Question:

ROFF became a sort of sociology experiment for me.

I commend you. What a refreshing and clever idea! Please let us know what hypotheses you were attempting to theorize. Here are a few of my own hypotheses that your little experiment appears to confirm: (1) If you come across as a loser on USENET, people will naturally assume you are that way in real life. Why wouldn’t they? (2) Occam’s Razor applies to USENET. In other words, if the simplest explanation for your behavior is that you are a dishonest a–hole, then that’s how you’ll be perceived despite whatever more complicated explanation you might provide. If clear evidence points to a case of assumed identity, people are going to see it as such regardless of protracted denials. (3) Deception, dishonesty, and remorselessness are far less tolerated on USENET than are poor taste, ill humor, poor grammar, off-topic posting, or lack of knowledge about the subject. Again, I congratulate you on your experiment and I await the report of your findings. It’s quite refreshing to have been the unknowing pawn in not one, but *two* sociology experiments over the last few days. It’s good to know that my time spent on ROFF is not simply leisurely idleness. Unfortunately, statistically speaking, your attempts to "get the group riled up" have gone in vain because out of the hundreds of regular readers of this group, only a very few have even bothered to respond to you–and of those, I can’t think of any right now how have appeared at all to be "riled up" at you. For example, if the use of the F word is any indication of riled-upness (maybe it is, maybe it isn’t) then it would appear that–at least in the threads in which you have participated–you are by far the most riled. Does self-riling pleasure you? –Steve

Response:

I do regret that. My apology was an attempt to salvage that. But, what is done is done, and, boy, is this ever done…

Now you’ve got me confused–don’t worry too much, it happens. You just said that your participation on ROFF was a little sociology experiment (great idea, BTW) and that you couldn’t understand why anyone thought you cared what they said. I’m paraphrasing here, so please correct me if I’m mistaken. But it now appears that you regret your behavior. Why? Or are you still experimenting–you clever dog! Man, you’re gonna get us so confused and riled up that we just won’t know what to expect next. This is a wild ride for a naive Western boy like me, but I sure am excited at the prospects of helping you gather your data. –Steve

Response:

Ahhh, the grudge maven… When was the last time, to the nearest month, that I tried to sell something, feebly or otherwise.

Well, you’ve been feebly trying to sell us that story about how you didn’t post to ROFF on behalf of someone named Lindsey ever since it happened. But that shouldn’t be counted against you as salesmanship because nobody’s buying it. –Steve

Response:

Ahhh, the grudge maven… When was the last time, to the nearest month, that I tried to sell something, feebly or otherwise.

Part of your sociology experiment?  Nice try.  But your message brought more than a couple chuckles, I’m sure.  You can try to salve your pride any number of clever ways.  The fact is, for most of us, this is a means of social interaction, whereby we’ve made many real life friends.  All it requires is a modicum of sincerity and integrity, desire to fly fish, and making the effort to travel.  Even those who haven’t traveled have at least the sincerity and integrity part down.  I can (and have) made transactions with a number of people here that I haven’t met.  Buying a rod from you would be laughable. You wanna try and convince us that other than how you behave around here, in real life you’ve got a… well… real life?  What kind of malcontent loser would defend himself like that?  You think you’re toying with us?  Believe whatever you need to.  In the mean time, I’ll be enjoying camaraderie and friendship with these folks, even if I don’t see them for long periods at a time.  Unplug your skull from your anus and you’d realize it’s worth it. It’s too bad you keep buzzing around like a deer fly, but that’s life in the great outdoors.

Response:

Now, tell me who doesn’t ‘get it’…

You don

Question:

Had mine for a bit over two years now, the smallest sized one.  No complaints.  Neat little reel.  However, there are lots of reels of similar quality in this price range.  Ryall has conical components which push against each other as opposed to a disc-type drag.  These components are in a sealed axial drag assembly.

More easily visualized as a sealed drum brake, I think.The "drum" is inside the arbor, and the split conical pieces are the "shoes". On the big Ryalls there’s plenty of stopping power, and you don’t have to worry about sand or saltwater getting inside. I am not into collecting equipment so I don’t expect to purchase another reel in this size range until this one dies.  

The #2 is a cute little fellah. If I didn’t already have a little CFO I’d have probably bought one when Jim first came out with the #2. /daytripper

Response:

The #2 is a cute little fellah. If I didn’t already have a little CFO I’d have probably bought one when Jim first came out with the #2. /daytripper

What????? And you call yourself a gear whore… –Steve

Response:

The #2 is a cute little fellah. If I didn’t already have a little CFO I’d have probably bought one when Jim first came out with the #2. What????? And you call yourself a gear whore…

LOL! No – I don’t. I’m just a victim of soicumstances!

Response:

Yes. I have a #8 and a #10, use them both for saltwater flyfishing (stripers/bluefish). Nothing but good experiences with both. /daytripper

Response:

Response:

 I have the #2 and the #8 and they’re sweet. For the money they’re best modern reels I own. Bob Smith Before you buy.

Response:

Had mine for a bit over two years now, the smallest sized one.  No complaints.  Neat little reel.  However, there are lots of reels of similar quality in this price range.  Ryall has conical components which push against each other as opposed to a disc-type drag.  These components are in a sealed axial drag assembly.  I am not into collecting equipment so I don’t expect to purchase another reel in this size range until this one dies.   Mu

Response:

Question:

You are either dissembling or you don’t fish nearly as much as you were claiming to last year.  It is inconceivable that you could ask this question and at the same time write the kind of stuff quoted below unless of course you are just a troller.  By the way, what is "Wild Trout" etc.?  Do you by any chance mean Oregon Trout, Cal Trout or Washington Trout?  Care to post your professional qualifications in Genetics/Biochemistry/Biology to assist in evaluating your opinions? Fred wrote on Sat. 19.Feb.2000 "That was a great bit of thinking, and you are correct.  The problem is that people like Mike, TU, Wild Trout, etc. haven’t a clue about genetics.  If the argument could be changed from genetics to behavior, especially of Fish and Game people, changes could be made.  Unfortunately the last part of

science F&G types understand is genetics.  There is just too much math in population biology and too much biochemistry in genetics for most of them to understand." how do you tell a hatchery from a wild fish if no clipping has been done?  Please answer.

– Mike Leitheiser Lake Oswego, Oregon "When the trout are lost, smash the state."    Tom McGuane

Response:

Despite your good intentions, your ducking the question.  If you don’t like farming, fine, but without some science to back up the worry just leads to more and more rumor and not much real knowledge.  

I’m sorry but you seem to be confusing separate and distict areas of concern. I am not ducking any questions, but you seem to be concentrating on just one of these areas to the exclusion of everything else, and it is an area of argument I haven’t even entered into. Hatcheries may or may not hurt fish, but what is undeniable is that commercial fish farms, regardless of whatever hatchery facilities they use, and without any reference to the genetic make up of the fish they produce, do untold harm to wild fish stocks if sited in sensitive areas. The evidence for this from both Ireland and Scotland is overwhelming. The question of whether depleted fish stocks can be restored to former levels by the release of hatchery bred fish is a different matter, and the arguments again do not necessarily depend on genetics. For instance if the reason for falling stocks is lack of food in the home rivers in the pre sea-going stage of the fishes life, then I can’t see a release of hatchery bred smolts having any real benefit until that problem has been addressed. Unfortunately in the UK there is evidence in some rivers that this is the case, surveys having shown severe depletion of invertebrate fauna, which has been ascribed to leakage into the water courses of agricultural chemicals. If the lack of fish is attributed to loss of spawning grounds, then the release of hatchery fish could help counter this. The genetic make-up of these fish is a separate issue, which I haven’t touched on except for the following special case. This last area, is the concern over modifying the genetic structure of artificially reared fish, by the introduction of DNA taken from entirely different species. This DNA need not even be from fish. Grain crops were modified by the introduction of DNA obtained from rats. in order to develop the ‘terminator’ strains for instance. You seem to be implying that we should wait for ’scientific’ evidence that such modifications are harmful, before condemning them. I simply can’t agree. It is the commercial operators who are pushing for these developments, for purely financial motives. They should be the ones to prove beyond any shadow of doubt that their actions are safe, before any fish so modified are allowed anywhere near public waters. Proof that environmental damage is caused unfortunately usually comes from a retrospective study of the failure of experiments like this. It is too late then. Unless you can show some genetic differences between two fish in a stream, and that you know which genotype is REALLY adapted to that water, the idea that hatcheries hurt fish is unsubstantiated.  Best,

I don’t claim that hatcheries hurt fish, in the case of those which simply strip the eggs from trapped wild fish, and fertilise them with milt similarly obtained. Nor would I ever claim that I would be able to determine which genotype is adapted to a particular water. I also doubt that anyone else could, except by statistical analysis over a period of time. But we don’t have to, as nature has proved itself capable of doing a pretty good job of this on its own, at least till we started interfering. Cheers Ian D

Response:

The problem with Freds "thinking" is that it is 99% based on conviction and 1% on science.  He obviously confuses "gene" with "jeans" as in Levis….as far as his assertions about too much math in population biology and too much biochemistry in genetics for "them" to understand, have a look at Freds professional qualifications,,,,One mught even question his ability to read with understanding….see the following: GENETIC DIVERGENCE IN FIRST GENERATION HATCHERY FISH 1)  Reisenbichler, R. R. 1994. Genetic factors contributing to declines of anadromous salmonids    in the Pacific Northwest. D. Stouder, Peter Bisson, and R. Naiman (eds.)  In: Pacific       Salmon And Their Ecosystems. Chapman Hall, Inc.         "Gene flow from hatchery fish also is deleterious because hatchery populations genetically adapt to the unnatural conditions of the hatchery environment at the expense of adaptedness for living in natural streams. This domestication is significant even in the first generation of hatchery rearing." 2)  Jonsson, Bror, and  Ian A. Fleming. 1993. Enhancement of wild salmon populations. G.         Sundnes ed.) Human impact on self-recruiting populations, an international symposium.     Kongsvoll, Norway, Tapit, Trondheim, Norway.         "Thus, the use of supplementation to enhance populations should be carefully considered, even when only a single generation boost to a population seems warranted.         " Differences were evident for hatchery Atlantic salmon relative to wild salmon, with common genetic backgrounds, in breeding success after a single generation in the hatchery.  Hatchery females averaged 80% of the breeding success of wild females and hatchery males averaged 65% of the breeding success of wild males." 3)  Reisenbichler, RR. 1996. The risks of hatchery supplementation.  The Osprey. Issue 27. June  1996.         "Available data suggest progressively declining fitness for natural rearing with increasing generations in the hatchery.  The reduction in survival from egg to adult may be about 25% after one generation in the hatchery and 85% after six generations.  Reductions in survival from yearling to adult may be about 15% after one generation in the hatchery, and 67% after many generations." 4)  Verspoor, Eric. 1988. Reduced genetic variability in first generation hatchery populations of         Atlantic salmon. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. Vol. 45, 1988.         "Mean heterozygosity and number of alleles per locus were positively correlated with effective number of adults (N) used to establish the hatchery groups and averaged 26 % and 12 % lower, respectively, than wild stocks.  The observations are consistent with a loss of genetic variability in the hatchery salmon from random drift caused by using small numbers of salmon for broodstock.         "More hatchery groups appeared to be monomorphic than did wild stocks.         "Hatchery samples were 50% larger than those from the wild introducing a bias in favor of detecting alleles in the hatchery groups compared with the wild stocks.  Thus the differences is probably underestimated.         "There is a loss of alleles in the hatchery groups with lower Ne (effective breeding population numbers) values.         "Theory suggest that most (99%) genetic variability will be preserved if Ne of the broodstock is 50.         "Losses of genetic variability can occur even in the first hatchery generation if numbers of fish used for broodstock are not sufficient.  The average reductions in variability detected here are the same as those found in salmon maintained in hatcheries for a number of generations.  Stahl found levels of heterozygosity to be 20% lower in Swedish hatchery salmon." 5)  Waples, Robin. Dispelling some myths about hatcheries. February 1999. The American    Fisheries Society. Fisheries Vol. 24. No. 2.         "In the Tucannon River in southeastern Washington, a (hatchery) supplementation program for the depressed run of spring chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha) was initiated in the mid-1980s.  Founded with local broodstock, this program aims to maintain genetic integrity of the natural population and has a strong research and evaluation component.  In spite of these efforts, data for the early 1990s showed that, compared to the natural adults, returning hatchery fish were younger, were smaller for the same age, and had lower fecundity for the same size (Burgert et al. 1992).  The underlying causes of these somewhat surprising phenotypic changes are not known; however, even if the changes were entirely an environmental response to hatchery conditions, they still would represent a significant single-generation reduction in productivity of the population." – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – That was a great bit of thinking, and you are correct.  The problem is that people like Mike, TU, Wild Trout, etc. haven’t a clue about genetics.  If the argument could be changed from genetics to behavior, especially of Fish and Game people, changes could be made.  Unfortunately the last part of science F&G types understand is genetics.  There is just too much math in population biology and too much biochemistry in genetics for most of them to understand. Why do I feel as though I’ve been hijacked..? I’d vote for a fisherman with a little scientific understanding over a non-fishing scientist *any time*. I have known too many fishery scientists who couldn’t see the wood for the trees and who were prepared to compromise their science for career purposes… — Nogood Boyo

– Mike Leitheiser Lake Oswego, Oregon "When the trout are lost, smash the state."    Tom McGuane

Response:

Specifically on point?  No, but see "Restoring Wild Trout Resources: How Hatchery Fish Fit Into the Equation", Dr. Robert A. Bachman.  Believe this paper was presented in 94 or 95 at an AFS syposium…I have a hard copy, but no internet link.  Bachman has done work in this area and last address I had was Department of Natural Resources, Tawes State Office Bldg.,  580 Taylor Ave., Annapolis, MD 21401.  You might also try searching the AFS(American Fisheries Society) journals on line at   http://www.fisheries.org/pubs.html – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – mike – thanks for the web site…interesting and provocative information. most of the articles/papers i read on the site related to anadromous species.  do you know of any similar studies involving trout in the southeastern streams? jeff Fred, I see that you still haven’t passed Genetics 101.  Read some of the material and maybe you can eventually get a passing grade. http://www.teleport.com/~salmo/library.htm Tim, Since the genetics of hatchery and wild fish are exactly the same (it makes no difference where the egg and sperm get together…Genetics 101)….how about explaining this to me. If you’re interested in the effect that escaped hatchery fish can have on a wild salmon population, take a look at the case involving Atlantic Salmon in the Maritime provinces on Canada’s east coast.  To put it bluntly: WHAT A MESS! Tim Introducing genetic features which enhance growth in Pacific Salmon stocks for commercial use.  I didn’t read the "Genetically Altered" thread, but I would assume it followed these same lines.  In the report, there was a fear from conservationists that escapes would cause damage to naturals. Opie Frightening thought.Salmon growers in Scotland were caught on the hop last year when they got caught up in the G.M debate and killed the entire stock." not one managed to escape" they assured us" and adding a flounder gene was not in the least detrimental to the condition or taste of the fish" . The gene produces fish growing at twice the normal rate . You can only imagine the mess if they got into fragile salmon waters the competition for food would be immense. John Whiteley Before you buy. — Mike Leitheiser Lake Oswego, Oregon "When the trout are lost, smash the state."    Tom McGuane

– Mike Leitheiser Lake Oswego, Oregon "When the trout are lost, smash the state."    Tom McGuane

Response:

You are either dissembling or you don’t fish nearly as much as you were claiming to last year.  It is inconceivable that you could ask this question and at the same time write the kind of stuff quoted below unless of course you are just a troller. Fred wrote on Sat. 19.Feb.2000 "That was a great bit of thinking, and you are correct.  The problem is that people like Mike, TU, Wild Trout, etc. haven’t a clue about genetics.  If the argument could be changed from genetics to behavior, especially of Fish and Game people, changes could be made.  Unfortunately the last part of

science F&G types understand is genetics.  There is just too much math in population biology and too much biochemistry in genetics for most of them to understand." how do you tell a hatchery from a wild fish if no clipping has been done?  Please answer.

– Mike Leitheiser Lake Oswego, Oregon "When the trout are lost, smash the state."    Tom McGuane

Response:

i have yet to read a study that says hatchery planting in the northwest has not had negative impacts on the wild fish.

That’s too many negatives for me, Bellows. I guess what you mean is that no study you’ve ever read said hatchery planting has had positive impacts on the wild fish. I could ask how many "studies" you’ve read, where they came from, and so on, why bother?. It all boils down to a trivial claim. Duh. — visit my web site: http://home.earthlink.net/~royalwulff/ something bogus to avoid spam)

Response:

And that is why you only take fish from the home stream for hatchery use….

Not here (UK) we don’t…  unless a system is thought to be pristine, in which case there are restrictions.  But so many systems have been wrecked in the UK that over the years there has been plenty of mixing of strains.  Even in systems which are thought by the regulatory body (Environment Agency) to be pristine, I know that there has been stocking in years gone by with fish from elsewhere. Are we all talking about the same kind of hatchery here..?  A hatchery specific to one system, used to maintain stocks in that system for fishery purposes, is very different from a commercial fish farm in coastal waters, used to produced tonnage for the market.  They pose very different risks. — Nogood Boyo

Response:

That was a great bit of thinking, and you are correct.  The problem is that people like Mike, TU, Wild Trout, etc. haven’t a clue about genetics.  If the argument could be changed from genetics to behavior, especially of Fish and Game people, changes could be made.  Unfortunately the last part of science F&G types understand is genetics.  There is just too much math in population biology and too much biochemistry in genetics for most of them to understand.

Why do I feel as though I’ve been hijacked..? I’d vote for a fisherman with a little scientific understanding over a non-fishing scientist *any time*. I have known too many fishery scientists who couldn’t see the wood for the trees and who were prepared to compromise their science for career purposes… — Nogood Boyo

Response:

how do you tell a hatchery from a wild fish if no clipping has been done?  Please answer.

I am not a scientist but I have discussed this with scientists who claim to be able to tell. I remember in particular a discussion with a lady by the name of Heather Hall [1] who had spent a couple of years studying trout on a South Wales river (the Usk) which rises very close to my local river.  She said that it is possible in the lab to detect characteristics peculiar to ancient native strains which are missing from non-native stockies.  She had established that trout spawn so specifically in such very well defined areas that within one system you can have many discrete strains with no inter-breeding.  She said these differences can be detected. The reason I was particularly interested in (and recall) this was that I want to know whether my river (the Tawe) still contains any genuine natives and whether it is worth trying to find them and help them to recover.  The river has suffered greatly from industrialisation and development for the last couple of hundred years and has been repeatedly stocked with non-natives for the last 50 years.  The standard theory AIUI is that the stockies will not be as well-suited to the system as any remaining natives which have evolved here since the last ice age. Against that some argue that the river has changed so much in the last two hundred years that all that evolution is wasted… [1]  She was a cracker and I’d be interested to know if details of her work have been published. — Nogood Boyo

Response:

Chris, I have lived in Oregon for 30 years….please cite me one study which upholds what you say….just one well done scientific study.  I am afraid you are the one with blinders….you just believe what you are told, rather than thinking something through.  Hint: how do you tell a hatchery from a wild fish if no clipping has been done?  Please answer. Fred – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Ian, Despite your good intentions, your ducking the question.  If you don’t like farming, fine, but without some science to back up the worry just leads to more and more rumor and not much real knowledge.  Unless you can show some genetic differences between two fish in a stream, and that you know which genotype is REALLY adapted to that water, the idea that hatcheries hurt fish is unsubstantiated.  Best, well, the northwest is a classic case study on what not to do with hatcheries.  i have yet to read a study that says hatchery planting in the northwest has not had negative impacts on the wild fish.  there have been loads of studies and all have shown the negative impacts, both fiscally and environmentally of our reliance on hatchery fish to sustain our fisheries. you can continue to wear blinders on this issue, but i’d suggest some reading. chris

Response:

JB And that is why you only take fish from the home stream for hatchery use….try that on Wild Trout and ask where the difference is….there really is no answer. Fred – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – .  If the hatchery fish that are being cage-reared are from a river that is remote from the wild stocks near the cage site, and the stocks interbreed as a result of the escape of the caged fish, there is a great danger of gentetically-induced homing imparment in the progeny. JB

Response:

Farmed salmon have no homing instinct, and if escapees interbreed with wild fish, there’s a chance the wild ones could lose their homing instinct as well, and the complete run could be lost to a particular river. That’s unproved though

:I thought the homing instinct became imprinted during the smolt stage (forgive the sloppy terminology).  So, if farmed fish get to spawn in rivers, won’t the resulting smolts become imprinted with those rivers..? I’m not saying that’s OK – I know it’s not good to dilute native genes – but the homing instinct would be there, wouldn’t it..?: It has been found that Atlantic salmon smolts released to rivers remote from their home river have very poor return rates compared with smolts from adjacent drainages released to the same rivers.  What I infer from this is that there is a genetic basis to out-migration.  A smolt has to "know" when to turn left or right when it encounters various ocean currents.  If the hatchery fish that are being cage-reared are from a river that is remote from the wild stocks near the cage site, and the stocks interbreed as a result of the escape of the caged fish, there is a great danger of gentetically-induced homing imparment in the progeny. JB

Response:

Ian, Despite your good intentions, your ducking the question.  If you don’t like farming, fine, but without some science to back up the worry just leads to more and more rumor and not much real knowledge.  Unless you can show some genetic differences between two fish in a stream, and that you know which genotype is REALLY adapted to that water, the idea that hatcheries hurt fish is unsubstantiated.  Best,

well, the northwest is a classic case study on what not to do with hatcheries.  i have yet to read a study that says hatchery planting in the northwest has not had negative impacts on the wild fish.  there have been loads of studies and all have shown the negative impacts, both fiscally and environmentally of our reliance on hatchery fish to sustain our fisheries. you can continue to wear blinders on this issue, but i’d suggest some reading. chris

Response:

Ian, Despite your good intentions, your ducking the question.  If you don’t like farming, fine, but without some science to back up the worry just leads to more and more rumor and not much real knowledge.  Unless you can show some genetic differences between two fish in a stream, and that you know which genotype is REALLY adapted to that water, the idea that hatcheries hurt fish is unsubstantiated.  Best, Fred – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I thought the homing instinct became imprinted during the smolt stage (forgive the sloppy terminology).  So, if farmed fish get to spawn in rivers, won’t the resulting smolts become imprinted with those rivers..? I don’t know. I shouldn’t think any one does with any degree of certainty. We might be pretty certain that imprinting takes place at the smolt stage, and even have an idea that the mechanism involved seems to rely on the fishes acute sense of ’smell’, but does anybody have the faintest idea what triggers the impulse off? The ability to recognize and differentiate chemicals in the water at incredibly small dilutions is shared by many species with no homing instinct, so even if the salmon retains the ability to recognise its birth river, if the homing is triggered by a genetically determined factor,who’s to say it’ll use it? Why take the risk? There could be more problems arising that no one’s even thought of. Nature has done a pretty fair design job on salmonids without needing any help from us. The ability of a species to survive is dependent on so many factors, and the species/species, and species/environment interactions are so complex that I don’t think we’ve come anywhere near understanding them in their totality. It might be possible to modify an organism in such a way that it is perfectly suited to life in a controlled and well understood environment such as a laboratory, but the one thing certain about the natural environment is that whatever controls it, it ain’t us. We don’t even understand it. If it isn’t broken don’t fix it is still a pretty good rule. Cheers Ian D

Response:

I thought the homing instinct became imprinted during the smolt stage (forgive the sloppy terminology).  So, if farmed fish get to spawn in rivers, won’t the resulting smolts become imprinted with those rivers..?

I don’t know. I shouldn’t think any one does with any degree of certainty. We might be pretty certain that imprinting takes place at the smolt stage, and even have an idea that the mechanism involved seems to rely on the fishes acute sense of ’smell’, but does anybody have the faintest idea what triggers the impulse off? The ability to recognize and differentiate chemicals in the water at incredibly small dilutions is shared by many species with no homing instinct, so even if the salmon retains the ability to recognise its birth river, if the homing is triggered by a genetically determined factor,who’s to say it’ll use it? Why take the risk? There could be more problems arising that no one’s even thought of. Nature has done a pretty fair design job on salmonids without needing any help from us. The ability of a species to survive is dependent on so many factors, and the species/species, and species/environment interactions are so complex that I don’t think we’ve come anywhere near understanding them in their totality. It might be possible to modify an organism in such a way that it is perfectly suited to life in a controlled and well understood environment such as a laboratory, but the one thing certain about the natural environment is that whatever controls it, it ain’t us. We don’t even understand it. If it isn’t broken don’t fix it is still a pretty good rule. Cheers Ian D

Response:

thanks again… jeff – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Specifically on point?  No, but see "Restoring Wild Trout Resources: How Hatchery Fish Fit Into the Equation", Dr. Robert A. Bachman.  Believe this paper was presented in 94 or 95 at an AFS syposium…I have a hard copy, but no internet link.  Bachman has done work in this area and last address I had was Department of Natural Resources, Tawes State Office Bldg.,  580 Taylor Ave., Annapolis, MD 21401.  You might also try searching the AFS(American Fisheries Society) journals on line at   http://www.fisheries.org/pubs.html mike – thanks for the web site…interesting and provocative information. most of the articles/papers i read on the site related to anadromous species.  do you know of any similar studies involving trout in the southeastern streams? jeff Fred, I see that you still haven’t passed Genetics 101.  Read some of the material and maybe you can eventually get a passing grade. http://www.teleport.com/~salmo/library.htm Tim, Since the genetics of hatchery and wild fish are exactly the same (it makes no difference where the egg and sperm get together…Genetics 101)….how about explaining this to me. If you’re interested in the effect that escaped hatchery fish can have on a wild salmon population, take a look at the case involving Atlantic Salmon in the Maritime provinces on Canada’s east coast.  To put it bluntly: WHAT A MESS! Tim Introducing genetic features which enhance growth in Pacific Salmon stocks for commercial use.  I didn’t read the "Genetically Altered" thread, but I would assume it followed these same lines.  In the report, there was a fear from conservationists that escapes would cause damage to naturals. Opie Frightening thought.Salmon growers in Scotland were caught on the hop last year when they got caught up in the G.M debate and killed the entire stock." not one managed to escape" they assured us" and adding a flounder gene was not in the least detrimental to the condition or taste of the fish" . The gene produces fish growing at twice the normal rate . You can only imagine the mess if they got into fragile salmon waters the competition for food would be immense. John Whiteley Before you buy. — Mike Leitheiser Lake Oswego, Oregon "When the trout are lost, smash the state."    Tom McGuane — Mike Leitheiser Lake Oswego, Oregon "When the trout are lost, smash the state."    Tom McGuane

Response:

What was the report about? Willi – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Did anyone catch the CBS report tonight?  I hope none of those giants find their way from Canada, into Upper Creek in Burke Co., NC!!! Opie in NC

Response:

Introducing genetic features which enhance growth in Pacific Salmon stocks for commercial use.  I didn’t read the "Genetically Altered" thread, but I would assume it followed these same lines.  In the report, there was a fear from conservationists that escapes would cause damage to naturals. Opie

Frightening thought.Salmon growers in Scotland were caught on the hop last year when they got caught up in the G.M debate and killed the entire stock." not one managed to escape" they assured us" and adding a flounder gene was not in the least detrimental to the condition or taste of the fish" . The gene produces fish growing at twice the normal rate . You can only imagine the mess if they got into fragile salmon waters the competition for food would be immense. John Whiteley

Response:

If you’re interested in the effect that escaped hatchery fish can have on a wild salmon population, take a look at the case involving Atlantic Salmon in the Maritime provinces on Canada’s east coast.  To put it bluntly: WHAT A MESS! Tim – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Introducing genetic features which enhance growth in Pacific Salmon stocks for commercial use.  I didn’t read the "Genetically Altered" thread, but I would assume it followed these same lines.  In the report, there was a fear from conservationists that escapes would cause damage to naturals. Opie Frightening thought.Salmon growers in Scotland were caught on the hop last year when they got caught up in the G.M debate and killed the entire stock." not one managed to escape" they assured us" and adding a flounder gene was not in the least detrimental to the condition or taste of the fish" . The gene produces fish growing at twice the normal rate . You can only imagine the mess if they got into fragile salmon waters the competition for food would be immense. John Whiteley

Before you buy.

Response:

Since the genetics of hatchery and wild fish are exactly the same (it makes no difference where the egg and sperm get together…Genetics 101)….how about explaining this to me.

The genetics are not the same. The fish come from different strains, at least when considering farmed salmon. It’s different for fish bred from eggs removed from salmon trapped in their ‘home’ waters for planned restocking or regeneration of a river, but I don’t think that’s what we’re talking about here. Farmed salmon have no homing instinct, and if escapees interbreed with wild fish, there’s a chance the wild ones could lose their homing instinct as well, and the complete run could be lost to a particular river. That’s unproved though and not the immediate cause of the troubles affecting wild fish. Diseases previously unknown in the wild stocks have appeared and been proved to have emanated from fish farms. Attempts to control these have been set back by unscrupulous fishery staff, who have transferred diseased fish illegally, to avoid the loss involved in culling, or have transferred healthy stock in inadequately decontaminated containers. The sea trout of the west coast of Scotland, at least in those regions where fish farms proliferate, have been virtually wiped out. There’s not much doubt that this is due to the vast numbers of fish lice that are found in the vicinity of the farms. These transfer to sea trout smolts which just aren’t strong enough to cope. A similar thing happened in Ireland, but farming was halted in certain areas to observe the effect, and there are signs of recovery where this has been done. A bit further down the line in the list of problems affecting European wild fish is an apparent lack of food during the period when the fish are at sea, and should be packing on weight ready to make the spawning run. This is widely acknowledged as being due to overfishing for the prey species, such as sand-eels. These have several commercial uses, including manufacture of fertilisers, and believe it or not, as fuel in Danish power stations, but they are also an ingredient of the pellets used in the feed at the fish farms. It all adds up, and even where the exact details of cause and effect aren’t known, the decline in the wild fisheries has been tied into the increase in fish farms too closely to be denied. There are real fears that if something isn’t done, and soon, the Atlantic Salmon could be well on the way to extinction as a wild species, at least as far as Scotland is concerned. Cheers Ian D

Response:

The  Native Fish Society’s "Library" at http://www.teleport.com/~salmo/library.htm has information on research regarding the genetic differences between native and hatchery stocks. Regards, — Jeff www.teleport.com/~salmo/jp.htm

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Tim, Since the genetics of hatchery and wild fish are exactly the same (it makes no difference where the egg and sperm get together…Genetics 101)….how about explaining this to me.

Response:

Fred, I see that you still haven’t passed Genetics 101.  Read some of the material and maybe you can eventually get a passing grade. http://www.teleport.com/~salmo/library.htm – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Tim, Since the genetics of hatchery and wild fish are exactly the same (it makes no difference where the egg and sperm get together…Genetics 101)….how about explaining this to me. If you’re interested in the effect that escaped hatchery fish can have on a wild salmon population, take a look at the case involving Atlantic Salmon in the Maritime provinces on Canada’s east coast.  To put it bluntly: WHAT A MESS! Tim Introducing genetic features which enhance growth in Pacific Salmon stocks for commercial use.  I didn’t read the "Genetically Altered" thread, but I would assume it followed these same lines.  In the report, there was a fear from conservationists that escapes would cause damage to naturals. Opie Frightening thought.Salmon growers in Scotland were caught on the hop last year when they got caught up in the G.M debate and killed the entire stock." not one managed to escape" they assured us" and adding a flounder gene was not in the least detrimental to the condition or taste of the fish" . The gene produces fish growing at twice the normal rate . You can only imagine the mess if they got into fragile salmon waters the competition for food would be immense. John Whiteley Before you buy.

– Mike Leitheiser Lake Oswego, Oregon "When the trout are lost, smash the state."    Tom McGuane

Response:

Mike, I have read most of that stuff…..now pay attention…..how does the physical location of where you combine sperm and eggs (plastic pan or gravel) change a genotype?  Just answer that one question. Fred Rick son – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Fred, I see that you still haven’t passed Genetics 101.  Read some of the material and maybe you can eventually get a passing grade. http://www.teleport.com/~salmo/library.htm Tim, Since the genetics of hatchery and wild fish are exactly the same (it makes no difference where the egg and sperm get together…Genetics 101)….how about explaining this to me. If you’re interested in the effect that escaped hatchery fish can have on a wild salmon population, take a look at the case involving Atlantic Salmon in the Maritime provinces on Canada’s east coast.  To put it bluntly: WHAT A MESS! Tim Introducing genetic features which enhance growth in Pacific Salmon stocks for commercial use.  I didn’t read the "Genetically Altered" thread, but I would assume it followed these same lines.  In the report, there was a fear from conservationists that escapes would cause damage to naturals. Opie Frightening thought.Salmon growers in Scotland were caught on the hop last year when they got caught up in the G.M debate and killed the entire stock." not one managed to escape" they assured us" and adding a flounder gene was not in the least detrimental to the condition or taste of the fish" . The gene produces fish growing at twice the normal rate . You can only imagine the mess if they got into fragile salmon waters the competition for food would be immense. John Whiteley Before you buy. — Mike Leitheiser Lake Oswego, Oregon "When the trout are lost, smash the state."    Tom McGuane

Response:

Fred, Perhaps you should pay attention to what you write and quit obfuscating.  You wrote "Since the genetics of hatchery and wild fish are exactly the same…"You have been pursuing your same tiresome and innaccurate arguments for far too long.  The same nonsensical positions you espouse were positions offered by fishery managers of the 60s and 70s…….look around you and see where they got us. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Mike, I have read most of that stuff…..now pay attention…..how does the physical location of where you combine sperm and eggs (plastic pan or gravel) change a genotype?  Just answer that one question. Fred Rick son Fred, I see that you still haven’t passed Genetics 101.  Read some of the material and maybe you can eventually get a passing grade. http://www.teleport.com/~salmo/library.htm Tim, Since the genetics of hatchery and wild fish are exactly the same (it makes no difference where the egg and sperm get together…Genetics 101)….how about explaining this to me. If you’re interested in the effect that escaped hatchery fish can have on a wild salmon population, take a look at the case involving Atlantic Salmon in the Maritime provinces on Canada’s east coast.  To put it bluntly: WHAT A MESS! Tim Introducing genetic features which enhance growth in Pacific Salmon stocks for commercial use.  I didn’t read the "Genetically Altered" thread, but I would assume it followed these same lines.  In the report, there was a fear from conservationists that escapes would cause damage to naturals. Opie Frightening thought.Salmon growers in Scotland were caught on the hop last year when they got caught up in the G.M debate and killed the entire stock." not one managed to escape" they assured us" and adding a flounder gene was not in the least detrimental to the condition or taste of the fish" . The gene produces fish growing at twice the normal rate . You can only imagine the mess if they got into fragile salmon waters the competition for food would be immense. John Whiteley Before you buy. — Mike Leitheiser Lake Oswego, Oregon "When the trout are lost, smash the state."    Tom McGuane

– Mike Leitheiser Lake Oswego, Oregon "When the trout are lost, smash the state."    Tom McGuane

Response:

mike – thanks for the web site…interesting and provocative information. most of the articles/papers i read on the site related to anadromous species.  do you know of any similar studies involving trout in the southeastern streams? jeff – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Fred, I see that you still haven’t passed Genetics 101.  Read some of the material and maybe you can eventually get a passing grade. http://www.teleport.com/~salmo/library.htm Tim, Since the genetics of hatchery and wild fish are exactly the same (it makes no difference where the egg and sperm get together…Genetics 101)….how about explaining this to me. If you’re interested in the effect that escaped hatchery fish can have on a wild salmon population, take a look at the case involving Atlantic Salmon in the Maritime provinces on Canada’s east coast.  To put it bluntly: WHAT A MESS! Tim Introducing genetic features which enhance growth in Pacific Salmon stocks for commercial use.  I didn’t read the "Genetically Altered" thread, but I would assume it followed these same lines.  In the report, there was a fear from conservationists that escapes would cause damage to naturals. Opie Frightening thought.Salmon growers in Scotland were caught on the hop last year when they got caught up in the G.M debate and killed the entire stock." not one managed to escape" they assured us" and adding a flounder gene was not in the least detrimental to the condition or taste of the fish" . The gene produces fish growing at twice the normal rate . You can only imagine the mess if they got into fragile salmon waters the competition for food would be immense. John Whiteley Before you buy. — Mike Leitheiser Lake Oswego, Oregon "When the trout are lost, smash the state."    Tom McGuane

Response:

Question:

Hi Paint Island, Bordentown? That’s almost next door to me (Perrineville).  How can I get to your place from I-195? Are you going to be at Paddlesport ‘99 in Somerset? re:where to put the fish – I was thinking in the compartment in the back of the yak… Roger D.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Greetings from Paint Island Canoe & Kayak in Bordentown, NJ. Depending upon the size of the fish you may catch may also play a roll in what boat you chose. It also brings to mind a story in a seakayaker magazine about 2 years ago where a northwest coast paddler hooked a fish that pulled him for miles before the yaker gained control. In that case, or if you ever see this as a possibility, I would lean towards the bigger boat just in case you wind up further away from anywhere. You certainly will not go wrong with the Current Designs boats. Where will you put the fish you catch? Ron Paint Island Canoe & Kayak http://www.riversport.com/paintisland/

Response:

Greetings from Paint Island Canoe & Kayak in Bordentown, NJ. Depending upon the size of the fish you may catch may also play a roll in what boat you chose. It also brings to mind a story in a seakayaker magazine about 2 years ago where a northwest coast paddler hooked a fish that pulled him for miles before the yaker gained control. In that case, or if you ever see this as a possibility, I would lean towards the bigger boat just in case you wind up further away from anywhere. You certainly will not go wrong with the Current Designs boats. Where will you put the fish you catch? Ron Paint Island Canoe & Kayak http://www.riversport.com/paintisland/

Response:

Greetings from Paint Island Canoe & Kayak in Bordentown, NJ. Depending upon the size of the fish you may catch may also play a roll in what boat you chose. It also brings to mind a story in a seakayaker magazine about 2 years ago where a northwest coast paddler hooked a fish that pulled him for miles before the yaker gained control. In that case, or if you ever see this as a possibility, I would lean towards the bigger boat just in case you wind up further away from anywhere.

About a block or so from where I live is one of the major tributaries to Cayuga lake.  Ever late spring some really large carp come up into it to spawn (there are also some large rainbow, lake trout, brown trout, and landlock salmon that come up other times of the year).  I’ve got a little Aquaterra Caspia that I put in there with my flyrod.  Along with my regular paddle I bring a small hand paddle for manoevering about.  I’ve hooked several fish that have pulled me several hundred feet up and down the river, a couple of which I had on for over 20 minutes before they broke off.  I saw a fish there in the fall that was over 3′ long and easily 25 pounds. You certainly will not go wrong with the Current Designs boats. Where will you put the fish you catch?

Good question.  Although Current Designs makes some really nice boats I can’t think of any of the models that would be good for fishing out of. One of the nice things about the Caspia is that it has a large cockpit and when I fish from it I don’t use a spray skirt.  Something like an Old Town Loon 138 would also be good for kayak fishing because of the large cockpit and good initial stability. When someone comes here asking about a good kayak for fishing I see two different types of conditions.  There is the "getting from point A to point B" and then getting out to fish, and there are situations where one would want to fish while sitting in the boat.  For the latter type of fishing, a wide, stable kayak would be the best choice.  For the former, a kayak which will cover distance a little quicker might be better.  Most of the CD boats would be good for getting from point to point B, but not so good to actually fish from. John Fereira Stop Unsolicited Commercial Email – Join CAUCE (http://www.cauce.org) Support HR 1748, the anti-spam bill.

Response:

O.K., tough choice.  I’m moving from a sit-on-top to a sit-inside. I want a kayak for fishing up to 2 miles off the (East) coast & back-bays.  Yes, I know there will be a transition, but I’m looking for a long term solution that I’ll ‘mature’ into.   Any suggestions are welcome?

Response:

O.K., tough choice.  I’m moving from a sit-on-top to a sit-inside. I want a kayak for fishing up to 2 miles off the (East) coast & back-bays.  Yes, I know there will be a transition, but I’m looking for a long term solution that I’ll ‘mature’ into.   Any suggestions are welcome?

There is quite a bit of a difference between the Current Designs Pachena and the Solstice GT.   You didn’t mention what kind of SOT boat that you are paddling now but the transition between that and the Solstice GT is likely going to be difficult.  I’ve done a bit of fishing (fly) out of a kayak and I can’t imagine trying to do it out of a Solstice.  It’s initial stability is pretty low and for fishing, you’ll want something that you don’t have to even think about maintaining upright.   The Pachena would likely be a much better choice for your needs.  Something like the Seda Viking at 16′6" and 24" wide would probably also be a good choice in a fiberglass boat. John Fereira Stop Unsolicited Commercial Email – Join CAUCE (http://www.cauce.org) Support HR 1748, the anti-spam bill.

Response:

Question:

Because there are so many models of  fly lines available, selection can get pretty confusing.  I have a huge amount of info about fly lines on the Tech Info page of my web site.  I’d suggest you punch up the following address: "http://www.thegrid.net/flyfish/LineSpec.html"  and then click on the hyperlink "Line Tapers" and read that section.  It covers the subject pretty thoroughly.

To Dan, Bill, and all the others in this thread: Thank you, thank you, thank you!  Dan’s web page on line tapers and design specs is a *wonderful* resource for deciding on line types.  I think I’m starting to understand what kind of line I’ll be needing for the small streams and lakes I’ll be fishing. It’s good to see that newsgroups still have good folks who can provide really useful information these days.  I really appreciate the help. Thanks again, Joe G. Tehachapi, CA

Response:

speaking for myself…a weight forward is not necessary on small streams. In fact, it will kind of splash down and make a lot of noise, I only yuse a weight forward for long hauls and big poppers.  for small streams stick with the doublt taper and in five years you can turn it around and use the other end. If you don’t really know how much money to spend, econmize, but take care of your lines with dressing for a long life….john – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m still using the first fly line I’ve ever gotten (received as a gift), which is a 3M DT-6-F.  Luckily, it happened to match the noodle-ey rod I learned on, and when I got good enough to move up a notch and buy a pretty good graphite rod (St. Croix), I just moved the whole setup to the new rod. But, I’m ready to try a new line.  I want to try a weight-forward line, and I plan to use it on relatively small-to-medium streams and waters, mostly here in the Easter Sierra Nevadas where I live.  I’d prefer a floating line for my style of fishing. But I’m overwhelmed with the choices!  I’ve read all the ads in my Orvis and LL Bean catalogs, as well as hit a couple of web pages, but I’m still at a loss.  What’s the real scoop?  Is a $40 line really that much better than a $12 one?  I honestly don’t know, since I’ve only ever used my 3M cheapie line. I’d love to hear some real-world experiences, so I can maybe whittle down the choices a bit, and choose the right line for me.  Can you folks help out a not-so-newbie-but-still-ignorant-about-fly-lines?  I’d really appreciate it.  Thanks in advance. Joe G. Tehachapi, CA

Response:

I agree with staying with a DT line in small waters.   A good quality fly line is worth the money, it will float higher and longer and will not crack and soak water as a cheap line will. Good Fishing; Jeff – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – But, I’m ready to try a new line.  I want to try a weight-forward line, and I plan to use it on relatively small-to-medium streams and waters, mostly here in the Easter Sierra Nevadas where I live.  I’d prefer a floating line for my style of fishing. Hi Joseph, I know there are those who will disagree with me on this one, but if you intend fishing *small*/*medium* streams with a floating line, then I would go for a double taper every time for the sake of superior presentation.  A weight forward line will give you an easier cast when you are looking for a bit extra distance, without too much emphasis on the presentation. FWIW thats what I think. — Bill

Response:

I cut a DT line in half and put it on a reel for use on small streams.  My son took it to the Lamar River in Yellowstone without knowing he only had 1/2 of a line.  It was cold and he had to wade over the top of his hip waders to reach the places where the fish were holding.  Ask him what he thinks of cutting a line in half.   — Ernie Harrison Remove NOSPAM to send E-Mail GO TO http://www.ccnet.com/~emh FOR ECONOMY WADING BOOT PLANS – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –   Another reason to buy a DT:  Cut it in half, you’ve now got two lines and since you’re fishing small streams, you’re not going to be holding 45 feet of line in the air…   You don’t have to cut the line in two to get the equivalent of two lines, just reverse it when one end gets worn. Willi

Response:

You should purchase the best line you can afford.  Cheap floating lines soon become sink tips, and full sinking lines.  If you have a local shop ask if you can cast some.  They generally have some lines on demo reels.  See which feel best on your rod.  I like stay away from the Cortland Lazer line.  SA has many very good lines, and get a good line cleaner when you get the line. Good Luck

Response:

  Another reason to buy a DT:  Cut it in half, you’ve now got two lines and since you’re fishing small streams, you’re not going to be holding 45 feet of line in the air…

  You don’t have to cut the line in two to get the equivalent of two lines, just reverse it when one end gets worn. Willi

Response:

speaking for myself…a weight forward is not necessary on small streams. In fact, it will kind of splash down and make a lot of noise, I only yuse a weight forward for long hauls and big poppers.  for small streams stick with the doublt taper and in five years you can turn it around and use the other end. If you don’t really know how much money to spend, econmize, but take care of your lines with dressing for a long life….john

The statement John makes about WF being less delicate is no longer *necessarily* true.  If the WF has a short front taper (~4ft.) then it will be less delicate and will disturb the water more than a standard DT line.  If it has a front taper of ~6ft. it will be just as delicate as the standard DT which also have ~6ft. of front taper.  There are so many different variations available of both, that it’s no longer a valid generality about WF vs. DT lines.  In the Cortland lines, the WF is *more* delicate than their DT because in that brand the front taper of the WF is considerably longer than the taper on their DT.  In this thread, Bill Kienne recommends using the Cortland DT line because it has a shorter taper than the WF in that brand.  You need to know how long the front taper is on both types of lines of them to judge the delicacy you can expect.  Again, I’d recommend a look at my web page on fly lines (http://www.thegrid.net/flyfish/LineSpec.html) for more info about tapers and how they affect the performance of the line. Another caution, if you decide on the DT for the sake of economy, be sure to turn the line around every 6 months to be able to use both tapers. If you wait 5 years to turn it around, the unused end of the DT will be ruined from being coiled so tightly on the reel. I second John’s recommendation to clean and dress your lines for longer life.                                 hope this helps,                                       Dan Dan Gracia Orvis West Coast Fly Fishing Schools Mt. Shasta Fly Fishing Schools http://www.thegrid.net/flyfish

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m still using the first fly line I’ve ever gotten (received as a gift), which is a 3M DT-6-F.  Luckily, it happened to match the noodle-ey rod I learned on, and when I got good enough to move up a notch and buy a pretty good graphite rod (St. Croix), I just moved the whole setup to the new rod. But, I’m ready to try a new line.  I want to try a weight-forward line, and I plan to use it on relatively small-to-medium streams and waters, mostly here in the Easter Sierra Nevadas where I live.  I’d prefer a floating line for my style of fishing. But I’m overwhelmed with the choices!  I’ve read all the ads in my Orvis and LL Bean catalogs, as well as hit a couple of web pages, but I’m still at a loss.  What’s the real scoop?  Is a $40 line really that much better than a $12 one?  I honestly don’t know, since I’ve only ever used my 3M cheapie line. I’d love to hear some real-world experiences, so I can maybe whittle down the choices a bit, and choose the right line for me.  Can you folks help out a not-so-newbie-but-still-ignorant-about-fly-lines?  I’d really appreciate it.  Thanks in advance. Joe G. Tehachapi, CA  Another reason to buy a DT:  Cut it in half, you’ve now got two lines and since you’re fishing small streams, you’re not going to be holding 45 feet of line in the air…

Hi All, We recommend double tapers for short to medium casting on streams. You can turn the line around ever season to get double the value. Double tapers have shorter front tapers, so they load up the rod better with very little line out past the tip. I don’t recommend cutting the line in half unless your reel is too small. From #3 to #5 this works well, but at a #6 we go to weight forward line as those larger rods are used on lakes and larger rivers. Besides, a double taper #6 floater will take up a lot of room on a reel, leaving little or no space for backing. I like the Scientific Angler Mastery Head Start line at $29.95 (WF only) or the Cortland Peach 444 line (DT or WF) at $36 for the best values in fly lines. Below this price level  you get into lines that don’t shoot very well. Bill Kiene Kiene’s Fly Shop Sacramento,CA,USA 800/4000FLY www.kiene.com

Response:

writes: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -I’m still using the first fly line I’ve ever gotten (received as a gift), which is a 3M DT-6-F.  Luckily, it happened to match the noodle-ey rod I learned on, and when I got good enough to move up a notch and buy a pretty good graphite rod (St. Croix), I just moved the whole setup to the new rod. But, I’m ready to try a new line.  I want to try a weight-forward line, and I plan to use it on relatively small-to-medium streams and waters, mostly here in the Easter Sierra Nevadas where I live.  I’d prefer a floating line for my style of fishing. But I’m overwhelmed with the choices!  I’ve read all the ads in my Orvis and LL Bean catalogs, as well as hit a couple of web pages, but I’m still at a loss.  What’s the real scoop?  Is a $40 line really that much better than a $12 one?  I honestly don’t know, since I’ve only ever used my 3M cheapie line. I’d love to hear some real-world experiences, so I can maybe whittle down the choices a bit, and choose the right line for me.  Can you folks help out a not-so-newbie-but-still-ignorant-about-fly-lines?  I’d really appreciate it.  Thanks in advance.

Hi Joe, Whether you get a better presentation from a DT or a WF line depends on the front taper of the line and varies from manufacturer to manufacturer.  Most people believe you get a better presentation with the DT lines because they have a longer front taper than the WF lines. It used to be common for WF lines to have ~4ft. long front tapers and DT to have ~6ft. long front tapers.   That is no longer necessarily so.  The Orvis WF and DT lines (with the exception of specialty lines) have exactly the same specs for the first 37 ft.(6ft. long front tapers).  SA supposedly changed their tapers a couple of years ago to similar specs.  Cortland however has 10ft. to as much as an 18ft.of front taper on some of their WF lines and ~8ft. on their DT lines.  Bill Kienne may be able to give us better specifics on the Cortland and SA lines. So if you get an Orvis or SA line, the WF will be just as delicate as the DT line.  With a Cortland line the WF will be *more delicate* than their DT line. In all cases the WF will allow you to make longer casts if you decide to fish Lake Crowley, the Mammoth Lakes, or the June Lakes Loop area.   The only time I recommend a DT line anymore is for making long (60 ft or so) roll casts which are much more difficult to do with a WF line (hard to put enough energy into the skinny runny line of a WF to turn over the belly section). Because there are so many models of  fly lines available, selection can get pretty confusing.  I have a huge amount of info about fly lines on the Tech Info page of my web site.  I’d suggest you punch up the following address: "http://www.thegrid.net/flyfish/LineSpec.html"  and then click on the hyperlink "Line Tapers" and read that section.  It covers the subject pretty thoroughly.                              Hope this helps,                                      Dan Dan Gracia Orvis West Coast Fly Fishing Schools Mt. Shasta Fly Fishing Schools http://www.thegrid.net/flyfish

Response:

I’m still using the first fly line I’ve ever gotten (received as a gift), which is a 3M DT-6-F.  Luckily, it happened to match the noodle-ey rod I learned on, and when I got good enough to move up a notch and buy a pretty good graphite rod (St. Croix), I just moved the whole setup to the new rod.

Joe,  You’ll find that roll-cast pickups, which you’ll use a lot on small to medium sized streams, are much easier with a double-taper….A GOOD double-taper….and unfortunately…the $40+ lines ARE a better made line than the real cheapies.  You can throw a line pretty well with a few of the better cheapies, but you’ll really notice a vast improvement in your casting with a better line….Ultra3…Cortland_SL..Orvis’s Hy-Float floater.  Try a couple before you buy if you can…they all are slightly different in their casting characteristics….I forgot the Triangle-Tapers!     You’ll enjoy the whole experience more with a better line, steve

Response:

I would not go with a WF but stay with the DT. The DT has a much better presentation on small to medium streams.

You think so?  I was hoping to be able to cast upstream a bit further, and i thought maybe a WF line would help me.  But if the DT is better for all-around angling in small streams, I guess I’ll stick with that. Thus the reason I carry at least two spools. Alas lets not forget the sinking. So there are three spools to get.

Argh.  After I got hooked on fly fishing, I bit the bullet and bought an Orvis Battenkill 5/6 reel.  It’s a good, solid reel, but I couldn’t afford the durn extra spools, so I’ll have to wait until I’m good enough to justify the extra spool costs.  If I knew then what I know now, maybe I would have saved the bucks on the reel, and bought a cheaper reel body that came with cheaper spools.  Live and learn.     But what I think you’re asking is what brand to use?? I have had good luck with CORTLAND, and ORVIS.

Yes.  There are so many brand names and it’s pretty confusing.  When it comes to spin-casting, I’ve tried just about any line out there, because it’s just a matter of $5-$15 tops for different styles/makes/brands of monofilament (and even for braided lines).  But when I’m going to drop $40-$50 on ONE fly line, I want to try to educate myself a little more. It may not be a big investment for some folks, but for me, I’ve gotta save my pennies for a while to drop the money for my own toys (I have a baby son whose priorities are a little higher than my own right now). What I’m looking for is real-world experiences from fly fishers who are more experienced than me, so I won’t get stuck with a lemon of a fly line that I’ll have to live with for a couple of seasons. Thanks for the help, James. Joe G. Tehachapi, CA

Response:

I would agree with you Bill.  I fish the Eastern and Western Sierras and a double taper is all I ever use.   — Ernie Harrison Remove NOSPAM to send E-Mail GO TO http://www.ccnet.com/~emh FOR ECONOMY WADING BOOT PLANS – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – But, I’m ready to try a new line.  I want to try a weight-forward line, and I plan to use it on relatively small-to-medium streams and waters, mostly here in the Easter Sierra Nevadas where I live.  I’d prefer a floating line for my style of fishing. Hi Joseph, I know there are those who will disagree with me on this one, but if you intend fishing *small*/*medium* streams with a floating line, then I would go for a double taper every time for the sake of superior presentation.  A weight forward line will give you an easier cast when you are looking for a bit extra distance, without too much emphasis on the presentation. FWIW thats what I think. — Bill

Response:

Joe,     I would not go with a WF but stay with the DT. The DT has a much better presentation on small to medium streams. For bigger water and high winds I would use a WF. Thus the reason I carry at least two spools. Alas lets not forget the sinking. So there are three spools to get.     But what I think you’re asking is what brand to use?? I have had good luck with CORTLAND, and ORVIS. Cortland 444 I found to be a great line and it has the specifics of the line printed on it so if you ever take it off your real you will be able to tell what the heck it was. I find my lines usually last a couple of seasons with proper care. So protect your investment (about $40.00 to $50.00) with a good line care product.     Also I found putting out about $40.00 for a fly line is well worth it I had some bad experiences with the less expensive brands. If you plan on practicing your casting on anything but water I would keep the old line to get beat up instead of the new one. Hope this helps.

Response:

But, I’m ready to try a new line.  I want to try a weight-forward line, and I plan to use it on relatively small-to-medium streams and waters, mostly here in the Easter Sierra Nevadas where I live.  I’d prefer a floating line for my style of fishing.

Hi Joseph, I know there are those who will disagree with me on this one, but if you intend fishing *small*/*medium* streams with a floating line, then I would go for a double taper every time for the sake of superior presentation.  A weight forward line will give you an easier cast when you are looking for a bit extra distance, without too much emphasis on the presentation. FWIW thats what I think. — Bill

Response:

Joseph I posted a similar question a couple of months ago and was inundated with responses (I ended up getting a Cortland 444 which is an excellent line). Try going to www.dejanews.com and type in "floating lines" in the search box. You will be able to read the (considerable) replies I got. — Regards Peter (Please also reply by email, my server "loses" posts. Remove nospam to email) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m still using the first fly line I’ve ever gotten (received as a gift), which is a 3M DT-6-F.  Luckily, it happened to match the noodle-ey rod I learned on, and when I got good enough to move up a notch and buy a pretty good graphite rod (St. Croix), I just moved the whole setup to the new rod. But, I’m ready to try a new line.  I want to try a weight-forward line, and I plan to use it on relatively small-to-medium streams and waters, mostly here in the Easter Sierra Nevadas where I live.  I’d prefer a floating line for my style of fishing. But I’m overwhelmed with the choices!  I’ve read all the ads in my Orvis and LL Bean catalogs, as well as hit a couple of web pages, but I’m still at a loss.  What’s the real scoop?  Is a $40 line really that much better than a $12 one?  I honestly don’t know, since I’ve only ever used my 3M cheapie line. I’d love to hear some real-world experiences, so I can maybe whittle down the choices a bit, and choose the right line for me.  Can you folks help out a not-so-newbie-but-still-ignorant-about-fly-lines?  I’d really appreciate it.  Thanks in advance. Joe G. Tehachapi, CA

Response:

Joe- My preference would be a Lee Wulff triangle taper line. At short distances it casts like a double taper, it roll casts beautifully and, when you really need it, it will let you reach out as with a weight forward line. It ain’t cheap, but with care I have over ten years on my first one!In – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m still using the first fly line I’ve ever gotten (received as a gift), which is a 3M DT-6-F.  Luckily, it happened to match the noodle-ey rod I learned on, and when I got good enough to move up a notch and buy a pretty good graphite rod (St. Croix), I just moved the whole setup to the new rod. But, I’m ready to try a new line.  I want to try a weight-forward line, and I plan to use it on relatively small-to-medium streams and waters, mostly here in the Easter Sierra Nevadas where I live.  I’d prefer a floating line for my style of fishing. But I’m overwhelmed with the choices!  I’ve read all the ads in my Orvis and LL Bean catalogs, as well as hit a couple of web pages, but I’m still at a loss.  What’s the real scoop?  Is a $40 line really that much better than a $12 one?  I honestly don’t know, since I’ve only ever used my 3M cheapie line. I’d love to hear some real-world experiences, so I can maybe whittle down the choices a bit, and choose the right line for me.  Can you folks help out a not-so-newbie-but-still-ignorant-about-fly-lines?  I’d really appreciate it.  Thanks in advance. Joe G. Tehachapi, CA

Response:

I’m still using the first fly line I’ve ever gotten (received as a gift), which is a 3M DT-6-F.  Luckily, it happened to match the noodle-ey rod I learned on, and when I got good enough to move up a notch and buy a pretty good graphite rod (St. Croix), I just moved the whole setup to the new rod. But, I’m ready to try a new line.  I want to try a weight-forward line, and I plan to use it on relatively small-to-medium streams and waters, mostly here in the Easter Sierra Nevadas where I live.  I’d prefer a floating line for my style of fishing. But I’m overwhelmed with the choices!  I’ve read all the ads in my Orvis and LL Bean catalogs, as well as hit a couple of web pages, but I’m still at a loss.  What’s the real scoop?  Is a $40 line really that much better than a $12 one?  I honestly don’t know, since I’ve only ever used my 3M cheapie line. I’d love to hear some real-world experiences, so I can maybe whittle down the choices a bit, and choose the right line for me.  Can you folks help out a not-so-newbie-but-still-ignorant-about-fly-lines?  I’d really appreciate it.  Thanks in advance. Joe G. Tehachapi, CA

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m still using the first fly line I’ve ever gotten (received as a gift), which is a 3M DT-6-F.  Luckily, it happened to match the noodle-ey rod I learned on, and when I got good enough to move up a notch and buy a pretty good graphite rod (St. Croix), I just moved the whole setup to the new rod. But, I’m ready to try a new line.  I want to try a weight-forward line, and I plan to use it on relatively small-to-medium streams and waters, mostly here in the Easter Sierra Nevadas where I live.  I’d prefer a floating line for my style of fishing. But I’m overwhelmed with the choices!  I’ve read all the ads in my Orvis and LL Bean catalogs, as well as hit a couple of web pages, but I’m still at a loss.  What’s the real scoop?  Is a $40 line really that much better than a $12 one?  I honestly don’t know, since I’ve only ever used my 3M cheapie line. I’d love to hear some real-world experiences, so I can maybe whittle down the choices a bit, and choose the right line for me.  Can you folks help out a not-so-newbie-but-still-ignorant-about-fly-lines?  I’d really appreciate it.  Thanks in advance. Joe G. Tehachapi, CA

  Another reason to buy a DT:  Cut it in half, you’ve now got two lines and since you’re fishing small streams, you’re not going to be holding 45 feet of line in the air…

Response:

Question:

Sorry, got always an error message from the server, thats why I tried to send it several times!                          Thomas

Response:

: <snip  I had a 7′ 3 wgt. T&T Paralite that : was the most beautiful rod I ever owned…. But it was useless… You : couldn’t shoot a #14 humpy with it… I couldn’t disagree more.  The paralite (my favorite rod) has a different action than most are used to, but it is perfectly capable of handling any sized dry (for trout, that is) and quite a few wieghted nymphs.  I use it often, even in slightly windy conditions.  It won’t, however, deliver larger flies into a stiff breeze- but then again, that’s not really what it was designed for.  And you’re absolutely correct about the beauty of the rod… best regards, Hans — "The worst monotonous drone coming from a lectern or the most eye-splitting textbook written in turgid English is nothing in comparison to the psychological Sahara that starts right in your bedroom and spurns the horizon."         -Joseph Brodsky, from "In praise of Boredom"          delivered as a commencement address at Dartmouth College. Hans T.H. Beernink, Department of Biochemistry, University of Vermont

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I am interested in purchasing a new rod for fishing very tight, small, brushy streams with obstructions on sides and overhead.  I already own 3 rods ranging from 8′-9′ but these are all too long and heavy. I would like to buy a rod between a 2 and 4 weight in a 6-1/2′ to 7-1/2′ length.  After having broken the tip twice on my Sage LL rod, a definite must for this rod is a lifetime warranty or 25 year warranty that Orvis offers. I have looked at the Reddington 4wt 7-1/2′ which has a lifetime warranty but I know 20 years from now Orvis will still be here and they may not.  After reviewing all of the Orvis rods in these sizes it appears that the HLS One Ounce which is a 4wt. 7′ one ounce rod would be best although I am not sure I will like the cork-and-ring reel seat. Has anyone had any experience with the HLS One Ounce?  Or should I consider the Orvis Superfine 2wt. 6′6" One Ounce, 3wt 7′6" Tippet, or the 4wt 7′6" Brook Trout?  Any other rod lines I should look at that have a 25 year or more warranty?  Will I create much more water disturbance by going from a 2-3 weight line to a 4 weight where I will be approaching fish that are very wary?  Is there much difference in throwing a 3wt compared to a 4wt line into the wind on under 20-30′ casts? Thanks for your help in making the best decision possible.

I wouldn’t be afraid of the cork-and-ring reel seat, I have one on my Patridge rod and I have never had problems with it, it’s simpl= y more lightweigth.  To the Orvis rods: Personally i wouldn’t consider the 2weight, the rod is to swippy and has no backbone to cast a weighted nymph or=  cast in windy conds. The 3weight made from HLS graphite is nearly as good as the SAGE LL rod. Anyway: you don’t really feel a diffe= rence between a #3 and a #4 rod, except that the 3weight cast a little bit worse with more wind resistant or heavier flies or in win= dy conditions. I use a short 5weight (!) for nearly all my fishing and I don’t have the feeling to spook trout by serving a 5weight = line more than with the 3weight. The difference is that with that rod it is possible to cast even a very heavy weighted stonefly nym= ph on a heavy leader with lots of split shot without trouble, in contrast to a 3weight. You don’t have to worry about water disturba= nce, if you do, learn to serve the fly better, as I am trying (it works! I learned to serve a fly with a 5weight with nearly as litt= le disturbance as with a #3, it was worth it). Only in very shallow (about 1ft) and very slow and clear water I change to the 3weigh= t, where you don’t need heavy weigthed flys or leaders and the flies are tiny. Anyway: I don’t know how you wade, but most of the flyfishers I spoke to and which were worried about spooking a trout with a #5 lin= e spook the trout before they start to fish (with their 2 or 3weight rod) by incareful wading (so there was no problem to spook the = trout with a heavier line, they spooked them already! Most of these guys make more waterhiking and trout-spooking than flyfishing in= stead standing at one pool and fishing it carefully.). I don’t say, that you do it that way, but cosider the disadvantages of a too = light rod. Something can be evened out by a different (more careful) presentation and approach to a fish! A last point to consider: You can fight a fish faster with a rod with more backbone, which means that you increase the survival rate=  of a released trout (Don’t go under a 3weight! With kindest regards: The Trout). Hope that helps                     tight lines                                Thomas

Response:

I am going to offer a dissenting opinion to most of the feedback you will likely get on your question.  I would not hit a dead dog in the butt with anything lighter that a 4 wgt. for small, tight stream work.  I believe a 5 wgt to be even better.  I have seen very few light (less than 4 wgt….) rods that are capable of punching a fly through brush and under a  hemlock bough that is only 18" off the water.  I had a 7′ 3 wgt. T&T Paralite that was the most beautiful rod I ever owned…. But it was useless… You couldn’t shoot a #14 humpy with it… I fish an Orvis Small Stream Special (7′ 5wgt) for this work… But I have also used the Orvis Rocky Mtn. Flea (6 1/2′ #4) and it is OK.  I like the 5 wgt better.  Eithr of these would be a good choice in my view…    

Response:

I am interested in purchasing a new rod for fishing very tight, small, brushy streams with obstructions on sides and overhead.  I already own 3 rods ranging from 8′-9′ but these are all too long and heavy. I would like to buy a rod between a 2 and 4 weight in a 6-1/2′ to 7-1/2′ length.  After having broken the tip twice on my Sage LL rod, a definite must for this rod is a lifetime warranty or 25 year warranty that Orvis offers. I have looked at the Reddington 4wt 7-1/2′ which has a lifetime warranty but I know 20 years from now Orvis will still be here and they may not.  After reviewing all of the Orvis rods in these sizes it appears that the HLS One Ounce which is a 4wt. 7′ one ounce rod would be best although I am not sure I will like the cork-and-ring reel seat. Has anyone had any experience with the HLS One Ounce?  Or should I consider the Orvis Superfine 2wt. 6′6" One Ounce, 3wt 7′6" Tippet, or the 4wt 7′6" Brook Trout?  Any other rod lines I should look at that have a 25 year or more warranty?  Will I create much more water disturbance by going from a 2-3 weight line to a 4 weight where I will be approaching fish that are very wary?  Is there much difference in throwing a 3wt compared to a 4wt line into the wind on under 20-30′ casts? Thanks for your help in making the best decision possible.

Response:

Question:

Fly fishing for Bass on the Kanawha River near Charleston, West Virginia is a trip.. Something not for the typical Fisherman. Now the water is up and very muddy, but when it go back down, I’ll let everyone know how the Fishing is…. Misha

Response:

very muddy, but when it go back down, I’ll let everyone know how the Fishing is….

Yes please!  I especially like that strech just before Rt. 60 goes up into the mountains.  (would that be Gauly Bridge? ) Bob

Response:

Question:

I’m planning a trip with several friends.  We want to fly into Albuquerque.  We’ve all been to the San Juan/Navajo Dam area several times, but want to go somewhere different.  We’re thinking about staying in going to Southern Colorado (Dolores, Durango, or somewhere near the Rio Grande River).  We are planning a 4-5 day trip and may consider a day of fishing at Navajo if the logistics work out.  We like low budget but comfortable motels.  Anyone have any ideas?  Fishing holes/destinations? Sleeping quarters? Thanks, Brian Sharp

Response:

  I’m planning a trip with several friends.  We want to fly into   Albuquerque.  We’ve all been to the San Juan/Navajo Dam area several   times, but want to go somewhere different.  We’re thinking about staying   in going to Southern Colorado (Dolores, Durango, or somewhere near the Rio   Grande River).  We are planning a 4-5 day trip and may consider a day of   fishing at Navajo if the logistics work out.  We like low budget but   comfortable motels.  Anyone have any ideas?  Fishing holes/destinations?   Sleeping quarters? Also consider the Conejos River and it’s tributaries west of Antonito. Lots of different kinds of water, lots of public

access and lots of good camping spots and lodges. Denver, Colorado        ftp.rmii.com/pub2/gwgodden      

Response:

Brain,  From personal experience I would like to suggest that you stay in Durango.  It makes a great central base to start from.  The Delores is about 1 1/2 hours due west and the San Juan is about 1 hour south.  The Rio Grande might be a problem because it is about 2 – 21/2 hours away due east.   If you looking for cheap lodgings pick up a copy of the  American Automobile Association’s (AAA) tour books for the states of New Mexico and Colorado.  They list just about every motel in the Durango area or the entire state for that matter.  They list prices too.  So you can shop around. If you are looking for a guide try:  Doug Buck at Duranglers in Durango, CO                                                   (303)-385-4081 He is familiar with just about all the waters that you mentioned. Good luck.  Let us know how you did.

Response:

Call Tom Knopek at Duranglers in Durango if you’re looking for a guide. Several great places to fish.  Try the Delores below McPhee Dam north of Cortez Colorado.  Try the San Miguel near Telluride.  Last undammed river in Colo.  If you’ve got the time, Black Canyon of Gunnison river is once in a lifetime! Andy Gordon Phoenix, Arizona Andy Gordon, (602) 224-0999

Response:

Question:

Hi. I will be going to the Argentinean Patagonia (Neuquen, Rio Negro, and Chubut provinces) this coming January. Does anybody have any suggestions regarding fly patterns to try? What about places to go? Thanks. Daniel Martinez

Response:

Hi. I will be going to the Argentinean Patagonia (Neuquen, Rio Negro, and Chubut provinces) this coming January. Does anybody have any suggestions regarding fly patterns to try? What about places to go? Thanks. Daniel Martinez

Take a look at the lastest issue of "Outside" magazine.  There is an article on flyfishing Patagonia.   — John Fereira Pleasanton, CA

Response:

Question:

Any hints/shops people can recommend for an end of August trip to 10Mile Lake near Hackensack MN? I’m bringing both fly-fishing & baitcasting gear in the hopes of catching my first walleye. mike chin

Response:

Any hints/shops people can recommend for an end of August trip to 10Mile Lake near Hackensack MN? I’m bringing both fly-fishing & baitcasting gear in the hopes of catching my first walleye. mike chin

Yes.  Try "long-lining" a straight gold/black rapala in the late evening and night.  Troll shallow and at medium speeds with an electric. This is how we used to fish this lake, and at times this produced extremely nice walleyes. -tgades

Response:

Any hints/shops people can recommend for an end of August trip to 10Mile Lake near Hackensack MN? I’m bringing both fly-fishing & baitcasting gear in the hopes of catching my first walleye. mike chin

Talk to the folks in Reeds Sporting Goods in Walker, Mn. they should know where the walleyes are biting.  Never caught one on a fly though.

Response: