduce its mass by much. If you overload the rod, the haul will still be effective, but due to the rod already being overloaded, additional strain, even slight, due to shock loading might damage it. Otherwise the length of line ( total mass ) is irrelevant when hauling. The effect is the same with or without a rod, and with any length of line. TL MC — "Where fishing is concerned, most anglers are basically manic excessives" http://www.mikeconnor.de – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – From what I’ve always been told,  the reason that hauling improves the line speed is that additional loading is put into the rod by the action of hauling. Obviously the hauling is done during the power phases fore and aft.  An immediate reaction of the hauling action is a shortening of the line,  and therefore an increase in velocity:  Is it at all significant compared to the additional loading of the rod?  Is the inertia of the line broken by the haul and therefore allows the spring of the rod to work on an already moving line? I suppose the way to test it out would be to overline a rod and cast a sufficient length of line to overload the rod.  Would hauling be effective? According to the simple haul/loading spring idea,  the haul would (perhaps) be ineffective, though the shortening of the line (derived from the haul) would still prevail?

Response:

When you haul you’re loading the rod by making it work harder against the inertia of the line. I don’t really think "shortening the line" is a good way to look at it. A haul takes in maybe two or three feet of line, and you have maybe 30 feet or more out.

I agree with what you’re saying, but I can "cast" nearly thirty feet by using only my right arm as the rod (with fingers in O shape to act as the tiptop) and a lefthand haul. So there’s more to it than just the rod tip. In fact, in a blindfold test I can’t tell the difference between a Cabelas rod and my own arm –Steve

Response:

From what I’ve always been told,  the reason that hauling improves the line speed is that additional loading is put into the rod by the action of hauling. Obviously the hauling is done during the power phases fore and aft.  An immediate reaction of the hauling action is a shortening of the line,  and therefore an increase in velocity:  Is it at all significant compared to the additional loading of the rod?  Is the inertia of the line broken by the haul and therefore allows the spring of the rod to work on an already moving line? I suppose the way to test it out would be to overline a rod and cast a sufficient length of line to overload the rod.  Would hauling be effective? According to the simple haul/loading spring idea,  the haul would (perhaps) be ineffective, though the shortening of the line (derived from the haul) would still prevail?

Response:

From what I’ve always been told,  the reason that hauling improves the line speed is that additional loading is put into the rod by the action of hauling. Obviously the hauling is done during the power phases fore and aft.  An immediate reaction of the hauling action is a shortening of the line,  and therefore an increase in velocity:  Is it at all significant compared to the additional loading of the rod?  Is the inertia of the line broken by the haul and therefore allows the spring of the rod to work on an already moving line?

When you haul you’re loading the rod by making it work harder against the inertia of the line. I don’t really think "shortening the line" is a good way to look at it. A haul takes in maybe two or three feet of line, and you have maybe 30 feet or more out. Imagine what would happen if the end of the line were attached to a springy tree branch when you hauled. (An all too frequent occurence in my case.) The rod would bend even if you didn’t move it forward. By hauling, you cause an increase in the force exerted by the rod tip on the line. When you haul in the normal, more felicitous case, more or less the same thing happens, but the resistance of the tree branch is replaced by the inertia of the line. — visit my web site: http://home.earthlink.net/~royalwulff/

Response:

Question:

Hello: Re-stocking time. Still a few trees I haven’t fully decorated that I plan on attacking next spring. Anyone notice in any of the catalogs any place that offers Woolly Buggers tied Clouser style with metal eyes? Can’t seem to find in any catalog I presently have. Thanks, Bob

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hello: Re-stocking time. Still a few trees I haven’t fully decorated that I plan on attacking next spring. Anyone notice in any of the catalogs any place that offers Woolly Buggers tied Clouser style with metal eyes? Can’t seem to find in any catalog I presently have. Thanks, Bob

can’t imagine they’d be all that hard to find.  most shops have the ability to get them from the multitude of wholesale fly producers now available.  it may take a little time, but i’m sure your local shop can get some for you. of course, a wooley bugger is about as easy to tie as any fly, and adding lead eyes is easy… also, many buggers are now being tied with coneheads instead of the lead-eyes. cb

Response:

Hello: Re-stocking time. Still a few trees I haven’t fully decorated that I plan on attacking next spring. Anyone notice in any of the catalogs any place that offers Woolly Buggers tied Clouser style with metal eyes?

This is one of my favorite flys. I tie it in sizes from 12 up to 0/2. I like yellow body with white hackle. It’s a killer for big bass. It’s really too easy to tie to bother with buying it. You could tie enough for a season while watching the Simpson’s.

Response:

cb said<<also, many buggers are now being tied with coneheads instead of the lead-eyes. The advantage to the lead-eyes (barrel) is that it makes the hook ride upside down making it more weedless.

Response:

Bob – Are you wanting to buy some or just looking for a recipe? Gary – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Hello: Re-stocking time. Still a few trees I haven’t fully decorated that I plan on attacking next spring. Anyone notice in any of the catalogs any place that offers Woolly Buggers tied Clouser style with metal eyes? Can’t seem to find in any catalog I presently have. Thanks, Bob

Gary Miller, Moderator To subscribe, send an e-mail to: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -<)))}"Catch ‘em all…Put ‘em back!<"{(((<

Response:

Question:

I want information about flyfishing on the seychelles.

Response:

Three of us have booked a trip to the Seychelles next March through Indian Ocean Angling Adventures.  We need 2 or 3 more to join us or we will have to cancel as its too much $$ for three.  If you might be interested e-mail me at different groups who have gone there and they all said the same thing …way better than XMAS Island. Steve

Response:

I want information about flyfishing on the seychelles.

You can get all the info you want from us – Anna and martin lewis.  Fax us on (248) 344266 or We discovered and developed flyfishing in the seychelles – been in the business now for 10 years. Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.

Response:

I want information about flyfishing on the seychelles. Dear Lasse,

We have been running a fishing operation in the Seychelles for 10 years.  For the past two years we have concentrated on saltwater flyfishing specifically for bone fish and trevally. We have been very successful over the past two years and now have four world records pending ratification. If you wish to visit our website – it will soon be changed – you will gain an idea of what we do.  Go to altavista and type in seychelles + flyfishing.  Tam Tam should come up. Look forward to hearing from you. Regards Martin and Anna Lewis Tam Tam Tel +248 344266 Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.

Response:

Question:

Hi My sentiments are similar to Christian’s first posting. I prefer a slightly stiffer rod when Spey casting, I started with a so called "Spey" but found it difficult to achieve distance without perfect timing. You need to slow down your whole casting action, wait for the rod to load before applying the power. Timing is everything when using a traditional Spey actioned rod. They are not suitable for using with any kind of sinking line, the action is just too slow and this gives the line time to sink between the "back cast" and forward cast. I soon changed to a 15′ 1" Sage with a stiffer action and found this to be near perfect for me, with both floating and sinking lines. It can be used with shooting heads as Christian mentions (12 meters of #12 line is perfect) and casts of 40+ yards are fairly routine with this method. It is tireing though having to strip in nearly 30 yards of line every cast. As for breakages, the more expensive the rod the better the guarentee (usually), my Sage has a lifetime guarentee, the Diawa doesn’t have any guarentee. As usual it all comes down to "how much you want to spend". Bruce & Walker rods are a range I can recommend – buy the "Walker" rods they have the stiffer action. The Norway or Speycaster range are excellent rods. The Diawa Amorphous is a good range. At the top of the tree are the Sage and the Hardy Ultralite/Elite range. Only my opinions. Chris

Response:

Hi Chris

Hi Chris I would like to make a couple of small but very important points here regarding your change from one rod to another. It is my humble opinion  your first rod didn’t quite suit your casting style and or body shape. With the greatest respects that doesn’t mean that particular rod is not suitable for somebody else. Just as your move to a Sage doesn’t mean that a Sage will suit everybody. My point is that the individual must buy a rod that suits/fits him or her. Two of my mates fish and cast perfectly well with 19ft (yes 19 feet) B&W’s but I cannot cast very well with them. I can cast however the same amount of line (as them) with a 15ft B&W, I can also cast a few of the other available rods, including almost all of the Daiwa rods, equally well. Other rods that I cannot come to grips with are the B&W Hexograph the Sage (Chris’s rod) and some of the Walkers although I think with practice I could master the Walkers. My point is that someone buying a new rod must try a few out first and choose the one that they think suits them. I fish regularly with a stiff rod the B&W 15ft heavy duty Expert, but this rod has a very fast action, unlike the slower action of the ones I cannot use. As mentioned before there are many X’s in the equation and here are some of them. A stiff rod with a fast action A stiff rod with a slow action A soft rod with a slow action ( I can’t think of a soft rod that’s got a fast action) The size of line you choose to fish with your chosen rod, (normally rods are rated for three sizes, but there is a tremendous difference between a 9 and an 11. This will also has an impact on how soft the rod feels and casts) Floating etc…etc…etc…. Okay I’m off the pedastal ) Regards Lawr, – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Hi My sentiments are similar to Christian’s first posting. I prefer a slightly stiffer rod when Spey casting, I started with a so called "Spey" but found it difficult to achieve distance without perfect timing. You need to slow down your whole casting action, wait for the rod to load before applying the power. Timing is everything when using a traditional Spey actioned rod. They are not suitable for using with any kind of sinking line, the action is just too slow and this gives the line time to sink between the "back cast" and forward cast. I soon changed to a 15′ 1" Sage with a stiffer action and found this to be near perfect for me, with both floating and sinking lines. It can be used with shooting heads as Christian mentions (12 meters of #12 line is perfect) and casts of 40+ yards are fairly routine with this method. It is tireing though having to strip in nearly 30 yards of line every cast. As for breakages, the more expensive the rod the better the guarentee (usually), my Sage has a lifetime guarentee, the Diawa doesn’t have any guarentee. As usual it all comes down to "how much you want to spend". Bruce & Walker rods are a range I can recommend – buy the "Walker" rods they have the stiffer action. The Norway or Speycaster range are excellent rods. The Diawa Amorphous is a good range. At the top of the tree are the Sage and the Hardy Ultralite/Elite range. Only my opinions. Chris

Response:

My fishing buddy and I have obseved a few people Spey casting up here on the Miramichi.  It looks like fun.  They cast a mile-long line.  But, we have always wondered if the method helps them catch more fish?  We cover the same amount of water (or more) by fishing from a canoe.  If there are fish that are out of our reach, we just move the boat into a position so that we get a good swing over them. JB

Response:

Hi Lawr You are right to make these valid points but I thought I had mentioned them in my original posting, I checked and I had. I prefer a slightly stiffer rod when Spey casting Timing is everything when using a traditional Spey actioned rod. I soon changed to a 15′ 1" Sage with a stiffer action and found this to be near perfect for me

I think these snippits confirm that the information I gave was MY preferences, I was not trying to make hard and fast rules that apply to everybody. As for hard and fast rules I still believe the only comment I made against traditional actioned "spey" rods was They are not suitable for using with any kind of sinking line, the action is just too slow and this gives the line time to sink between the "back cast" and forward cast.

and this is something I still maintain. Thanks for keeping us on our toes Lawr. Chris

Response:

I’m sorry Chris!! I wasn’t trying to have a go at your opinions, postings can often come across a bit strong. My intention was to add other considerations to all the other opinions including yours. Don’t mind me I rattle on a bit when it’s a subject I like ) however I can say sorry and I can do a U-Turn if I’m wrong ) Best Regards Lawr, PS Have you checked out the Ness System reports etc…on my website?? www.f-deans.freeserve.co.uk – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi Lawr You are right to make these valid points but I thought I had mentioned them in my original posting, I checked and I had. I prefer a slightly stiffer rod when Spey casting Timing is everything when using a traditional Spey actioned rod. I soon changed to a 15′ 1" Sage with a stiffer action and found this to be near perfect for me I think these snippits confirm that the information I gave was MY preferences, I was not trying to make hard and fast rules that apply to everybody. As for hard and fast rules I still believe the only comment I made against traditional actioned "spey" rods was They are not suitable for using with any kind of sinking line, the action is just too slow and this gives the line time to sink between the "back cast" and forward cast. and this is something I still maintain. Thanks for keeping us on our toes Lawr. Chris

Response:

Hi, I am interested in buying a double handed salmon rod, It should be quite allround, so I am thinking of a rod of about 14′ for #9/10. I have been casting both (still having to learn a lot) and like the single and double Spey and rollcasts. Should I choose the somewhat softer "old" design Speycastrods or would a modern stiffer design be better ???? I don’t want to start with just a cheap rod, then a fair rod, a good rod and after that buying a realy nice rod. Good advise is welcome……. Regards, Ger.

Response:

It should be quite allround, so I am thinking of a rod of about 14′ for #9/10. [...] Should I choose the somewhat softer "old" design Speycastrods or would a modern stiffer design be better ????

I say go for the modern stiffer design.  Not that you especially need a stiff rod, but because the old design speyrods were designed with traditional speycasting in mind, meaning loading the rod all the way around the spey cast. Nowadays, you would just go with a shooting head and a spiced up roll cast. I’ll happily admit, I’m drawing up two extremes here, and even though your question kinda opened that door, it isn’t particularly useful in terms of fishing. The old style spey casting would enable you to cast a 45 yard DT line in a single casting motion, but it required very good technique and it was also hard work. Rods had to be heavy and slow action to perform such a cast, and I think you need to wear tweed to get it right, as well..   That time has past, basically. — At least here in Norway. ( it seems the time of rivers packed with salmon are gone up here too..)  Lightweight, fast rods are dominating, and shooting heads are getting more popular. Some still use WF-lines or other taperings, in contrast to the now rare, but formerly very popular DT line. Most people tend to retrieve quite a bit of line before making the cast (especially with shooting heads), and the cast isn’t really a jolly old God save the Queen spey cast (Hi there, Brits! , but more like an advanced roll cast. It works, and I’ve found it to be much easier than real spey casting. The distance potential is impeccable, and its only drawback is that you have your fly less in the water than with real spey casting (due to line retrieval between casts). Also, sinking vs. floating line can make a difference in your choice. To handle a sinking line, a light weight, fast tip-action rod might not be sufficient. But for WF or ST floating lines, the faster and lighter rod would excel. So, I think you need to ask yourself, do you want to fish effectively and easily with a two-handed rod, or do you in fact want to learn the traditional spey casting?  Absolutely nothing wrong with the latter. I may be off with my definitions. The last time I responded to a spey cast question, several knowledgeable people objected and offered alternative views, and I can’t guarantee I got it right this time. I just feel that you perhaps shouldn’t go for the heavy, slow action rod, based solely on tradition, without considering more modern applications of two-handed casting (and besides, slow action rods doesn’t have to be heavy – I just made that up.. ). As always when buying a rod, test casting several options is the best way to go. We all have our quirks and preferences. Too fast of an action can be very bad, considering you’re dealing with a 14′ rod here –the longer the rod, the more accuracy is needed in handling it. Personally, I would put great emphasis on weight. I use to have a Bruce & Walker Powerlite 15′, an absolutely wonderful rod, extremely light weight for its size. It broke, and most other rods I’ve tried, made me and especially my back longing for my B&W.. Its successor is the B&W Powerlite Speycaster, and if you have the chance, I’d suggest you have a look at it. — Christian Figenschou – http://figen.com

Response:

Should I choose the somewhat softer "old" design Speycastrods or would a modern stiffer design be better ????

If you plan to use switch, single and double spey casts, then go with a true "spey" rod. If you plan to use casts like one would with a trout rod (i.e. overhand + false casting), then go with a more modern rod. The big difference is that the spey rod flexes for the entire length of the shaft, and it can handle flexing in all directions.  More modern rods have a "progressive taper" where the butt section of the shaft hardly bends and most of the flex occurs in the top 1/3-rd of the shaft.  Modern rods have also been optimized for front-back casting, and may not handle flexing in all directions as well as a spey rod. Finally, don’t confuse stiffness with power.  Modern rods have a quick snappy tip designed to generate high line speed over a short distance.  Older rods, including glass, generate moderate line speed, but over a greater distance. In part because of my decent but not super-powerful wrist and forearm strength, I feel like I can toss a line farther and more accurately with the softer rods. Thomas Gilg

Response:

Thomas and Christian have given you very good advice however it is my humble opinion that you must buy a rod that suits/fits  *you*.  When buying a pair of shoes you do not buy a pair that fits somebody else and this is the case with Spey Rods. When Spey casting/fishing there are many many X’s in the equation and without trying a rod on to see if it *fits* you (and the type of water you are fishing) you will be unaware of them. This is why it takes years to perfect a good Spey cast. You are right however to go for a good quality rod first time round. On the river Ness System Scotland, a great Spey casting area, the most common rod is the Daiwa  Amorphous 15 or 16 ft, I don’t own one at the moment but if buying a new rod I would buy the 15ft. The extra lightweight rods *may* have a tendency to break as Christian pointed out especially if using a sink tip or full sinking line. HTH Lawr, www.f-deans.freeserve.co.uk         "Fishing On The Fly"               :{)< – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Hi, I am interested in buying a double handed salmon rod, It should be quite allround, so I am thinking of a rod of about 14′ for #9/10. I have been casting both (still having to learn a lot) and like the single and double Spey and rollcasts. Should I choose the somewhat softer "old" design Speycastrods or would a modern stiffer design be better ???? I don’t want to start with just a cheap rod, then a fair rod, a good rod and after that buying a realy nice rod. Good advise is welcome……. Regards, Ger.

Response:

Oh! dear does your friend have a licence ) (only kidding) When you get accustomed to a rod it is difficult to make the transition to another rod. Even two rods from the same maker with exactly the same specifications (i.e. two B&W 15ft heavy duty Experts) can have different actions. Over the years I have seen quite a few Spey rods broken during casting (the noise is a bit like a gun going off) with no particular rod type being the worst case.  IMHO it would be more difficult to break an Expert than say a Powerlight especially if using a sinking line or sink tip coupled with 3 inch leaded waddington. I know the above is an extreme case but you may need a rod that is capable of fishing all the extremes. Regards Lawr, – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The extra lightweight rods *may* have a tendency to break as Christian pointed out especially if using a sink tip or full sinking line. In this particular case, I’ve found them to have a tendency of breaking when your friend runs over them with his car..   — Christian Figenschou – http://figen.com

Response:

Question:

i snapped the tip off my pm . i brought it back to orvis of boston and they gave me another right then and there.i was shocked still

Response:

Jeff Baker: <<i snapped the tip off my pm . i brought it back to orvis of boston and they gave me another right then and there.i was shocked still Why?  Shocked that they honored their warranty?  Or, shocked that they did not send it back to the factory?  There is much bitching and moaning about Orvis on these pages, but there products are superior and their warranties unprecendented.   Dave LaCourse

Response:

Hi Jeff, I’ve alway found the folks at Orvis to provide good service. Glad things turned out for you. Take care & … tight lines – Al Beatty Whiting Farms – Hoffman Hackle Al Beatty2

Response:

Ditto. I use all brands of stuff and like Orvis just fine. Sometimes guys think buying stuff from Orvis is being a yuppie, meanwhile they buy gear that is more expensive from other manufacturers and think they aren’t being snobs because it doesn’t say Orvis. Viva anything that works including ORVIS, ORVIS !!

Response:

You should have asked for a Trident.

i snapped the tip off my pm . i brought it back to orvis of boston and they gave me another right then and there.i was shocked still

Response:

I can vouch for the Boston store. My father died and my brothers and I divided his flyfishing equipment. I took the waders in to the Boston store while traveling to see if they still had the suspenders, which were missing, and to see if the waders could be altered a little. They said no to both, but steered me to the rack and suggested I pick out a new pair. I assumed it was a version of bait and switch (no pun intended), but was shocked to discover they meant – pick out a new pair. My father was a life long Orvis customer, and I will be too. John Tesar

i snapped the tip off my pm . i brought it back to orvis of boston and they gave me another right then and there.i was shocked still

Response:

John Tesar: Great story, John.  You will see folks on this ng bitch ‘n moan about Orvis, but their stuff is good (if pricey) and they do stand behind their product. Dave LaCourse

Response:

John Tesar: Great story, John.  You will see folks on this ng bitch ‘n moan about Orvis, but their stuff is good (if pricey) and they do stand behind their product. Dave LaCourse

    The Orvis dealers I’ve come in contact with are to a man, pretty good people. Being of sound mind and unsound bank account, most items they sell are regretably beyond my means. I do have two reels which I ordered along with the approprate line and backing. When I received them they were all set up ready to go. The gripes I see on this NG are not about quality or service but about the clothing etc. that are in the Orvis shops. Personally "who gives a rats patooty". If that is what it takes to make a shop fiscally sound, it’s better than a "closed" sign and I can walk on by. When ever I am in an area not close to home I search out an Orvis dealer and buy the recomended fly of the day( usually in threes). I’ve yet to be disapointed.                                                              John Popp                                                         in Sanford Fl.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I can vouch for the Boston store. My father died and my brothers and I divided his flyfishing equipment. I took the waders in to the Boston store while traveling to see if they still had the suspenders, which were missing, and to see if the waders could be altered a little. They said no to both, but steered me to the rack and suggested I pick out a new pair. I assumed it was a version of bait and switch (no pun intended), but was shocked to discover they meant – pick out a new pair. My father was a life long Orvis customer, and I will be too. John Tesar i snapped the tip off my pm . i brought it back to orvis of boston and they gave me another right then and there.i was shocked still

_____ I believe those waders came with a lifetime guarantee.  Yet, you are well taken care of and you should stick with those companies that make you satisfied and happy.  If the Boston Store does that for you, amen. I’d stick with them myself if I used Orvis equipment, under your circumstances.   Mr. G.

Response:

My father died and my brothers and I divided his flyfishing equipment. I took the waders in to the Boston store while traveling to see if they still had the suspenders, which were missing, and to see if the waders could be altered a little.

Please, bury me in my waders…I’ll be a needin’ ‘em. — TimW, Halfordian Golfer "Guilt replaced the creel…"

Response:

Please, bury me in my waders…I’ll be a needin’ ‘em.

Our pleasure. Is next Tuesday good for you? ;^)

Response:

My father died and my brothers and I divided his flyfishing equipment. I took the waders in to the Boston store while traveling to see if they still had the suspenders, which were missing, and to see if the waders could be altered a little. Please, bury me in my waders…I’ll be a needin’ ‘em. — TimW, Halfordian Golfer "Guilt replaced the creel…"

_____ Tim?  Consider yourself hugged.  Wonderful reply! Mr. G.

Response:

Please, bury me in my waders…I’ll be a needin’ ‘em. Our pleasure. Is next Tuesday good for you? ;^)

______ As a gentleman, that was uncalled for. Mr. G.

Response:

Please, bury me in my waders…I’ll be a needin’ ‘em. Our pleasure. Is next Tuesday good for you? ;^) ______ As a gentleman, that was uncalled for. Mr. G.

Aw, c’mon Georgie! It was clearly denoted as a rib – even you should be able to pick up on that ;^) /dave

Response:

 Please, bury me in my waders…I’ll be a needin’ ‘em. Our pleasure. Is next Tuesday good for you? ;^) ______ As a gentleman, that was uncalled for. Mr. G.

Aw, c’mon Georgie! It was clearly denoted as a rib – even you should be able to pick up on that ;^) << Hey, if that ‘hole diden’t pick up on the first ), the 2d one won’t do any good.  He probably thinks you’re going to steal one of his ribs.  After all, "denoted" is more than one syllable. Your post was perfect.  Only thing I didn’t like about it was that *you* posted it, not me. <g

Response:

Dave LaCourse,I was just surprised of the fact that Orvis exchanged the rod when I brought it in.I’ve been using Orvis products since 1965,fishing mostly with their cane.That exchange just made me feel good, sort of bringing me back to the good old days,when we thought of a company making products for us to enjoy,never thinking how we’re getting fucked like we or I do these days, J Baker.

Response:

good, sort of bringing me back to the good old days,when we thought of a company making products for us to enjoy, I know the feeling, friend.  They have exchanged a number of things for me, no argument, no explanation on my part.  I don’t like it – they exchange it.  I will continue to do business with them. I have been teased by friends on this NG about wearing Orvis driving shoes and driving gloves and hat, and a doggy bed for my good dawg Charlie.  It’s all in fun (I hope).  Orvis HAS gone the way of a yuppie-provider-store, but they still make fine fishin’ stuff and I will always be a customer. Dave LaCourse

Response:

I have been teased by friends on this NG about wearing Orvis driving shoes and driving gloves and hat, and a doggy bed for my good dawg Charlie.  

And I _do_ like the bed<g. I too like Orvis products. Some of their stuff is fluff, but I have had excellent luck with their fishing gear and have some of their luggage that is probably close to 20yrs old, has been around the world (literally) a couple of times, and is still in great shape. I sure wouldn’t hesitate to buy something just because it had their logo on it, not would I buy something simply because it did. FWIW. — Charlie…

Response:

John Tesar: Great story, John.  You will see folks on this ng bitch ‘n moan about Orvis, but their stuff is good (if pricey) and they do stand behind their product. Dave LaCourse

Hi All, Orvis, L.L.Bean, Patagonia and a few others have the reputation of taking care of their customers. Actually, if given the chance, many manufacturers will do something for you if a product does not last or doesn’t work out somehow. Bill Kiene Kiene’s Fly Shop Sacramento,CA,USA 800/4000FLY www.kiene.com

Response:

Question:

3M makes a fly line dressing that brings out the natural lubricants in the line itself and puts more on it.  Great Great Great STuff

Response:

writes: Has anybody tried "lard" (yes, I mean pure porky lard for cooking) or any other greasy-oily domestic product?

     In the Bad Old Days of silk lines, commercial line dressings contained lanolin (i.e., mutton fat), but what good lard would do on a vinyl-covered line, I don’t know.  Silicones act like oils but are much less sensitive to changes in temperature (and do not become rancid!)      Wash your line in warm water and mild soap, rinse, then wipe dry with a soft cloth.  You will be surprised how much better a clean line floats and shoots than a dirty one.  – Roger

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Does anybody know of any domestic product we could use to apply on fly lines instead of these expensive silicone products a careful fisherman must buy many times a year in order to protect his line? Has anybody tried "lard" (yes, I mean pure porky lard for cooking) or any other greasy-oily domestic product? Fly fishing is older than "silicone" I believe, so what would ancient fly fishers use on their lines? …of course we know they didn’t use synthetic lines as we do now, but still! I am asking before I try for I am bored by the commercial aspect of fishing.  And I do go fishing every day. If some of you fly fishers out there would kindly give me informations on this by E-Mail, I would gather the answer and publish them in an article here in the NewsGroup.  It might be helpful for all of us. If I get no answer, well next year I’ll know because I’ll try a few tricks. Thanks for reading me.  If you got any answer you can mail ‘em to me (Jean-Pierre) at E-Mail address:

I think that a can of Mucilin is about as much as a mocha? William Kiene Kiene’s Fly Shop Sacramento,CA,USA

Response:

Does anybody know of any domestic product we could use to apply on fly lines instead of these expensive silicone products a careful fisherman must buy many times a year in order to protect his line? Has anybody tried "lard" (yes, I mean pure porky lard for cooking) or any other greasy-oily domestic product? Fly fishing is older than "silicone" I believe, so what would ancient fly fishers use on their lines? …of course we know they didn’t use synthetic lines as we do now, but still! I am asking before I try for I am bored by the commercial aspect of fishing.  And I do go fishing every day. If some of you fly fishers out there would kindly give me informations on this by E-Mail, I would gather the answer and publish them in an article here in the NewsGroup.  It might be helpful for all of us. If I get no answer, well next year I’ll know because I’ll try a few tricks. Thanks for reading me.  If you got any answer you can mail ‘em to me (Jean-Pierre) at E-Mail address:

Response:

Question:

This may be old info, and I can’t vouch for the truth in it, but I found this to be funny. An article I read recently said that PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) had not copyrighted "PETA" acronym. By not doing so, it was left open to be used by any other group that might choose to copyright it.      (Snip)    How about ‘People Enraged at the Tactics of Assholes’?

Dee Crabtree

Response:

Dear All; PETA humor is an oxymoron.  PETA people have no sense of humor. Popping Extra Tumms Antacids Perpetually Engendered to Thoughtless Activities Profanity, Epithets and Terrorist Activities Geez, I’m out!  (That first one is pretty far out there!  It’s funny if you keep reading it or saying it over to yourself.  Handgrenade humour.) Sincerely JB

Response:

This may be old info, and I can’t vouch for the truth in it, but I found this to be funny. An article I read recently said that PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) had not copyrighted "PETA" acronym. By not doing so, it was left open to be used by any other group that might choose to copyright it.      (Snip)    How about ‘People Enraged at the Tactics of Assholes’?

check out www.peta.org (people eating tasty animals) I think.. -Dan-

Response:

Please join my PETA group today !!! "Persons Enjoying Trout Almondine " TimW

Response:

Iwould like to start a local chapter of PETA; People Extremely Tired of Assholes Dale

Response:

Iwould like to start a local chapter of PETA; People Extremely Tired of Assholes Dale

And who would make up the charter membership, Dan ??? Dee Crabtree

Response:

Quoting fuscor6285 from a message in rec.outdoors.fishing.fly    < An article I read recently said that PETA (People for the Ethical    < Treatment of Animals) had not copyrighted "PETA" acronym. By not    < doing so, it was left open to be used by any other group that might    < choose to copyright it.    <    <     (Snip)    <     How about ‘People Enraged at the Tactics of Assholes’? You can check out the web page of that other group "People Eating Tasty Animals" at http://www.peta.org/ Jim Carlisle

Response:

And someone did, creating a PETA group (People Eating Tasty Animals). Supposedly the old peta is trying to force the new peta to relinquish the acronym. Whether true or not, it is humorous, and sums up my attitude towards PETA. It is true and there is a web page dedicated to it’s proliferation. I just can’t remember what it is though!

Try http://www.peta.org Dennis – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Gary McMeekin

Response:

This may be old info, and I can’t vouch for the truth in it, but I found this to be funny. An article I read recently said that PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) had not copyrighted "PETA" acronym. By not doing so, it was left open to be used by any other group that might choose to copyright it.      (Snip)    How about ‘People Enraged at the Tactics of Assholes’?

i can’t see the past posts so i may be repeating but there is a home page already using the peta name …people eating tasty animals…try http://www.peta.org or something like that and you will see why peta wishes they had regestered their name…  ;) jeff

Response:

This may be old info, and I can’t vouch for the truth in it, but I found this to be funny. An article I read recently said that PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) had not copyrighted "PETA" acronym. By not doing so, it was left open to be used by any other group that might choose to copyright it.   And someone did, creating a PETA group (People Eating Tasty Animals). Supposedly the old peta is trying to force the new peta to relinquish the acronym. Whether true or not, it is humorous, and sums up my attitude towards PETA.

Response:

And someone did, creating a PETA group (People Eating Tasty Animals). Supposedly the old peta is trying to force the new peta to relinquish the acronym. Whether true or not, it is humorous, and sums up my attitude towards PETA.

It is true and there is a web page dedicated to it’s proliferation. I just can’t remember what it is though! Gary McMeekin

Response:

This may be old info, and I can’t vouch for the truth in it, but I found this to be funny. An article I read recently said that PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) had not copyrighted "PETA" acronym. By not doing so, it was left open to be used by any other group that might choose to copyright it.  

        (Snip)         How about ‘People Enraged at the Tactics of Assholes’?

Response:

Question:

Is there a ".marketplace" version of this newsgroup?  I was told that there is but I can’t find it. Thanks

Response:

I just caught up on some of the previously posted stuff and I now realize that my buddy was encouraging me to vote FOR a NEW newsgroup (the "marketplace" version I was wondering about). Therefore….nevermind. Dave

Response: