Question:

Seriously, what about its environmental impact.  I just switched to tin splitshots and no longer wrap my flies with lead.  I do eat 25% of the fish I catch and like to hunt water fowl. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I guess I’m going to have to call that last fisherman I had this fall and ask him what brand of flouro he was using as there was a HUGE difference in visibility of the flouro vs mono. The flouro was extremely visible even through 18" to 24" of river water. — Tight Lines! Brian D. Nelson Diamond N Outfitters, Missoula, Montana www.diamondnoutfitters.com Nearly all of the above reasons would have been true of the first generation of Fluorocarbon that came on the market. I suggest you try some of the newer stuff, it is much better and in many cases is superior on many levels to mono. The "selling point" of fluorocarbon (FC) is that’s it’s less visible underwater than because its index of refraction is closer to that of water than is the index of refraction of mono. I assume we’re all agreed on that. (It’s definitely not the price Some time ago I looked up the indices of refraction of "typical" FC and mono and compared them to that of fresh water. Sure enough, the FC was closer, but it wasn’t THAT MUCH closer — maybe halfway. I didn’t save the numbers and I don’t feel like looking them up at the moment. If it had been SPOT ON, I would have been impressed, but it wasn’t. The physics and neurophysics of what makes something more or less "visible" are complex. I was still skeptical about the claim. Then I took a length of FC and a length of mono (same diameters), put them into a glass of water, and looked at them. They looked about the same. After that, I was even more skeptical, and I remain so. We’ve heard anecdotal stories about how no one was catching fish, then someone switched to FC and started catching, and then everyone else switched and everyone started catching like crazy. I don’t put any credence at all on those stories. The same damn thing might happen for any number of other reasons.

Response:

  Just as a footnote, my experience was with dries, not nymphing. Flouro isn’t my choice for dries but I do like it for nymphing. Overall, It’s not my choice for leader material because I don’t like making major changes to my leader just to switch between a dry and a nymph. However, in a situation like we had at the San Juan where there wasn’t much dry action, I will use it. I also like it on the dropper on a dry/dropper rig. Willi

Response:

  Al Hammel mentioned fluorocarbon in a negative way. I agree. Don’t use   fluorocarbon for dry flies. It’s too stiff. I don’t use it for nymphing   either, because I think the putative benefits are nonexistant, or at   least are so miniscule that they don’t justify the expense and bother. I used some of the second generation stuff on the Juan this year and it’s very strong, tough stuff. I’m as cheap as they come and I’m willing to pay the price.

The LAST thing you need, Willi especially on the San Juan, is fluorocarbon. In fact, in your case I think it’s unethical.

Response:

I just recevied the three forks 3wt rod I ordered, and I went to try it out. It was much easier to cast than my 20 dollar wal*mart rod. It seems to have a pretty slow action, which is nice after casting the broomstick like shakespear. I was wondering, what size tippet to use for 14-18 size dry flies? Thanks, ALex

Way cool Alex, congrats on getting your KPOS…I know you will grow to love it, as I do…collect the whole set and be confident in the knowledge that you have saved the job of some little Korean cutie. Frank Sr. previous advice on tippet size noted

Response:

Al Hammel mentioned fluorocarbon in a negative way. I agree. Don’t use fluorocarbon for dry flies. It’s too stiff. It sinks, too.

The sinking doesn’t bother me much. In fact, it’s a positive, because I believe a tippet under the surface is less visible than one floating in the surface tension, especially in calm water and sunny conditions. I don’t think FC sinks readily enough to pull under the surface a well floating fly, although it may be a factor with waterlogged or otherwise marginal flies. My objection is just the stiffness, which complicates a drag-free drift.

Response:

I have used the Umpqua super fluoro and find it a lot softer than deceiver for higher knot strength. I like it and may, repeat, may change completely to it before the end of the season. (Consumer warning on above advice: yes I am commercially connected with Umpqua.) Clark

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Al Hammel mentioned fluorocarbon in a negative way. I agree. Don’t use fluorocarbon for dry flies. It’s too stiff. It sinks, too.

Response:

Jon Cook writes: Al Hammel mentioned fluorocarbon in a negative way. I agree. Don’t use fluorocarbon for dry flies. It’s too stiff. It sinks, too.

Damn straight!  Makes it wonderful for nymphing.  <g   If you grease it to within ten inches of the fly, that portion will float, but the portion untreated will sink just below the surface, but not enough to sink the fly.  I don’t like its stiffness, however, for dries, but it is adequate when I am too lazy to switch. Dave

Response:

I have used the Umpqua super fluoro and find it a lot softer than deceiver for higher knot strength. I like it and may, repeat, may change completely to it before the end of the season. (Consumer warning on above advice: yes I am commercially connected with Umpqua.)

Has anyone here checked as to whether or not you can actually see the flouro leader/tippet material when it’s underwater? I’ve had a few instances this season where a fisherman shows up with the new fluoro and the fish just don’t seem to want to eat his bug. I change him over to the old stuff (I use Umpqua but I’m not commercially connected to them) and, bammo, lots more hits with the same fly and all. I’ve held a rolled up fluoro leader next to a rolled up regular leader under water. I can see the fluoro plain as day. Couldn’t hardly see the other stuff. I’m trying to recall what brands were the suspect material but for the life of me, I can’t recall. — Tight Lines! Brian D. Nelson Diamond N Outfitters, Missoula, Montana www.diamondnoutfitters.com

Response:

Brian Nelson writes: Has anyone here checked as to whether or not you can actually see the flouro leader/tippet material when it’s underwater?

Yes, you can see it.  Quite well, aamof.  But, my experience with Orvis FC and Orvis Superstrength is just the opposite of what you note.  Went from 5x Superstrength to 5x FC and caught fish immediately.  I like it for nymphing because it holds up better to abrasion from rocks.  YMMV, of course.  <g Dave

Response:

Just as a footnote, my experience was with dries, not nymphing. — Tight Lines! Brian D. Nelson Diamond N Outfitters, Missoula, Montana www.diamondnoutfitters.com

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Brian Nelson writes: Has anyone here checked as to whether or not you can actually see the flouro leader/tippet material when it’s underwater? Yes, you can see it.  Quite well, aamof.  But, my experience with Orvis FC and Orvis Superstrength is just the opposite of what you note.  Went from 5x Superstrength to 5x FC and caught fish immediately.  I like it for nymphing because it holds up better to abrasion from rocks.  YMMV, of course.  <g Dave

Response:

"Brian D. Nelson" Has anyone here checked as to whether or not you can actually see the flouro leader/tippet material when it’s underwater? I’ve had a few instances this season where a fisherman shows up with the new fluoro and the fish just don’t seem to want to eat his bug. I change him over to the old stuff (I use Umpqua but I’m not commercially connected to them) and, bammo, lots more hits with the same fly and all. I’ve held a rolled up fluoro leader next to a rolled up regular leader under water. I can see the fluoro plain as day. Couldn’t hardly see the other stuff. I’m trying to recall what brands were the suspect material but for the life of me, I can’t recall.

I haven’t had any real problems at all brian, but one thing I find interesting when fishing dries on fluoro is that it seems to have more trouble breaking the surface tension. When fishing on stillwaters I have all manner of problems getting it to sink at all. Of course, once it does break though it sinks faster than mono but getting it to break through can be a heck of a problem.. any thoughts. Clark

Response:

Just as a footnote, my experience was with dries, not nymphing. — Tight Lines! Brian D. Nelson Diamond N Outfitters, Missoula, Montana www.diamondnoutfitters.com

Could it be floating more as I mentioned above? I believe the "imprint" in the surface film is the biggest problem with it on smoother waters. Clark

Response:

Just as a footnote, my experience was with dries, not nymphing. — Tight Lines! Brian D. Nelson Diamond N Outfitters, Missoula, Montana www.diamondnoutfitters.com Could it be floating more as I mentioned above? I believe the "imprint" in the surface film is the biggest problem with it on smoother waters.

Could be. All I know is it was very easily seen while under water whereas the mono basically disappeared and it did make a big difference (at least to me it did) in the number of fish that came up to eat the bug. I’ll have to do a little ’speriment the next time I have some available. — Tight Lines! Brian D. Nelson Diamond N Outfitters, Missoula, Montana www.diamondnoutfitters.com

Response:

The sinking doesn’t bother me much. In fact, it’s a positive, because I believe a tippet under the surface is less visible than one floating in the surface tension, especially in calm water and sunny conditions. I don’t think FC sinks readily enough to pull under the surface a well floating fly, although it may be a factor with waterlogged or otherwise marginal flies. My objection is just the stiffness, which complicates a drag-free drift.

I’ve used it a good bit and the sinking doesn’t seem to be a problem (I agree with RW’s comment about it), but FC does appear to break more easily at the knot. Maybe that’s a function of its stiffness, but I believe FC’s advantage in visibility is outweighed by its stiffness, relative fragility at the knot, and expense. Bob

Response:

Yes, you can see it.  Quite well, aamof.  But, my experience with Orvis FC and Orvis Superstrength is just the opposite of what you note.  Went from 5x Superstrength to 5x FC and caught fish immediately.  I like it for nymphing because it holds up better to abrasion from rocks.

Funny, last year I took along the Orvis FC to the Salmon R, & it seemed to suffer more abrasion than plain mono.   So much so, I almost abandoned fluorocarbon for fear that all the surface abrasion would negate the refractive advantages.   (Then again this was 2x stuff, so it was a lot more visible to begin with.) Joe F.

Response:

I just recevied the three forks 3wt rod I ordered, and I went to try it out. It was much easier to cast than my 20 dollar wal*mart rod. It seems to have a pretty slow action, which is nice after casting the broomstick like shakespear. I was wondering, what size tippet to use for 14-18 size dry flies?

After buying a new rod, that is exactly what I wonder too. Depends on how bushy the flies are and other conditions.  Experiment.  Use a tippet that will cast the fly where you want it, but not stiff enough to lay out straight.  Start with, say, 5x and see if it curls up nicely for you.

Response:

Al Hammel mentioned fluorocarbon in a negative way. I agree. Don’t use fluorocarbon for dry flies. It’s too stiff.

reasons not to use flourocarbon: 1) too stiff for many purposes (harder to make a drag free float) 2) more expensive 3) hardness makes good knots elusive: IE the line doesn’t break, but    knots often unravel 4) the stiffness of the line can cause hellatious tangles.    …accidentally bounce the leader off a branch and you often    reel back a monstrous spider web. 5) environmental pollution:    nylon absorbs water and breaks down with UV exposure.    nylon lasts a long time, but flourocarbon lasts (by comparison) forever.

Response:

"while_1" reasons not to use flourocarbon: 1) too stiff for many purposes (harder to make a drag free float) 2) more expensive 3) hardness makes good knots elusive: IE the line doesn’t break, but    knots often unravel 4) the stiffness of the line can cause hellatious tangles.    …accidentally bounce the leader off a branch and you often    reel back a monstrous spider web. 5) environmental pollution:    nylon absorbs water and breaks down with UV exposure.    nylon lasts a long time, but flourocarbon lasts (by comparison)

forever. Nearly all of the above reasons would have been true of the first generation of Fluorocarbon that came on the market. I suggest you try some of the newer stuff, it is much better and in many cases is superior on many levels to mono. 1) The new generation stuff is more supple than many equivalent monos. 2) Yep it is, but as you don’t have to refresh your stocks each season it can be more value for money for many. 3) This has been pretty much negated. 4) The stiffness has gone. 5) Mono isn’t exactly environmentally friendly either. The onus is on the angler to ensure adequate cleanup of excess pieces. In a reality sense the length of time flouro stays on snag isn’t all that different to mono. Clark Clark

Response:

Nearly all of the above reasons would have been true of the first generation of Fluorocarbon that came on the market. I suggest you try some of the newer stuff, it is much better and in many cases is superior on many levels to mono.

The "selling point" of fluorocarbon (FC) is that’s it’s less visible underwater than because its index of refraction is closer to that of water than is the index of refraction of mono. I assume we’re all agreed on that. (It’s definitely not the price Some time ago I looked up the indices of refraction of "typical" FC and mono and compared them to that of fresh water. Sure enough, the FC was closer, but it wasn’t THAT MUCH closer — maybe halfway. I didn’t save the numbers and I don’t feel like looking them up at the moment. If it had been SPOT ON, I would have been impressed, but it wasn’t. The physics and neurophysics of what makes something more or less "visible" are complex. I was still skeptical about the claim. Then I took a length of FC and a length of mono (same diameters), put them into a glass of water, and looked at them. They looked about the same. After that, I was even more skeptical, and I remain so. We’ve heard anecdotal stories about how no one was catching fish, then someone switched to FC and started catching, and then everyone else switched and everyone started catching like crazy. I don’t put any credence at all on those stories. The same damn thing might happen for any number of other reasons.

Response:

"rw" < – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The "selling point" of fluorocarbon (FC) is that’s it’s less visible underwater than because its index of refraction is closer to that of water than is the index of refraction of mono. I assume we’re all agreed on that. (It’s definitely not the price Some time ago I looked up the indices of refraction of "typical" FC and mono and compared them to that of fresh water. Sure enough, the FC was closer, but it wasn’t THAT MUCH closer — maybe halfway. I didn’t save the numbers and I don’t feel like looking them up at the moment. If it had been SPOT ON, I would have been impressed, but it wasn’t. The physics and neurophysics of what makes something more or less "visible" are complex. I was still skeptical about the claim. Then I took a length of FC and a length of mono (same diameters), put them into a glass of water, and looked at them. They looked about the same. After that, I was even more skeptical, and I remain so. We’ve heard anecdotal stories about how no one was catching fish, then someone switched to FC and started catching, and then everyone else switched and everyone started catching like crazy. I don’t put any credence at all on those stories. The same damn thing might happen for any number of other reasons.

I would agree to some degree with your conclusions. I don’t think the differences are THAT huge. But I think there are differences and times will arise where one will give you an advantage over the other. I don’t believe either material is perfect in  certain circumstances one will out perform the other. Having said that. My preliminary results using the new Super-Flouro is pretty encouraging. I’m not using it totally exclusively, but at the moment that’s only because I haven’t to been able to get it in all the sizes I want. I think I will but that doesn’t mean I wont find situations where I wont find a situation where I’ll want to use mono anymore either. Clark

Response:

I guess I’m going to have to call that last fisherman I had this fall and ask him what brand of flouro he was using as there was a HUGE difference in visibility of the flouro vs mono. The flouro was extremely visible even through 18" to 24" of river water. — Tight Lines! Brian D. Nelson Diamond N Outfitters, Missoula, Montana www.diamondnoutfitters.com

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Nearly all of the above reasons would have been true of the first generation of Fluorocarbon that came on the market. I suggest you try some of the newer stuff, it is much better and in many cases is superior on many levels to mono. The "selling point" of fluorocarbon (FC) is that’s it’s less visible underwater than because its index of refraction is closer to that of water than is the index of refraction of mono. I assume we’re all agreed on that. (It’s definitely not the price Some time ago I looked up the indices of refraction of "typical" FC and mono and compared them to that of fresh water. Sure enough, the FC was closer, but it wasn’t THAT MUCH closer — maybe halfway. I didn’t save the numbers and I don’t feel like looking them up at the moment. If it had been SPOT ON, I would have been impressed, but it wasn’t. The physics and neurophysics of what makes something more or less "visible" are complex. I was still skeptical about the claim. Then I took a length of FC and a length of mono (same diameters), put them into a glass of water, and looked at them. They looked about the same. After that, I was even more skeptical, and I remain so. We’ve heard anecdotal stories about how no one was catching fish, then someone switched to FC and started catching, and then everyone else switched and everyone started catching like crazy. I don’t put any credence at all on those stories. The same damn thing might happen for any number of other reasons.

Response:

  Al Hammel mentioned fluorocarbon in a negative way. I agree. Don’t use   fluorocarbon for dry flies. It’s too stiff. I don’t use it for nymphing   either, because I think the putative benefits are nonexistant, or at   least are so miniscule that they don’t justify the expense and bother. I used some of the second generation stuff on the Juan this year and it’s very strong, tough stuff. I’m as cheap as they come and I’m willing to pay the price. Willi

Response:

I just recevied the three forks 3wt rod I ordered, and I went to try it out. It was much easier to cast than my 20 dollar wal*mart rod. It seems to have a pretty slow action, which is nice after casting the broomstick like shakespear. I was wondering, what size tippet to use for 14-18 size dry flies? Thanks, ALex

Response:

4x to 5x works well.  I am leary of flourocarbon.  The stuff reminds me of the gas that breaks down the ozone in solid form.  Presentation is everything.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I just recevied the three forks 3wt rod I ordered, and I went to try it out. It was much easier to cast than my 20 dollar wal*mart rod. It seems to have a pretty slow action, which is nice after casting the broomstick like shakespear. I was wondering, what size tippet to use for 14-18 size dry flies? Thanks, ALex

Response:

I just recevied the three forks 3wt rod I ordered, and I went to try it out. It was much easier to cast than my 20 dollar wal*mart rod. It seems to have a pretty slow action, which is nice after casting the broomstick like shakespear. I was wondering, what size tippet to use for 14-18 size dry flies?

5x normally. If the conditions are really difficult (very clear, smooth water, bright sunlight, picky fish) then 6x might be better. Al Hammel mentioned fluorocarbon in a negative way. I agree. Don’t use fluorocarbon for dry flies. It’s too stiff. I don’t use it for nymphing either, because I think the putative benefits are nonexistant, or at least are so miniscule that they don’t justify the expense and bother.

Response:

Question:

Would anyone like to give a history of Roff. When it started,who are the longest posters Etc.

Response:

I and several others helped kick off alt.fishing in the late 1980’s, and the Associated Press and several well known magazines interviewed us and ran articles on the new forum for fishers. Until the early 1990’s, I posted stats on who the top posters were per year.  Readership was about 20,000-40,000 in the early years Several years later, Brian Dixon (then in Colorado, ironically now working for HP a few buildings away from me) successfully led an effort to get the rec.outdoors.fishing.* hierarchy started. Certainly many of us older posters don’t post as much due to other activities. I remain very impressed with the quality and value of the fishing forums, and thank many of you for keeping things going. Thomas Gilg – President, Mid-Willamette Fly Fishers, Corvallis Oregon – VP Conservation, Oregon Council of the Federation of Fly Fishers – Oregon [Fish] Restoration and Enhancement Board, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife    (i.e. I and 6 others get to decide how to spend the several-dollar surcharge on every    angling license sold in Oregon to improve fisheries and fishing opportunities) – lots of other fishing conservation and education stuff

Response:

Would anyone like to give a history of Roff. When it started,who are the longest posters Etc.

I’m not sure who started ROFF or how long ago it was, but I’ll bet HWMNBN was the one who introduced him to USENET as they developed new fly patterns in a foxhole in the Korean War. –Steve (hey, someone’s gotta namedrop, even during a Clave)

Response:

, I posted stats on who the top posters were per year.  Readership was about 20,000-40,000 in the early years    thomas, is there any way that you or some other tekkie could roughly determine the number of posters/lurkers on roff at the present? wayno

There’s no way to count pure lurkers, without having server logs for every access point on the net – world wide. Most of us are already booked for other more worthy endeavors, but I invite my good friend from The Old North State to have at it with his usual gusto ;^) Otherwise, you could scoop a contributing authors list through one of the news archivers for as far back as they go. I figure that roughly 500 authors have contributed (positively or otherwise) since Opening Day. /daytripper (who’s heading for the Cape of Cod for the week. Buh Bye! ;^)

Response:

thomas, is there any way that you or some other tekkie could roughly determine the number of posters/lurkers on roff at the present?

Well, number of posters would be fairly easy. However, if there’s someone out there who can tell how many lurkers there are, please let me know. I have a few questions to ask about my future. –Steve

Response:

Tom;   From a self professed computer geek and fly fishing fanatic, thank you.          Frank Reid Before you buy.

Response:

, I posted stats on who the top posters were per year.  Readership was about 20,000-40,000 in the early years

        thomas, is there any way that you or some other tekkie could roughly determine the number of posters/lurkers on roff at the present? wayno

Response:

Amen! Well done Tom. This ng and ROFFT are the major reasons I enjoy my online time. — Jamie http://clik.to/flyfish

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Tom;   From a self professed computer geek and fly fishing fanatic, thank you.          Frank Reid Before you buy.

Response:

Wayne Harrison: … is there any way that you or some other tekkie could roughly determine the number of posters/lurkers on roff at the present?

Someone somehow used to post USENET readership statistics in one of the news.* newsgroups.  I think they derived actual readership numbers from some NNTP servers, and then did some reasonable math to come up with total readership.  They would also list top posters for the top lists. Someone with time on their hands might cruise the news.* groups to see if they still post such results. Thomas Gilg

Response:

Someone with time on their hands might cruise the news.* groups to see if they still post such results.

I found: http://metalab.unc.edu/usenetb-bin/to-group.pl?rec.outdoors.fishing.fly Not that I have time on my hands you understand<g. — Charlie…

Response:

Remarq.com, which I use as a free newsreader (hence the stupid phone ad at the bottom of my posts) lists ROFF as having 1958 Threads and 2241 posters. Don’t know how far back that goes nor how many of those posters are various "G" alias’ Cheers, Allen Epps Got questions?  Get answers over the phone at Keen.com. Up to 100 minutes free! http://www.keen.com

Response:

Wayne Harrison: … is there any way that you or some other tekkie could roughly determine the number of posters/lurkers on roff at the present? Someone somehow used to post USENET readership statistics in one of the news.* newsgroups.  I think they derived actual readership numbers from some NNTP servers, and then did some reasonable math to come up with total readership.  They would also list top posters for the top lists.

You could make REALLY crude guesstimates, but it would be nearly impossible to get real numbers short of asking every ISP newsprovider to track each of their users and report back. They probably did something like, there are x news providers, with y average users a piece, z% of their users read usenet and then look at the posting amounts of each newsgroup to get some idea of the popularity of various group’s readers. It’s probably a good estimate +-40-50%.      - Ken —     "I was gratified to be able to answer promptly,       and I did.  I said I didn’t know."     — Mark Twain

Response:

Someone with time on their hands might cruise the news.* groups to see if they still post such results. I found: http://metalab.unc.edu/usenetb-bin/to-group.pl?rec.outdoors.fishing.fly

Thanks.  On that site I found their explanation on how the readership is estimated… "Readers      Estimated total number of people who read this group, worldwide      There are two sources of error in this number. The number is      computed by multiplying the number of people in the sample who      actually read the group by the ratio of estimated network size to      sample size. The estimated total can therefore be biased by errors in      the network size estimate (see above) and also by errors in the      determination of whether or not someone reads a group. Assuming that      "reading a group" is roughly the same as "thumbing through a      magazine", in that you don’t necessarily have to read anything, but      you have to browse through it and see what is there, then the      measurement error will come primarily from inability to locate .newsrc      files, which can either be protected or moved out of root directories.      There is no way of measuring the effect on the measurements from      unlocated .newsrc files, but it is not likely to be more than a few      percent of the total news readers. "      - Ken —     "I was gratified to be able to answer promptly,       and I did.  I said I didn’t know."     — Mark Twain

Response:

Someone with time on their hands might cruise the news.* groups to see if they still post such results. I found: http://metalab.unc.edu/usenetb-bin/to-group.pl?rec.outdoors.fishing.fly Not that I have time on my hands you understand<g. — Charlie…

    chocolat, you da king uh da world!  and the source is located in a unc.edu file–unfreaking impeachable! wayno

Response:

Question:

Excellent advice

Response:

At first I thought this was a good suggestion, but after thinking about it, I’m not too sure.  You will need a bit more 3 weight line in the air to load it the same as the 5 weight, but this is OK since for delicate presentation it wouldn’t hurt to be 10 feet farther away anyway – presumably those trout are spooky?

When I want to use a light outfit, I’m usually fishing with small flies using long leaders and trying to achieve a delicate presentation and a drag free drift. Usually casts are in the short range in order to control drag. It’s generally much more effective to carefully stalk a feeding fish than to make a long cast that’s difficult to control. Likewise, you lose a bit off the top end of the casting distance range if you cast a 6 or 7 weight.  But if you can cast 60 feet with a 5 line, you should be able to get at least 50 out of the heavier ones, give or take a couple feet.

When I fish a heavy outfit, I usually looking for distance and power. I also don’t know how many rods could deal with a haul being overlined by two weights. Willi

Response:

At first I thought this was a good suggestion, but after thinking about it, I’m not too sure.

I’ve been doing this to some degree or another for many years, sometimes on purpose, other times through ignorance. As Jeff puts it, ’tis a compromise, but isn’t most of flyfishing anyway? Seldom have I had such ideal conditions in my fishing that I could pick ONE perfect outfit, even if there was an infinite assortment of equipment waiting for me at the bank from which to choose! Anyway, FWIW, this idea does work to a point. And as for rod damage from overlining, doesn’t fighting a good fish put at least as much or more strain on the rod than a temporary overlining situation? (Legitimate question–not a troll.) Cheers, Rick

Response:

When I want to use a light outfit, I’m usually fishing with small flies using long leaders and trying to achieve a delicate presentation and a drag free drift. Usually casts are in the short range in order to control drag.

I didn’t explicitly state it, but don’t you expect a range of 0 to xx feet from an outfit?  In other words, do you sometimes cast a few feet of line and the leader?  If so, the cast would remain virtually the same with 2 lines less. When I fish a heavy outfit, I usually looking for distance and power. I also don’t know how many rods could deal with a haul being overlined by two weights.

I agree this would be a bad time to use my suggestion.  But as I said, it doesn’t solve all problems, just some. Regards, Jeff

Response:

Anyway, FWIW, this idea does work to a point. And as for rod damage from overlining, doesn’t fighting a good fish put at least as much or more strain on the rod than a temporary overlining situation?

I would certainly think so, except for the backward direction  I don’t know if the "2 way" bending vs 1 way bending means anything at all.  Something to do with the spine perhaps??? Regards, Jeff

Response:

I would certainly think so, except for the backward direction  I don’t know if the "2 way" bending vs 1 way bending means anything at all.  Something to do with the spine perhaps??? Regards, Jeff

With all of the debate on where to place the guides relative to the spine, could that matter much? Cheers, Josh Haag

Response:

If you fish sinking tips and full sink lines a lot, you want the spine to lift them out of the water.  If you’re interested in distance casting, then you know the spine has to be so the power is all delivered on the forward stroke.  Almost sounds like sex. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I would certainly think so, except for the backward direction  I don’t know if the "2 way" bending vs 1 way bending means anything at all.  Something to do with the spine perhaps??? Regards, Jeff With all of the debate on where to place the guides relative to the spine, could that matter much? Cheers, Josh Haag

Response:

I did the casting class yesterday at the local flyfishing shop. It was pretty cool. I tried 4 different rod weights with different lines. I seem to do best with a 6wt rod. I even managed a fair imitation of a roll cast. I bought a Reddington 5/6wt rod, a Concept 2 reel and extra spools with some cheapie #5, #6, and #7 lines to practice with. The rod acts so differently with the different lines and lengths. The rod is  a little stiff with the #5 line, until I get a lot of line out, better with the #6 on moderate lengths. #7 does load up the rod fast, but I think it’ll work best for shorter ~very~ accurate casts.

Response:

To anyone who’s past the beginner stage, it’s obvious that different rigs are best for different situations.  A 2 or 3 weight for most delicate presentation, a heavier line for longer casts with more air resistant flies, a shorter rod for brush, a longer rod for nymphing pocket water, etc.etc.  While we would all like about a dozen rods in the gear hound tradition, here is a suggestion for reducing the number of rods you feel you need to buy (at least for those of us who didn’t make $10 million in stocks and forgot to get out by now I think most of us take the rod/line matching too literally.  A line is classified by its weight, and that weight is measured for the first 30 feet of the line only.  Related to this is the fact that a rod’s weight classification is determined by how it casts with exactly that 30 feet of line.  Normally the builder is supposed to *optimize* a given rod weight for 30 feet of a given line wieght.  Stop to think about it for a second and you’ll realize that this doesn’t happen in the real world too often.  In fact a mathmetician would tell you that technically it NEVER happens. Practically speaking, we are in effect constantly changing the fly line weight we are casting, but not the rod weight.  The fact that this works fine proves that rods can handle a number of different line weights at different casting distances. For example, let’s say you have a 6 wgt rod.  When casting 30 feet of 6 wgt line, or about 26 feet of 7 weight line, or about 23 feet of 8 weight line, or about 34 feet of 5 weight line, or about 39 feet of 4 weight line – it’s all the same in terms of line weight loading the rod!  Put another way, casting a 4 line on a 4 rod with a casting range of 10-50 feet is about the same as casting a 6 line on a 4 rod with a casting range of 7-40 feet, roughly. You can use this information to tailor the rod/line combo to match the situation.  And you can do this by changing your line instead of changing your rod in many instances.  Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying we can all do with 1 rod.  But perhaps you can get by with 1 rod instead of 2, or 2 instead of 3, or 4 instead of 6.  Buy multiple lines, spool them up on spare spools for your reel, and in effect you’ve bought a different outfit for $30 or $40 instead of $200 or $400. Another advantage of this approach is that you would never (or very rarely) take a second or third rod on a hike or upstream with you.  On the other hand, it’s very easy to toss a couple extra spools with different line in your vest. All those extra rods you bought don’t as much good if you can only use 1 per trip or "session".  Switching reel spools midstream is a piece of cake. Switching rods midstream ain’t happenin’.  (yes, technically you could drag a tube with you or stash an 8-piece rod in your vest…) So if you feel you need a 3 weight for delicate presentation, a 5 weight for all around use, and a 6 or 7 weight for throwing bigger woolly buggers or smallmouth patterns, git yerself a 5 weight rod and 3 different lines to go with it.  You will need a bit more 3 weight line in the air to load it the same as the 5 weight, but this is OK since for delicate presentation it wouldn’t hurt to be 10 feet farther away anyway – presumably those trout are spooky? Likewise, you lose a bit off the top end of the casting distance range if you cast a 6 or 7 weight.  But if you can cast 60 feet with a 5 line, you should be able to get at least 50 out of the heavier ones, give or take a couple feet. On the other hand, if you are making shorter casts  (for example in pocket water or tighter brush), the 6 or 7 will be a better match with the 5 wgt rod. Bottom line – just changing line weights can’t solve all your problems, but it can be as good or a better solution in a lot of cases, and it’s sure a hell of a lot cheaper than buying that many more rods. Regards, Jeff

Response:

Question:

Reality Sucks I say she’s seeking guidance from an experienced fly fisher/computer scientist, and deserves your best efforts. Dave

Response:

Reality Sucks I say she’s seeking guidance from an experienced fly fisher/computer scientist, and deserves your best efforts. Dave

Yep, that’s my take, too, although I think the help she needs in more in the flyfishing area than the computer area. — something bogus to avoid spam)

Response:

There’s a difference. I believe rw. I don’t believe that 9 lb brookies exist. Well maybe in Labrador.

Funny thing you should mention that Mike.  Last Sunday’s Milwaukee Journal Sentinel had a short article on the new Wisconsin state record brook trout.  I don’t recall exactly what it weighed but I believe it was just over ten pounds.  It was caught out of Lake Michigan, I believe, by a guy who had been fishing the big water for several years.  It was his first legal brookie!!  By the way, the old record, set some time in the forties was over nine pounds and came out of the Prairie river up in the north central part of the state.

Response:

Hey Wulff, I don’t get it.  I thought you moved to Idaho to get away from it all. You’re telling us that there is a stocked pond 15 minutes from your cabin?

  A lot of the high mountain lakes in Idaho and Montana, lakes that take four-five hour hikes to get to, in Idaho are chocked full of twelve inch stockers.  They dump the fish in by airplane. Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.

Response:

Dear All, I’ve been fishing for quite some time, tho i’d never tried fly fishing.  Well, on Monday I turned 29, and a few friends got together and got me a started kit for fly-fishng.  I watched the video that came with the kit (hey – you have to start somewhere…) and have a few questions. 1. Backing – how much & why bother?  I can’t figure out what this stuff is for – I have a forward tapered line, 30 yrds long.  How much backing do I use? 2. What is the difference between the tippet and the leader? 3.  Can anyone suggest a good book or website for help on starting out.  I realize I am going to have to take lessons one way or another, but if I could get myself started, I really like to have a go.  I live about a five minute walk from a river, so I figure I try this out fairly easily.  I don’t expect to catch much, but this looks like a whole lot of fun. 4.  Can anyone suggest any good beginner rivers near Ottawa, Ontario and some flies to go with the river?   I wouldn’t mind learning how to catch trout or bass (the rod is 6/7 weight)… is the former possible near Ottawa? 5.  Any suggestions for a fly fishing store in Ottawa?  I use the LeBaron’s & the Cdn Tire for most of my fishing stuff, but I am not sure if they will be adequate for fly-fishing. thanks for any advice you can give…  I am really looking forward to trying this out! Alastair Mullin

Response:

You will receive some very useful information here on many of these question and I will attempt to start: Dear All, I’ve been fishing for quite some time, tho i’d never tried fly fishing.  Well, on Monday I turned 29, and a few friends got together and got me a started kit for fly-fishng.  I watched the video that came with the kit (hey – you have to start somewhere…) and have a few questions. 1. Backing – how much & why bother?  I can’t figure out what this stuff is for – I have a forward tapered line, 30 yrds long.  How much backing do I use?

The backing has two purposes 1) add diameter to the spool(1:1 retrieve is preety slow) and to add length when you get into the big fish.  You should use enough backing so that with the backing and the fly line, you are with 1/8th to 1/4 of and inch of filling the spool. 2. What is the difference between the tippet and the leader? 3.  Can anyone suggest a good book or website for help on starting out.  I realize I am going to have to take lessons one way or another, but if I could get myself started, I really like to have a go.  I live about a five minute walk from a river, so I figure I try this out fairly easily.  I don’t expect to catch much, but this looks like a whole lot of fun.

Email me and I will send you a very long list of fly fishing sites.  One I frequent is http://www.flyanglersonline.com/ 4.  Can anyone suggest any good beginner rivers near Ottawa, Ontario and some flies to go with the river?   I wouldn’t mind learning how to catch trout or bass (the rod is 6/7 weight)… is the former possible near Ottawa?

The Ottawa river and Rideau rivers both hold bass and other warm water species and there are spots on the Ottawa that hold trout. 5.  Any suggestions for a fly fishing store in Ottawa?  I use the LeBaron’s & the Cdn Tire for most of my fishing stuff, but I am not sure if they will be adequate for fly-fishing.

fart .. oops .. extinguished gentleman that runs the place is very knowledgable and has course covering all aspect of fly fishing, from insect life cycles to tying flies. thanks for any advice you can give…  I am really looking forward to trying this out! Alastair Mullin

Chris Richer

Response:

Choose one: 1.   Lying 2.   Stupid 3.   Gay 4.   Computer Scientist  <g

  5.    Married with two kids. — something bogus to avoid spam)

Response:

 5.    Married with two kids.

Me too.   Wonder why that didn’t occur to me?   As Roseann Rosannadanna said, "never mind." Your story reminded me of a greeting card I once found.   On the front was a photo of an extraordinarily beautiful girl – perfect skin, perfect hair, perfect makeup, nice figure, etc.    On the inside it simply said, "You’re old enough to be her father.   Happy Birthday."   Nothing like an occasional reality check. Joe F.

Response:

—–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—– While in non-compliance with local decency ordinances the world over, Whew ! And did I tell you about the time I caught a 9 lb brookie on a #26 parachute adams.

There’s a difference. I believe rw. I don’t believe that 9 lb brookies exist. Well maybe in Labrador. I would believe the fly. An unginked Parachute Adams is pretty durned miraculous, although I’ve never bought one smaller than #18 —–BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE—– Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBN3vWqMkBcsCVVLK5AQEphAP+NRC/76qrfjaiOP7l/mNUTqEEjMVHMGnx sGTYeseyqkT2C0XEeqXtB63/2CCfWmgr9/Yj/FhMTzweH/yjWDctRZwjUDukPee9 x2ZsHfYFI3c4f6QFz0F5+j2LUIqmRrfi3+M3CXkXOkebayhONMCCqNi+rZttLlns Y1Qc50XQptg= =yx4a —–END PGP SIGNATURE—– Mike S. Medintz, B.S. | http://www.grapevine.net/~medintz "Living with a dog is easy-like living with an idealist  is easy." -H.L. Mencken

Response:

Ken Fortenberry: <<Whew ! And did I tell you about the time I caught a 9 lb brookie on a #26 parachute adams. Was that the one in Panama, Ken?  I think I remember it! Dave LaCourse

Response:

When I got home today from Challis there was a message from her on my machine. She wants to go fishing. I’m old enough to be this girl’s father, so I’m not hitting on her,

        in which case, i say to you in the depth of seriousness, you need psychological help.  i have observed your posts for several months, and i am certain that the words we see above are a sham, pure drivel, meant to decieve the foolish amongst us.         go for it, man.  hell, if you saw jo lacourse, you would realize that *nothing* is impossible! wayno.

Response:

[snipped]    go for it, man.  hell, if you saw jo lacourse, you would realize that *nothing* is impossible!

Boy, ain’t that the truth ;^) /daytripper (still amazed)

Response:

While the Fish & Game guy was cleaning my fish this drop-dead gorgeous babe walks up to me. She’s wearing waders and has a big Malemute dog. She’s a dead ringer for Janine Turner, who played Maggie in the TV show Northern Exposure. She says, "Are you the computer scientist?" Jesus H. Christ, what’s going on here?!

I don’t know what’s going on; but if beautiful women are seeking out computer scientists, there may be hope for us engineers, too. I’m not hitting on her.

Choose one: 1.   Lying 2.   Stupid 3.   Gay 4.   Computer Scientist  <g Joe F. btw: notice how everyone ignored the fishing part of that story?

Response:

Ken Fortenberry: <<Whew ! And did I tell you about the time I caught a 9 lb brookie on a #26 parachute adams. Was that the one in Panama, Ken?  I think I remember it!

Why yes, yes it was. I’m surprised you remember anything about that trip, if it wasn’t for those silly bottles I’d have never got you back into the jungle to witness my brookie extravaganza. — Ken Fortenberry

Response:

When I got home today from Challis there was a message from her on my machine. She wants to go fishing. I’m old enough to be this girl’s father, so I’m not hitting on her,         in which case, i say to you in the depth of seriousness, you need psychological help.  i have observed your posts for several months, and i am certain that the words we see above are a sham, pure drivel, meant to decieve the foolish amongst us.

Well, Wayno, I’ll admit that I’m conflicted about it. — something bogus to avoid spam)

Response:

I pigged out on trout today. I’m so full I could hardly get myself to the computer. My dog pigged out on trout, too. Anyone want to make something of it. Seriously, these were stocker rainbows in a pond where they won’t survive the winter. If I don’t kill them Old Man Frost or the bait fishermen will. I can get my limit of 12" fish there any time I want, and it’s only 15 minutes from my cabin, along a beautiful dirt road where I regularly see elk and sandhill cranes. When I get blanked on real (i.e., wild) fish I go there. While I was landing a fish a hungry-looking osprey was circling my float tube. If that sucker can’t catch his own fish in this spot I have no sympathy for him. Life is good. — something bogus to avoid spam)

Response:

Hey Wulff, I don’t get it.  I thought you moved to Idaho to get away from it all. You’re telling us that there is a stocked pond 15 minutes from your cabin? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Seriously, these were stocker rainbows in a pond where they won’t survive the winter. If I don’t kill them Old Man Frost or the bait fishermen will. I can get my limit of 12" fish there any time I want, and it’s only 15 minutes from my cabin, along a beautiful dirt road where I regularly see elk and sandhill cranes. When I get blanked on real (i.e., wild) fish I go there.

Response:

Hey Wulff, I don’t get it.  I thought you moved to Idaho to get away from it all. You’re telling us that there is a stocked pond 15 minutes from your cabin?

More than one. The Sawtooth Hatchery is just a couple of miles down the road. It’s main purpose is to keep the steelhead and salmon going, but they also stock some lakes and the Main Fork of the Salmon heavily to keep the tourists happy. There’s plenty of fishing for wild trout here, but that’s nearly all C&R and I like to eat fish sometimes. — something bogus to avoid spam)

Response:

rw, I experienced the stocking program at Stanlee Idaho while vacationing there. I had been fishing without much success when some ladies returned with several large trout that were obviously from a hatchery and started telling me it was easy to catch trout.  In fact if I would go to this small stream by the road I could practically catch them by hand.  The fishing was so easy they couldn’t understand why I didn’t have a lot of fish and I wouldn’t need the waders or any thing because I could just jump across the stream. Needless to say I didn’t try to tell any fishing stories that day. Ernie Harrison Like to make fly-fishing stuff?  See: http://users.ccnet.com/~emh/ – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Sawtooth Hatchery is just a couple of miles down the road. It’s main purpose is to keep the steelhead and salmon going, but they also stock some lakes and the Main Fork of the Salmon heavily to keep the tourists happy.

Response:

rw, I experienced the stocking program at Stanlee Idaho while vacationing there. I had been fishing without much success when some ladies returned with several large trout that were obviously from a hatchery and started telling me it was easy to catch trout.  In fact if I would go to this small stream by the road I could practically catch them by hand.  The fishing was so easy they couldn’t understand why I didn’t have a lot of fish and I wouldn’t need the waders or any thing because I could just jump across the stream. Needless to say I didn’t try to tell any fishing stories that day.

It’s just amazing how heavily they stock some of these places. I had to go to Challis today, about 60 miles away, and on the way back I stopped at Squaw Creek Pond. This is about a 1/2 acre holding pond for young steelhead. It has literally thousands of fish in it. I must have caught 40 or 50 fish in an hour and a half, keeping six that were hooked so badly I thought they wouldn’t make it. This may not be the most aesthetic fishing experience in the world, but I like knowing I can catch my dinner whenever I feel like it, courtesy of Idaho Fish & Game. A couple of weeks ago I was fishing one of these stocked ponds — a real pretty one. As I was walking out of the water with my standard six fish an Idaho Fish & Game guy introduced himself. As I was fumbling around in my vest for my license he just asked me if he could clean my fish! He wanted the stomachs to find out what they were eating. While the Fish & Game guy was cleaning my fish this drop-dead gorgeous babe walks up to me. She’s wearing waders and has a big Malemute dog. She’s a dead ringer for Janine Turner, who played Maggie in the TV show Northern Exposure. She says, "Are you the computer scientist?" Jesus H. Christ, what’s going on here?! It turns out the proprietor of the local fly shop, whom I know well, told her I was up there. Thanks, Larry! So we chat for awhile, I look over her fly boxes, pretending to be expert (these fish will hit about anything), and then give her a fly that I know for sure is a super killer in this pond. My fish are finally cleaned (the guy took forever), so I collect the fish, give her my phone number, and split. When I got home today from Challis there was a message from her on my machine. She wants to go fishing. I’m old enough to be this girl’s father, so I’m not hitting on her, but I love being around beautiful women. I’m telling you guys, this place is sportsman friendly. — something bogus to avoid spam)

Response:

<snip … this drop-dead gorgeous babe walks up to me. … … so I’m not hitting on her, but I love being around beautiful women. <rest of tall tale snipped

Whew ! And did I tell you about the time I caught a 9 lb brookie on a #26 parachute adams. — Ken Fortenberry

Response:

<snip … this drop-dead gorgeous babe walks up to me. … … so I’m not hitting on her, but I love being around beautiful women. <rest of tall tale snipped Whew ! And did I tell you about the time I caught a 9 lb brookie on a #26 parachute adams.

This ain’t no fish tale, Ken. — something bogus to avoid spam)

Response:

This ain’t no fish tale, Ken.

I believed every single word til I got to the "I’m not hittin’ on her" part. — Ken Fortenberry

Response:

This ain’t no fish tale, Ken. I believed every single word til I got to the "I’m not hittin’ on her" part.

Yeah, that is a little tough to swallow. Maybe I’ll try a very delicate downstream approach, with a 14′ 7x leader. — something bogus to avoid spam)

Response:

Question:

Bob, thought you might want to know, you are getting double posts for the FAQ, guidleline and charter postings.

There are no double posts on AOL where the posts originated.  Deja News doesn’t show double posts either.  This would lead me to believet the posts are going out okay and getting messed up along the way to you. Also keep in mind the POSTING GUIDELINES are a little long and some servers will break them into two posts – Part 1 and Part 2. Richard

Response:

Can believe they are getting messed up on the way.  They are not getting broken up into separate posts because the information is identical. Too bad the people who manage this network aren’t as sharp as the technology. — Good fishing, and may your fish be as big as your tales!

Response:

START a  rec.outdoors.fishing.bass.fly Can believe they are getting messed up on the way.  They are not getting broken up into separate posts because the information is identical. Too bad the people who manage this network aren’t as sharp as the technology. — Good fishing, and may your fish be as big as your tales!

– Mr. G. All Writings

Question:

How do I get to archives of this group? I remember recently seeing a discussion about Wulff triangle taper lines. I’m thinking about getting one, so I would like to review the old postings. How do I do that? Thanks! Steve Rosenblum

Point your web browser to: search for tapered lines Remember to search the older archives as well. Good Luck Michael Smith

Response:

How do I get to archives of this group? I remember recently seeing a discussion about Wulff triangle taper lines. I’m thinking about getting one, so I would like to review the old postings. How do I do that? Thanks! Steve Rosenblum

Response:

How do I get to archives of this group? I remember recently seeing a discussion about Wulff triangle taper lines. I’m thinking about getting one, so I would like to review the old postings. How do I do that? Thanks! Steve Rosenblum

The consensus was that everyone liked them.  They are particularly good for roll-casting. -Burton — L. Burton Hawley     2330 NW Hummingbird Corvallis, OR

Response:

these words of wisdom: ; How do I get to archives of this group? I remember recently seeing a ; discussion about Wulff triangle taper lines. I’m thinking about getting ; one, so I would like to review the old postings. How do I do that? enter ~g rec.outdoors.fishing.fly & wulff triangle taper lines into the search box

Response:

Question:

Rhythm of the Rise thought I  would pass on a tip that I picked up from one of Doug Swisher

Question:

Has anyone been able to get into Trout Unlimited’s web site??? It was supposed to be available as of January 15th but I get no response each attempt to get in. I’m using the advertised address…..http://www.tu.org/trout….Is this correct? Thanks in advance…. JAPPLe

Try this address, http://www.cais.net/trout/. Vince

Response:

Has anyone been able to get into Trout Unlimited’s web site??? It was supposed to be available as of January 15th but I get no response each attempt to get in. I’m using the advertised address…..http://www.tu.org/trout….Is this correct?

Seems to work fine for me. It does however, take several minutes to load…. Wherever you go….. There you will be

Response:

Go to the YAHOO search engine.  There is a reference point to a Trout Unlimited Site.  It is up and running, I’ve been there. Ross Laurie

Response:

Hi Try the following web address for the Trout Unlimited web site: http://www.cais.net/trout/ Good Luck Al Beatty BT’s Fly Fishing Products Bozeman, Mt (catalog avail)

Response:

Question:

Does any one have any info on landlock flies?techniques they would like to share It would be greatly apreciated.                                         Adam Ford

Response:

 (Adam Ford) writes: Does any one have any info on landlock flies?techniques they would like to share It would be greatly apreciated.

Standards: 1–streamers that imitate smelt, in rivers in spring (when smelt spawn) and trolling in lakes all year, 2–small Muddlers in white water, 3–matching the hatch of dries or nymphs, when trout-like feeding can be observed, 4–big nymphs in deep pockets (Charles Brooks style). —  |          Donald Phillipson, 4180 Boundary Rd., Carlsbad         |  |        Springs, Ont., Canada K0A 1K0; tel: (613) 822-0734       |  |  "What I’ve always liked about science is its independence from |  |  authority"–Ontario Science Centre (name on file) 10 July 1981 |

Response:

Adam, Joe Jack who lives here in Burke VA introduced to me to spring fishing for Landlocks in Maine at Wheaton’s Lodge on East Grand Lake (Canadian Border).  We fished with "tandem" streamer flies.  These are large streamers with a second trailing hook to get the ones who "short strike" the fly.  He also ties single hook versions for the rivers.  The tandem flies are "trolled" from a canoe with your fly rod and about half of your fly line out the back of the canoe.  He sells flies whoesale and retail.  Contact me separately for his phone number.  Wheaton’s Lodge was great.  I had my own cabin with 3/4 bath, wood stove and 3 home cooked meals a day for $75/day.  Guides are $115/day for 2 fisherman.   Boat and motor can be rented for $35/day.  I can’t wait to go back. Bill A.

Response:

This past summer I did some trolling with flies for landlocked salmon in Maine in July.  We trolled with lead core lines to get down 20+ feet.  I used and old bamboo bait rod and antique pflueger summit bait reel.  You don’t get as good a fight with the lead core but you can still get down to the big ones in the lakes with flies.  We used tube flies tied on copper tubes.  These were new to me but I think they’re really cool.  We tied standard traditional streamer patterns on them and strung them on a short shock tippet attached to a small treble hook.  Use a plastic tube (aquarium tubing) to make a releasable connector at rear of fly tube.  I tied a few strands of silver flashabou and some white marabou on the treble hooks.  Deadly!  My buddy makes his tube flies on heavier copper conduit tube, about 3/8" diameter and permanently attaches the treble with spring steel wire running through the tube,  truly lures, definitely not fly fishing be careful in special regulation areas.   Normally I stick with the real traditional patterns.  A great reference book is Trolling Flies for Trout and Salmon by Dick Stewart and Bob Leeman distributed by the Stephen Green Press Fessenden Rd. Brattleboro VT 05301 and Universal Vise Corp16 Union Ave, Westfield MA. 01085. E-Mail me if I can tie some flies for you or if you have any questions. Landlocks are the best!  Catch and release Dave Wood

Response:

Question:

My fishing buddy and I will be in Idaho Falls and Yellowstone the first of June.  Any suggestions on patterns and sizes will be greatly appreciated as this is our first visit to the area. Also, any information on small steams in the area and the outlook for that time of the year. Steve D.

Response:

My fishing buddy and I will be in Idaho Falls and Yellowstone the first of June.  Any suggestions on patterns and sizes will be greatly appreciated as this is our first visit to the area. Also, any information on small steams in the area and the outlook for that time of the year. Steve D.

Hi Steve,         A friend of mine named Jim Mengle is a guide at Last Chance Lodge in Last Chance ID.  It’s right in the middle of the best rainbow fishing in the lower 48.  Big strong wild rainbows on the Henry’s Fork River!!!  The lodge is run by a great guy named Lynn Sessions & Family.  It’s about an hour northeast of Idaho Falls on route 20. It’s right on the banks of the Henry’s Fork River on the way to Yellowstone Park.  I would be up in that area if I were you…  As a matter of fact that is where I’ll be!  THE hatch  (Western Green Drake) will probably be happening about then.  Also PMDs size 16 and Caddis with green egg sacs about size 14-16.  Fishing Bead Head Nymphs size 14-16 and Black Rubber Legs size 6-10 are a good bet in the Box Canyon.  You can wade in the Box,  but it’s best fished by drift boat. I highly recommend getting a guide (Jim is one of the best).  The fishing up here can be beyond excellent but you have to pay your dues one way or another.  For more info you can call Jim at  home 208-652-7508 or Last Chance Lodge’s # is 1-800-428-8338.  You can also get a nice inexpensive room there, plus they have an excellent fly shop.  There is also a great fly shop in Idaho Falls called Jimmy’s All Season Angler which is run by Jimmy Gabettas & Family.  Their # is 208-524-7160.   All of the above will be happy to help you guys.                                 Have Fun! | Bruce Braunstein C.C.P. | 208-524-7001

Response: