Question:

We are planning on a trip – Montreal to Vancouver would appreciate comments regarding best road route to use. CGs also please. Trip about May / June this year. Is this too early, don’t want snow. Thanks and greetings to all Aubrey

Response:

Shouldn’t have many concerns about snow in May, June. I’ll bet you would enjoy the Trans Canada Highway. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – We are planning on a trip – Montreal to Vancouver would appreciate comments regarding best road route to use. CGs also please. Trip about May / June this year. Is this too early, don’t want snow. Thanks and greetings to all Aubrey

Response:

Having done the trip I would suggest Hwy 17 from Montreal to Winnipeg then the Yellowhead Hwy from Winnipeg to BC via Regina and Edmonton then back down to Hwy 1 for the trip to Banff and down into Vancouver.  When travelling in Northern Ontario you should focus on the Provincial Park system around the top of Lake Superior, the campgrounds are beautiful and serviced.  Early May could be a problem for open campgrounds but the end of May and June will be fine except for BLACK FLIES which MAY – MAY be bad from time to time. Its beautiful countryside, enjoy. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -We are planning on a trip – Montreal to Vancouver would appreciate comments regarding best road route to use.

Response:

We are planning on a trip – Montreal to Vancouver would appreciate comments regarding best road route to use. CGs also please. Trip about May / June this year. Is this too early, don’t want snow. Thanks and greetings to all Aubrey

    Well there was the time,west of Calgaryt in mid May 1985, that we got caught in an unexpected Spring snowstorm that reduce highway #1 down to one lane through really wet ,heavy stuff.  We arrived in Calgary and headed North where there had been no snow at all.    Last year we visited Jasper in mid May and everything was extremely dry.   This year Edmonton has had tons of snow but it’s so dry South of Red Deer that some areas have had grass fires.    Go for it but be prepared for anything, at least an RV will give you the option of getting off the road if the weather gets bad.    I concur with Bill on not missing the Jasper -Banff highway. Most people here say that the North to South route is easier for heavy vehicles and most of the best view points are on that side of the road.   Happy camping. Roy Schmaus http://www.ee.ualberta.ca/~schmaus/

Response:

Having done the trip I would suggest Hwy 17 from Montreal to Winnipeg then the Yellowhead Hwy from Winnipeg to BC via Regina and Edmonton then back

This is good advice, however the Yellowhead will miss Regina.  Missing Regina is a good thing.   (Prepare yourself – sales pitch for Saskatchewan approaching) The Yellowhead will take you through Yorkton, Saskatoon & North Battleford.  Within three hours to the north of any of these cities are some beautiful parks that could be destinations for your trip.  I realize you want to "see Canada" but you really should take the time to travel to Waskesiu.  If you like golfing (which I don’t) it has a course that ranks with any in Canada.  It is a national park so you get the wildlife thing (elk, deer, bear).  We don’t consider it good fishing (because it is so much better if you go a little further north) but most north americans would.  There is a good full service campground as well as a large area with electric only sites or unserviced sites.  I believe they have something over 300 sites in total.  Just outside the park at Elk Ridge is a brand new full service RV park attached to an 18 hole golf course. If you get past Waskesiu into northern Saskatchewan you can find everything from fully serviced to fully primitive camping.  You can fly into some of the best freshwater fishing in the world.  If you know where to go you can drive to some pretty damn good fishing.  Just drop me even the slightest hint that you are interested and I will deluge you with information. Once you get past Saskatchewan it is all downhill but there are some sort of pretty spots.   :-} There’s the obvious stuff that everyone goes to – Banff, L.Louise, Jasper, Columbia Icefields.  Off the beaten path a bit there are some really nice spots.  We like the Kootenay Valley – there is a park on the east shore of Kootenay Lake that we like – I think it is Whispering Cedars or something like that.  On the other side of Kootenay lake don’t miss the historic town of Kaslo and the ghost town of Sandon.  There are natural hot springs at Nakusp and at Ainsworth. Another lovely area is the Sicamous lakes around Salmon Arm, BC.   Just make sure not to miss Saskatchewan.

Response:

That time of the year should be fine.  Canada is no colder than the upper U.S. and we did away with our igloos some time ago.  You only have one direct route here if you want to come right across and that is Hwy #1 the Trans Canada Highway.  Very pretty drive once you enter Alberta and British Columbia.  This route takes you through Banff and the interior of British columbia which at that time of the year gets into the high 80s.  Have a nice trip and enjoy Canada. Rick – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – We are planning on a trip – Montreal to Vancouver would appreciate comments regarding best road route to use. CGs also please. Trip about May / June this year. Is this too early, don’t want snow. Thanks and greetings to all Aubrey

Response:

That time of the year should be fine.  Canada is no colder than the upper U.S. We are planning on a trip – Montreal to Vancouver would appreciate comments regarding best road route to use. CGs also please. Trip about May / June this year. Is this too early, don’t want snow.

You shouldn’t have any trouble. I took the train across Canada one year from Cape Breton Island, NS to Hazelton, BC and back, in March, and saw little snow. Today I drove halfway up the west coast of Newfoundland and there was no snow on the highway. Bet you’ll have a great trip in May/June. But just the same, keep an eye on the weather. Here’s one of my favourite weather websites:                 http://icons.wunderground.com/global/CN_ST_Index.html Doug

Response:

And mighty fine ones at that!  Born and raised there myself.  What more need be said. : ) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Someone once said that the best way to see Saskatchewan is in your rear view mirror! I can’t let that pass but I don’t know what else to say except that our biggest export is people.

Response:

Someone once said that the best way to see Saskatchewan is in your rear view mirror!

I can’t let that pass but I don’t know what else to say except that our biggest export is people.

Response:

Someone once said that the best way to see Saskatchewan is in your rear view mirror! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Having done the trip I would suggest Hwy 17 from Montreal to Winnipeg then the Yellowhead Hwy from Winnipeg to BC via Regina and Edmonton then back This is good advice, however the Yellowhead will miss Regina.  Missing Regina is a good thing. (Prepare yourself – sales pitch for Saskatchewan approaching) The Yellowhead will take you through Yorkton, Saskatoon & North Battleford.  Within three hours to the north of any of these cities are some beautiful parks that could be destinations for your trip.  I realize you want to "see Canada" but you really should take the time to travel to Waskesiu.  If you like golfing (which I don’t) it has a course that ranks with any in Canada.  It is a national park so you get the wildlife thing (elk, deer, bear).  We don’t consider it good fishing (because it is so much better if you go a little further north) but most north americans would.  There is a good full service campground as well as a large area with electric only sites or unserviced sites.  I believe they have something over 300 sites in total.  Just outside the park at Elk Ridge is a brand new full service RV park attached to an 18 hole golf course. If you get past Waskesiu into northern Saskatchewan you can find everything from fully serviced to fully primitive camping.  You can fly into some of the best freshwater fishing in the world.  If you know where to go you can drive to some pretty damn good fishing.  Just drop me even the slightest hint that you are interested and I will deluge you with information. Once you get past Saskatchewan it is all downhill but there are some sort of pretty spots.   :-} There’s the obvious stuff that everyone goes to – Banff, L.Louise, Jasper, Columbia Icefields.  Off the beaten path a bit there are some really nice spots.  We like the Kootenay Valley – there is a park on the east shore of Kootenay Lake that we like – I think it is Whispering Cedars or something like that.  On the other side of Kootenay lake don’t miss the historic town of Kaslo and the ghost town of Sandon.  There are natural hot springs at Nakusp and at Ainsworth. Another lovely area is the Sicamous lakes around Salmon Arm, BC. Just make sure not to miss Saskatchewan.

Response:

Question:

I would like some advice on bite tippets for Blue Fish and other toothy critters – both fresh and saltwater.  I have used various wire type leaders for spin fishing but have no experience with fly fishing for northerns, blue fish etc. Thanks Jim

Response:

For bluefish smaller than 4 pounds you can get away with 30 pound mason or similar hard mono.  Anything bigger and you will wnat singlestrand wire. Cehck out any of the good knot books (Mclane or whoever) for ways to join wire to mono. For spanish mackerel heavy mono is fine.  King macs wire.   Northern pike will let you get away with mono.  there are some who say wire is better because it is thinner.  In my experience it just scares the fish due to shine.  Use clear Mason. Do no use braided wire.  No good at all.

I would like some advice on bite tippets for Blue Fish and other toothy critters – both fresh and saltwater.  I have used various wire type leaders for spin fishing but have no experience with fly fishing for northerns, blue fish etc. Thanks Jim — Flyfish NC                                                   Gordon Churchill http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Rapids/3853                                                                    

Response:

I would like some advice on bite tippets for Blue Fish and other toothy critters – both fresh and saltwater.  I have used various wire type leaders for spin fishing but have no experience with fly fishing for northerns, blue fish etc. Thanks Jim

Hi Jim, I think most fly fishers use wire for Barracudas, Northern Pike, Sharks and Bluefish. For Billfish, Tarpon, Snook and Jacks most use heavy/hard mono. Bill Kiene Kiene’s Fly Shop Sacramento,CA,USA 800/4000FLY www.kiene.com

Response:

Question:

How often should you change your line.  Mine has been on a year but does not seemed damaged. — Praise God for the changing of the seasons; Baseball to Football, Fishing to Hunting.

Response:

I say that you should change your line when it wears out and loses floatability or, er… sinkability (?). Bryce Carron Rockford, Tn – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -How often should you change your line.  Mine has been on a year but does not seemed damaged.

Response:

if it splashes down when casting, is cracked or sinks, get a new one

Response:

How often should you change your line.  Mine has been on a year but does not seemed damaged. — Praise God for the changing of the seasons; Baseball to Football, Fishing to Hunting.

Hi All, Some lucky suckers get to fish every day, so they might get a new line every season. Other get out an average amount and need a line in 3 to 5 years. Some poor guys never get to go and their lines are still great after 20 years in the closet. You can usually tell by looking at the finish. If it looks like it is cracking or is sinking after it is cleaned and dressed, it is probably worn out. The top fly lines are still only $50. Bill Kiene Kiene’s Fly Shop Sacramento,CA,USA 800/4000FLY www.kiene.com

Response:

How often should you change your line.  Mine has been on a year but does not seemed damaged.

The easy answer is when it wears out.  The line will get stiff and crack, or start sinking when it wears out and then you should replace it.  I replace mine about once a year, most people replace theirs every 3 to 5 years.  If you don’t use it much it will last much longer if you keep it out of the sun and heat. Also, "cracking the whip" with your fly line will not only lose a lot of flies, but cause your line to crack and wear out prematurely.                                    Hope this helps,                                           Dan Dan Gracia Orvis West Coast Fly Fishing Schools Mt. Shasta Fly Fishing Schools http://www.thegrid.net/flyfish

Response:

If I replace mine every time it splashes down while casting I’d need a new one every couple of casts.             Jim – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – if it splashes down when casting, is cracked or sinks, get a new one

Response:

I’m new to fly fishing and have just recently purchased my own equipment instead of using someone else’s.  could you tell me how this line is supposed to go?  Is it backing – line- leader- tippet?  If so how much leader and how much tippet.  I fish in Arkansas rivers (mostly the White and the Buffalo). Thanks, Alan Edwards

Response:

I’m new to fly fishing and have just recently purchased my own equipment instead of using someone else’s.  could you tell me how this line is supposed to go?  Is it backing – line- leader- tippet?  If so how

Yes "backing – line- leader- tippet" and then: Leaders for beginners should usually be about 9 feet. The tippet is simply the finest part of the leader next to the hook.  Rough guideline:  3x tippet = 0.008" suits #12 hook                          4x            007"       #16 and similarly up and down.  You need to replace the tippet when (after changing flies) it gets too short or too thick. New tippets should be roughly 18" inches (less if your dry fly does not "turn over" neatly, longer for more delicate touchdowns etc.)   Backing is measured last, so as to fill up the reel, without squashing the line, once everything is unspooled and respooled the right way.  A filled reel reduces line curl (and provides extra insurance if you hook a bigger fish than expected.) — |  Donald Phillipson, 4180 Boundary Road, Carlsbad Springs,  | |        Ontario, Canada, K0A 1K0, tel. 613 822 0734         |

Response:

Question:

I think it’s about time that somewhere some fisheries managers bite the big one and introduce regulations that restrict all anglers in trout fisheries (or bass etc) to a minimum number of fish killed per year ( as Jon suggests) and a minimum number of fish landed per day.

I’m all for this.  I was on a streak last spring– caught one fish on every outing for three weeks.  But, usually I don’t catch anything. It’d be great to have a regulation that guarantees me a minimum number of fish landed per day! — Tight Threads,         Charley Renn         Corvallis, OR

Response:

Its Catch and Cook. I practice it regularly. What is the point if spending hundreds of dollars in tackle and not eating a fish that you catch? I am not saying only fly fishing. I eat reds and specks that I catch on an Abu Garcia 6500 as much as I do a 16 inch trout caught on a 18 Adams. It is a simple thing and would be common if it wern’t for the Bunny Huggers. Am I the only one that eats fish here? If you get a fish that is as good as a trout as table fair, you should make it table fair. i know I’ll get hell from everyone about this but I accept that. BryceC

– Brice, Wake up! Where is the next fish you cook comming from? This is not a bunny hug, a tree hug, a rock hug or any other "Environmental issue." Say you own a pond with 100 fish in it, if you want to fish the pond every day, you will soon realize that catch and release is the only way you can sustain your sport. Or, of course, you could open a hatchery . . . . / o          /                                    |   __ /        /         Douglas Easton             |                                /                                      |                                                     *

Response:

Well I will not judge you for your way of life, but don’t come up to Montana and try to catch and cook in any of the prime trout areas, because you will be arrested if I see it…. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Its Catch and Cook. I practice it regularly. What is the point if spending hundreds of dollars in tackle and not eating a fish that you catch? I am not saying only fly fishing. I eat reds and specks that I catch on an Abu Garcia 6500 as much as I do a 16 inch trout caught on a 18 Adams. It is a simple thing and would be common if it wern’t for the Bunny Huggers. Am I the only one that eats fish here? If you get a fish that is as good as a trout as table fair, you should make it table fair. i know I’ll get hell from everyone about this but I accept that. BryceC Ain’t nothing wrong with keeping.  Depends on why you fish.  Frankly, I like the total experience and an satisfied with the challenge, the "art" of flyfishing, the environment, etc.  I don’t need to harvest the fish to be satisfied and therefore I fish entirely catch and release. however, I certainly do not blame anyone for harvesting what can be used appropriately.

Response:

fish, then it is theoretically possible for a larger % of the population to be decimated by C&R methods than by C&K

It’s a nice theory but empirical evidence just doesn’t bear it out. In fact empirical evidence disproves it.  Go fish both the C&R and C&K section of the San Juan River for instance.  The two areas are adjacent. In a day of fishing the former you’ll typically catch about 30 fat healthy fish running 12-24 inches; in the latter you’ll catch a handful of scrawny 10-inch stockers.  Which is decimated? Even what I’ve said above is overly simplistic.

No actually, it’s too complicated.  The facts are clear, simple, and undeniable.   — -Wayne Trzyna

Response:

: Hopefully, we’re not : carrying fin tags or punch cards anytime soon. Why? Just curious… JonCook.

Since what was proposed was essentially an honor system, what’s the point of punch cards? I either follow the rules or I don’t. The paperwork is a potential bureaucratic nightmare. It just makes fishing more expensive for everyone. For the record, I have killed one fish on the Platte in 16 years of fishing it. The fin tags would be of no use to me unless someone could convince me that killing fish there improved the fishery. (Colorado has a great bag limit foroverpopulated pond brookies under 8" that more than satisfies my appetite for fresh trout and HELPS the population.) However the 40 caught per season is interesting. As tough as the Platte can be some days, therehave been numerous days where the seasonal limit would have been filled. I only get to fish there 1 to 10 or 12 days a year while I’m visiting family in the Springs. What about the guys who fish there much more than that? How would they feel? Or is the real issue here limiting the number of fishing days to improve the fisherman’s aesthetic experience as opposed to protecting a fishery? Could it be this is just a stalking horse for another round of yuppie bashing?  Not saying I know the answer, but it’s an interesting question. I fish the Platte during the week at off times of the year, often with snow on the ground, because I want to see fewer people. I guess with punch cards and fin tags I could go whenever I wanted and see fewer people, but I’ve come to love the Canyon more the times that I go than any other. Probably wouldn’t change a thing. BP

Response:

wayne trzyna  wrote in article I think it’s about time that somewhere some fisheries managers bite the big one and introduce regulations that restrict all anglers in trout fisheries (or bass etc) to a minimum number of fish killed per year ( as Jon suggests) and a minimum number of fish landed per day. Ideally it would require a punch card or tag system and the max catch per day (regardless if they are all released) would have to operate fairly much on an honour system – but I think most fishers would do so. This is unnecessary.  If a person is catching dozens of fish that fact implies there are plenty of fish to catch.  It seems silly to regulate "number of fish landed" in this scenario.

This may be a naive assumption.  (Before you react.  Note that I said ‘may’.)  I have no facts on this issue (and certainly would appreciate it if anyone could contribute some), but it stands to reason that C&R could have it’s own pitfalls.  If it is true that a certain percentage of returned fish die as a result of having been caught and handled, and it is true that there are many fishermen who are successful at catching many fish, then it is theoretically possible for a larger % of the population to be decimated by C&R methods than by C&K (where fishers keep all they catch, must stop fishing when the limit is reached,  and compliance to these regs is high….i.e. an ‘ideal’ C&K fishery). Even what I’ve said above is overly simplistic.  We all know that there are a variety of factors that uniquely effect each fishery, and to some degree, I think the jury is still out as to what works best where.  There is no magic bullet that is going to cure the underlying problem…overpopulation of fishers.  (I sure aint gonna stop fishing, are you?).  Unfortunately, we have found all too often that well meant resource management techniques, even though they look good on paper, fail to measure up to our expectations.  I suspect that this may be true of C&R, at least on some fisheries, but again I have no specific facts. Does anyone know of any scholarly investigations of the long term impacts of C&R fishing?

Response:

A friend of mine (bait fisher) had an excellent idea.  On the South Platte around Deckers there is a 2 fish over 16" slot limit.   as a result you won’t find a lot of fish over 16".  This is a wrong approach. switch to 2, or4 fish under 12", and let the big ones go. How’s that? </c

Response:

Sounds nice but what happens when all the bigs ones die of old age and here ain’t any little ones around to grow big because they’ve all been C & C’s (or whatever the latest inane acroynm or synthetic politically correct terminology is) Ralph H – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -A friend of mine (bait fisher) had an excellent idea.  On the South Platte around Deckers there is a 2 fish over 16" slot limit.   as a result you won’t find a lot of fish over 16".  This is a wrong approach. switch to 2, or4 fish under 12", and let the big ones go. How’s that? </c

Response:

Chaz, given the pressure on the SP, Ralph’s probably right. So, how about: Define some section of the SP, say Cheesman to Oxyoke (that right?), then, each angler can keep 4 fish per year, any size, and (this is the key) can only catch a total of 40 fish per year. With that, the SP would be a truely great fishery, and those 2-10 days you fished it per year would be much more memorable than the 50 you do now (you being anyone who fishes it that much now, not neccessarily Chaz). JonCook.

: : Sounds nice but what happens when all the bigs ones die of : old age and here ain’t any little ones around to grow big : because they’ve all been C & C’s (or whatever the latest inane : acroynm or synthetic politically correct terminology is) : Ralph H : A friend of mine (bait fisher) had an excellent idea.  On the South : Platte around Deckers there is a 2 fish over 16" slot limit.   as a : result you won’t find a lot of fish over 16".  This is a wrong approach. : switch to 2, or4 fish under 12", and let the big ones go. : : How’s that? : : </c

Response:

Its Catch and Cook. I practice it regularly. What is the point if spending hundreds of dollars in tackle and not eating a fish that you catch? I am not saying only fly fishing. I eat reds and specks that I catch on an Abu Garcia 6500 as much as I do a 16 inch trout caught on a 18 Adams. It is a simple thing and would be common if it wern’t for the Bunny Huggers. Am I the only one that eats fish here? If you get a fish that is as good as a trout as table fair, you should make it table fair. i know I’ll get hell from everyone about this but I accept that. BryceC

Ain’t nothing wrong with keeping.  Depends on why you fish.  Frankly, I like the total experience and an satisfied with the challenge, the "art" of flyfishing, the environment, etc.  I don’t need to harvest the fish to be satisfied and therefore I fish entirely catch and release. however, I certainly do not blame anyone for harvesting what can be used appropriately.

Response:

Sounds nice but what happens when all the bigs ones die of old age and here ain’t any little ones around to grow big because they’ve all been C & C’s (or whatever the latest inane acroynm or synthetic politically correct terminology is)

Yes, that is the fly in the ointment.  You could expect more stocks because larger fish produce more eggs, etc. – but remember only a few small ones would be kept. But you’re right.  The number of small fish would decline, especially on the SP – I doubt there is a great deal of natural reproduction and they won’t stock it, so……. </c – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Ralph H

Response:

Chaz, given the pressure on the SP, Ralph’s probably right. So, how about: Define some section of the SP, say Cheesman to Oxyoke (that right?), then, each angler can keep 4 fish per year, any size, and (this is the key) can only catch a total of 40 fish per year.

For anglers who keep some/most/all of thier legal catch, a 40 fish/year limit would be totally unenforceable.  Unless, of course, you gave them "tear-away tags"  as part of their liscense and made them tag the fins of thier fish.   Hey, what a great way to limit exclusive Catch and Kill fishing.  Make killing a bunch of fish more trouble than it’s worth! Jason B

Response:

Chaz, given the pressure on the SP, Ralph’s probably right. So, how about: Define some section of the SP, say Cheesman to Oxyoke (that right?), then, each angler can keep 4 fish per year, any size, and (this is the key) can only catch a total of 40 fish per year. With that, the SP would be a truely great fishery, and those 2-10 days you fished it per year would be much more memorable than the 50 you do now (you being anyone who fishes it that much now, not neccessarily Chaz). JonCook.

I think it’s about time that somewhere some fisheries managers bite the big one and introduce regulations that restrict all anglers in trout fisheries (or bass etc) to a minimum number of fish killed per year ( as Jon suggests) and a minimum number of fish landed per day. Ideally it would require a punch card or tag system and the max catch per day (regardless if they are all released) would have to operate fairly much on an honour system – but I think most fishers would do so. I don’t know much about the South Platte other than I recognize the name but it seems to me if you have a reg that allows killing only fish of 16" or over and fish that size are rare then something isn’t working (providing the river is able to grow good numbers of fish to that size). you’ve got to wonder if a limit of 4 smaller fish will help either if the kill so seriously affects the larger fish. I think that most of us want our waters managed so there is a more or less normal distribution of all age classes. Wiping out one class to protect the other doesn’t make sense and will likely lead to an imbalance in the long run! Ralph H – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – : : Sounds nice but what happens when all the bigs ones die of : old age and here ain’t any little ones around to grow big : A friend of mine (bait fisher) had an excellent idea.  On the South : Platte around Deckers there is a 2 fish over 16" slot limit.   as a : result you won’t find a lot of fish over 16".  This is a wrong approach. : switch to 2, or4 fish under 12", and let the big ones go. : : How’s that? : : </c

Response:

Sounds nice but what happens when all the bigs ones die of old age and here ain’t any little ones around to grow big because they’ve all been C & C’s (or whatever the latest inane acroynm or synthetic politically correct terminology is) Ralph H

I let the hatcheries replenish the stock. I also don’t get very many chances to trout fish so I make the best of the ones that I catch. BryceC

Response:

        <<Killing a fish and eating it is not a dishonorable thing to do. The angler should use a little discretion, though. Where they are scarce, it’s foolish to kill them. On the other hand, if the trout are plentiful I may keep one or two per trip.         You are right, Bryce, when you admit that you are likely to catch some flak over this issue. But, where legal, it is your RIGHT to do that if you wish. People can holler all they want, but it’s their problem not yours. Just use good judgment, and don’t overcook those beauties. Enjoy! (Try poaching them in wine and garlic.) I fish the Tellico so there are plenty of fish around there. The Tellico Hatchery Stocks weekly. I also fish the West Prong Pigeon, the Little and the Elk. All have lots of fish. If I were fishing Abrahms creek or Rabbit Creek that would be a different story. I’m glad someone agrees with me. BryceC

Response:

Jason, the reason game laws work is because most people observe them voluntarily. There is simply not enough DFG (or DNR, depending on where you’re from) money to enforce these laws.   Laws that are "more trouble than they are worth"  are the ones least likely to be honored by the requisite number of fishermen.                                                            -dnc- Jason Beary wrote – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – [snip]  Unless, of course, you gave them "tear-away tags"  as part of their liscense and made them tag the fins of thier fish.   Hey, what a great way to limit exclusive Catch and Kill fishing.  Make killing a bunch of fish more trouble than it’s worth! Jason B

Response:

So if I get skunked, your going to fine me?  (No need to reply.  I know what you meant.  Just couldn’t resist) —                                                            -dnc- I think it’s about time that somewhere some fisheries managers bite the big one and introduce regulations that restrict all anglers in trout fisheries (or bass etc) to a …[snip]…. a minimum number of fish

landed per day.

Response:

I think it’s about time that somewhere some fisheries managers bite the big one and introduce regulations that restrict all anglers in trout fisheries (or bass etc) to a minimum number of fish killed per year ( as Jon suggests) and a minimum number of fish landed per day. Ideally it would require a punch card or tag system and the max catch per day (regardless if they are all released) would have to operate fairly much on an honour system – but I think most fishers would do so.

This is unnecessary.  If a person is catching dozens of fish that fact implies there are plenty of fish to catch.  It seems silly to regulate "number of fish landed" in this scenario. I don’t know much about the South Platte other than I recognize the name but it seems to me if you have a reg that allows killing only fish of 16" or over and fish that size are rare then something isn’t working (providing the river is able to grow good numbers of fish to that size).

There are a bunch of dubious assumptions underlying this thread.  The fact that one is not catching bigger fish does not mean that there are no big fish to be caught.  We all understand this more than we’d care to admit. But I agree that slot limits that allow killing only big fish are counterproductive. — -Wayne Trzyna

Response:

-Wayne Trzyna

<snip I don’t know much about the South Platte other than I recognize the name but it seems to me if you have a reg that allows killing only fish of 16" or over and fish that size are rare then something isn’t working (providing the river is able to grow good numbers of fish to that size). There are a bunch of dubious assumptions underlying this thread.  The fact that one is not catching bigger fish does not mean that there are no big fish to be caught.  We all understand this more than we’d care to admit.

If the 16" fish is rare then you will fish somewhere else right? If the 16" fish is rare, you will change the regs to protect them right? Seems there are an awful lot of people on this group going out of their way to poor mouth the Platte. I suspect Wayne knows that Cheeseman Canyon(Pure C&R) has plenty of 16"+ fish and has for years. Maybe its not like the eighties when there were many days when almost all the fish I caught were above 16", but… I must admit however that I have never caught as many larger fish below the canyon (kill one over 16" stretch), even in the better days. Numbers of total fish caught were somewhat similar though. Only 3 real differences between the areas: Better Habitat (Canyon), C&R vs. C&R&K(1 over 16"), Much easier access (below the canyon). Differences are probably attributable to a complex blend of  all three. The solution for the whole fishery should be derived deliberately. Hopefully, we’re not carrying fin tags or punch cards anytime soon. BP

Response:

Its Catch and Cook. I practice it regularly. What is the point if spending hundreds of dollars in tackle and not eating a fish that you catch? I am not saying only fly fishing. I eat reds and specks that I catch on an Abu Garcia 6500 as much as I do a 16 inch trout caught on a 18 Adams. It is a simple thing and would be common if it wern’t for the Bunny Huggers. Am I the only one that eats fish here? If you get a fish that is as good as a trout as table fair, you should make it table fair. i know I’ll get hell from everyone about this but I accept that. BryceC

Response:

Its Catch and Cook. I practice it regularly. What is the point if spending hundreds of dollars in tackle and not eating a fish that you catch? I am not saying only fly fishing.

While that’s nice (and perhaps you’d like to trade some recipes): Somewhere some nincompoop(s) cooked this whole issue into a one or the other kind of argument. What was supposed to an idea of applying common sense for the good of fishing for the future has been perverted into a sort of quasi religion and had a concommittent religious backlash. That there are those who say you should never kill a fish and to kill a fish bespeakes a blatant disregard for the sport and the environment versus those who say there should always be a kill and a meal regardless or close a fishery down ( like you having to justify the cost of your sport with a meal on the table as if being on the water and hooking a fish or two can’t be enough) just proves to me there are people who don’t really want to think about an issue and then ironically decide they have all the answers. One eminent poster here once eluded to Ecclesiates and said there is a time to kill (as in your fishery has an undeniable surplus available) and a time to release (such as is the case for virtually all wild steelhead) where you can’t really be certain of a sufficient number of fish being available for the future of the stocks to be assured. It may be a matter of convention (like on the Dean) where the body of anglers fishing there agree releasing is the best thing to do or boil down to personal preference. But why not accept it as a fact sometimes it is best to let it live. For those that don’t like those sorts of fisheries they can go someplace else. It’s a big free wide world. Ralph H replace "spamsucks" with direct for email reply.

Response:

Its Catch and Cook. I practice it regularly. What is the point if spending hundreds of dollars in tackle and not eating a fish that you catch? I am not saying only fly fishing.  Am I the only one that eats fish here? BryceC

Bryce; The point is that many (most) FFermen prefer the opportunity to catch lots of quality fish all year.  If I and all other FFermen kept a good % of the trout we caught, there would really be very little reason to continue the sport.  Here in PA, wild trout would not exist in the numbers that they do were it not for voluntary C&R.  We have way more fishermen than fish to support the sport.  If people keep the fish they catch, it will not ever be able to be caught by other fishermen or yourself, guaranteed.  Here in the East, we would very quickly run out of the good populations of wild fish that already struggle to survive in the shadow of Man.  All Catch and Cook would do is deplete the resource to the point of destruction.  (But, then again, that IS the american way, isn’t it? Fuck it all to hell and let someone else pay for the baby.) Jason Beary

Response:

        Killing a fish and eating it is not a dishonorable thing to do. The angler should use a little discretion, though. Where they are scarce, it’s foolish to kill them. On the other hand, if the trout are plentiful I may keep one or two per trip.         You are right, Bryce, when you admit that you are likely to catch some flak over this issue. But, where legal, it is your RIGHT to do that if you wish. People can holler all they want, but it’s their problem not yours. Just use good judgment, and don’t overcook those beauties. Enjoy! (Try poaching them in wine and garlic.)

Response:

Jason makes a good point, but it is true that there is nothing wrong with keeping fish where it is legal to do so.  If you care about the resource (which you should if you want to continue to C&C) then I strongly recommend supporting a mixed management program in your area that protects some waters with C&R, some with limited C&K.  If eating trout is your real pleasure, try searching out the put-n-take waters in your area (if they exist).  Living in San Diego, as I do, means travelling long distances for abundant trout streams, but the winter fishing in local lakes for put-n-take trout is pretty good.  And believe it or not, the private hatchery that provides the fish feeds them on something that makes ‘em taste really good.  Maybe you can find something like this in your area.   —                                                            -dnc- – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Its Catch and Cook. I practice it regularly. What is the point if spending hundreds of dollars in tackle and not eating a fish that you catch? I am not saying only fly fishing.  Am I the only one that eats fish here? BryceC Bryce; The point is that many (most) FFermen prefer the opportunity to catch lots of quality fish all year.  If I and all other FFermen kept a good % of the trout we caught, there would really be very little reason to continue the sport.  

Response:

Question:

Flyfishing has without question introduced me to some of my best friends.  People whom, without the glue of our gentle sport, would most likely never have gotten the opportunity to know one another.  I think this, more than most else, is what I am most grateful for as I think back on the countless seasons spent on lake, stream and river; the thousands of hours on the road chasing our fishes; the many many campfires that always seem to end up too large.         This quality of flyfishing, it’s universal appeal to those so inclined – to bring us to a point where sharing opinions on any topic becomes as easy and comfortable as discussing what fly to use, this I feel is my

Response:

        I’d have to agree with you on what flyfishing can do for a soul, and I’ll throw in another: those other fishermen I have met and helped, or met and been helped by, never to be seen again. Sharing moments never to be shared again, but never to be forgotten. There are a lot of GOOD people out there and its nice to meet them in some of the finest places on earth.

Response:

Question:

Tom, I hate to drizzle on your parade, but I think a reasonable inference from the photos of the original 13 patterns in the Treatise (as interpreted by the famous angling historian Jack Heddon) is that at least 2 were caddis imitations, the Ruddy Fly and the Black Leaper. These are downwing flies whereas the "Dun" flies have upwings. If you agree, it means caddis imitations were among the earliest known patterns. Paul Marriner – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – : Hi–   I read Wright’s 1972 book, _Fishing the Dry Fly as a Living Insect_, : with much interest.  Certainly new to me! : But did Wright invent the caddis fly, as someone posted? : Weren’t some of the earliest known flies caddis imitations? A lot of the FF tradition was brought from England, and a lot of that was, to be polite, mayflycentric ;-^) Most of the early patterns were for mayflies; it was only later that folks began to seriously imitate caddises, stoneflies, terrestrials, etc. — 3798 Woodland Drive     voice: (250) 368-9315 Trail, BC               data:  (250) 368-9341

Response:

: Hi–   I read Wright’s 1972 book, _Fishing the Dry Fly as a Living Insect_, : with much interest.  Certainly new to me! : But did Wright invent the caddis fly, as someone posted? : Weren’t some of the earliest known flies caddis imitations? A lot of the FF tradition was brought from England, and a lot of that was, to be polite, mayflycentric ;-^) Most of the early patterns were for mayflies; it was only later that folks began to seriously imitate caddises, stoneflies, terrestrials, etc. — 3798 Woodland Drive     voice: (250) 368-9315 Trail, BC               data:  (250) 368-9341

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – While Leonard Wright did not "invent" the caddisfly, it’s said he was first the white man to meet one, long ago, in the days when even insects could speak.  Mr. Wright was ever a man of edges, and curious, so he immediately proceeded to question the bug. "I watched a trout eat one of your brethren," said he.  "And since it’s widely known by narrow minds that trout eat only mayflies, I must ask: Are you merely a mayfly, rather badly bent?" The mayfly, a lady, and an elegant princess of a family ignored by anglers, demurred.  "Oh no," she whispered, and shyly lifted a folded wing, revealing herself from thorax to rounded abdomen.   "So I see," said Mr. Wright, noting the absence of tails, "and you are certainly lovely." The poor caddis, overwhelmed with pleasure, oviposited right there and then, swooned, fell to the stream and twitched twice, which caused her to be eaten by a three-pound brook trout Wright had seen it all.  He thrilled to the meeting, grasped its meaning, sat to his vise.   The rest is history, of course.  An  evolution, in a way, for imbedded in those eggs that lady caddis lay, deep in their DNA, remained a memory of Wright’s attention, captured forever in a charming moment…   And that is why, fellow anglers, that even today, a descendent of Lady Caddifly may see you on a stream, mistake you for another brave Maverick– And flutter.   From a review of <Trout Maverick in <California Fly Fisher: ….History and instruction aside, there’s another reason to read Wright carefully, perhaps the most compelling: Wright is a <thinker.  Occasionally philosophical, sentimental about split cane and gut leaders, he is most keen when he puzzles and prods, experiments, dismisses traditional assumptions when "a bleak, black day" demands something different and new.  He’s not the kind of fisher who, facing failure, will do what’s prescribed until the sun goes down; Wright wonders, tinkers and tries.  If his successes leave him with a dim view of purists, Wright certainly doesn’t blink an apology… …at the heart of Wright’s writing is appreciation for independent examination, for the willingness to study closely, trust what you see, and proceed from there.  In the end  <Trout Maverick is as heretical as this:  "…when you start observing flies and fly behavior for yourself without relying on some other man’s word, you’ll find a whole new and productive world of fishing."

  It can be discouraging wading through the newsgroups sometimes but I suspect that this is the sort of post that keeps many of us coming back. I read the post yesterday asking if Mr Wright had invented the caddisfly and simply moved on with a mental roll of my eyes.  Mriffler was inspired to greatness and my evening is better for it. I will look to his posts in the future.  

Response:

To whom it may concern, The other day I made a critical reference to the book "Fishing the Dry Fly as a Living Insect", Leonard M. Wright. My remark was about what I saw as conceipt by the author. That, I got the feeling that he thought he discovered the caddisfly. That he stores silk lines in the freezer made him an elitist prick, that sort of thing… Well…it’s funny how humility looks you up and hunts you down. I have since learned that Leonard M. Wright is a very elderly gentleman now, nearly if not ecclipsing 80. I have learned that he is a great man and a dear, dear friend to many, many of us.  I realize now that when he wrote the book initially, he really was breaking new ground.  He had every right to be proud of his discoveries.   I am ashamed of my careless and callous remarks and I apologize profusely.   What is really disturbing and humbling is that, despite my feelings and despite the fact that it is hard to read the book for those reasons, I have found myself reading it at least twice every winter for better then 10 years.  He really does have something important and useful for us to learn. Thank you, Leonard M. Wright.  I owe you a great deal. A debt that I have no idea how to repay… — TimW Halfordian Golfer

Response:

To whom it may concern, The other day I made a critical reference to the book "Fishing the Dry Fly as a Living Insect", Leonard M. Wright. My remark was about what I saw as conceipt by the author. <etc Well…it’s funny how humility looks you up and hunts you down. I have since learned that Leonard M. Wright is a very elderly gentleman now, nearly if not ecclipsing 80. I have learned that he is a great man and a dear, dear friend to many, many of us.

<etc Thank you, Leonard M. Wright.  I owe you a great deal.

No sweat. A debt that I have no idea how to repay…

You could start by cutting out the ten to fifteen C&K-vs-C&R-everyone-else-stopped- listening-months-ago-never-ending-debate-from-Hell posts per day crap. Don’t you have a job or something? This goes for you too, Ralph. — Leonard M. Wright – Fly Fishing Legend, Inventor of the Caddis Fly

Response:

Excellent response Leo. I agree completely. Thanks,                Rick

Response:

You could start by cutting out the ten to fifteen C&K-vs-C&R-everyone-else-stopped-listening-months-ago-never-ending- debate-from-Hell posts per day crap. Don’t you have a job or something? This goes for you too, Ralph. Leonard M. Wright – Fly Fishing Legend, Inventor of the Caddis Fly

Do you remember that scene where Woody Allen pulls Marshall McLuhan out of a corner to put a windy so-and-so in his place?  From now on, whenever Moe starts to rant I will smile and think of Woody and Leonard. Keep your stick on the ice, Thos.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – You could start by cutting out the ten to fifteen C&K-vs-C&R-everyone-else-stopped-listening-months-ago-never-ending- debate-from-Hell posts per day crap. Don’t you have a job or something? This goes for you too, Ralph. Leonard M. Wright – Fly Fishing Legend, Inventor of the Caddis Fly Do you remember that scene where Woody Allen pulls Marshall McLuhan out of a corner to put a windy so-and-so in his place?  From now on, whenever Moe starts to rant I will smile and think of Woody and Leonard. Keep your stick on the ice, Thos.

The best part is where Thos. says to keep your stick ….. Everyone is wright. There is tooo much egotistical BS on Roff. But hey, that’s the way its been the two years I’ve been watching -Doug

Response:

Mr. Wright,         Thank you, a million times, thank you. Bob – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – You could start by cutting out the ten to fifteen C&K-vs-C&R-everyone-else-stopped- listening-months-ago-never-ending-debate-from-Hell posts per day crap.

Response:

Hi–   I read Wright’s 1972 book, _Fishing the Dry Fly as a Living Insect_, with much interest.  Certainly new to me! But did Wright invent the caddis fly, as someone posted? Weren’t some of the earliest known flies caddis imitations? vince norris

Response:

 While Leonard Wright did not "invent" the caddisfly, it’s said he was first the white man to meet one, long ago, in the days when even insects could speak.  Mr. Wright was ever a man of edges, and curious, so he immediately proceeded to question the bug.  "I watched a trout eat one of your brethren," said he.  "And since it’s widely known by narrow minds that trout eat only mayflies, I must ask: Are you merely a mayfly, rather badly bent?"  The mayfly, a lady, and an elegant princess of a family ignored by anglers, demurred.  "Oh no," she whispered, and shyly lifted a folded wing, revealing herself from thorax to rounded abdomen.    "So I see," said Mr. Wright, noting the absence of tails, "and you are certainly lovely."  The poor caddis, overwhelmed with pleasure, oviposited right there and then, swooned, fell to the stream and twitched twice, which caused her to be eaten by a three-pound brook trout  Wright had seen it all.  He thrilled to the meeting, grasped its meaning, sat to his vise.    The rest is history, of course.  An  evolution, in a way, for imbedded in those eggs that lady caddis lay, deep in their DNA, remained a memory of Wright’s attention, captured forever in a charming moment…    And that is why, fellow anglers, that even today, a descendent of Lady Caddifly may see you on a stream, mistake you for another brave Maverick–  And flutter.    From a review of <Trout Maverick in <California Fly Fisher:  ….History and instruction aside, there’s another reason to read Wright carefully, perhaps the most compelling:  Wright is a <thinker.  Occasionally philosophical, sentimental about split cane and gut leaders, he is most keen when he puzzles and prods, experiments, dismisses traditional assumptions when "a bleak, black day" demands something different and new.  He’s not the kind of fisher who, facing failure, will do what’s prescribed until the sun goes down; Wright wonders, tinkers and tries.  If his successes leave him with a dim view of purists, Wright certainly doesn’t blink an apology…  …at the heart of Wright’s writing is appreciation for independent examination, for the willingness to study closely, trust what you see, and proceed from there.  In the end  <Trout Maverick is as heretical as this:  "…when you start observing flies and fly behavior for yourself without relying on some other man’s word, you’ll find a whole new and productive world of fishing."

Response:

Question:

It looks like I will be attending a conference at Disneyland in Anneheim early next month.  Any flyfishing (fresh or Saltwater) in this area ? I am willing to travel within reason. I am not from the USA, so if you specify a fish species, please also add any info on line weights, flies etc, as I noticed on my last trip to the USA that fish names vary considerably around the world. Are there any good shops in the area who could advise me ? Thanks Bruce…..

Response:

It looks like I will be attending a conference at Disneyland in Anneheim early next month.  Any flyfishing (fresh or Saltwater) in this area ? I am willing to travel within reason. I am not from the USA, so if you specify a fish species, please also add any info on line weights, flies etc, as I noticed on my last trip to the USA that fish names vary considerably around the world. Are there any good shops in the area who could advise me ? Thanks Bruce…..

– I’m not sure about the actual fishing in that immediate area, but you’ll be within a long cast with a shooting head of one of the biggest fly shops around – Bob Marriott’s.  DON’T miss it… and set yourself a budget before you walk in the door. <<grin Joe Ellis         o/~ The Synthetic Filker o/~ |    TesserAct Studios  ()X  Darwin (;        Now on the Web at      |   Fairfield, OH 45018  //~~~LL~~~~LL~  http://shell.idt.net/~ellis69 |  New Dimensions In Filk!

Response:

Question:

If I hear Flip Pallet’s bogus into, with his burning of the memories onto film line one more time, I think I’ll go crazy.

Response:

If I hear Flip Pallet’s bogus into, with his burning of the memories onto film line one more time, I think I’ll go crazy.

I enjoy Pallot’s show most of all the ESPN shows.  I do wish that he would spend more time on technique and tackle, without brand names unless they are critical to his recommendations.

Response:

If I hear Flip Pallet’s bogus into, with his burning of the memories onto film line one more time, I think I’ll go crazy. I enjoy Pallot’s show most of all the ESPN shows.  I do wish that he would

spend more time on technique and tackle, without brand names unless they are critical to his recommendations.         The same could be said about "Flyfishing the World".  The host spends way too much time waxing poetic and mooning over whatever celebrity he happens to have invited along for that weeks show.  (By the way, has anyone else out there found new respect for that chair tossing sumbitch Bobby Knight?) Consequently, the show spends far too little time detailing tackle and technique.           Mark Sosin is the best of the lot in this regard.         RF         Cedar Falls, Iowa      

Response:

Perhaps not so bogus: Walker’s Cay Chronicle is actually shot on film, not video and when processed, film developer actually "burns" the photosensitive emulsion into the film. Imagine that.

Response:

Perhaps your observation about Flip’s intro is valid, but I’d be interested to know if you were ever offered $1800 to guide a day of fishing.  I understand that’s his going rate.  If I got to fish and make that kind of money at the same time, I probably wouldn’t have reservations about being a little hokey myself.

Response:

Question:

In mid October we’re headed from San Francisco up to fish the Olympic Peninsula and then on up to fish the Kispiox in upper BC.  I need a pair of hip boots, 5mm with lug soles (don’t wade deep any more so hippers should do fine).  Gear such as this are not available here in Hawaii. We’ll be going thru Portland.  Can anyone tell me where I can buy such an animal there, the address of the shop, and their phone number. Aloha, |Robert (aka: Bob) B. Graham – NINC-HON [retired]   Office: gone fishing  | |(Nerd-In-Chief Honolulu)                             Home: (808) 395-9360| |City & County of Honolulu         Prodigy: WTKW87A                       | I have a vice, that vice is fishing – time stops, I’m in a different world.

Response:

Im sure you’ve heard it before- but Kaufmann’s streamborn is located in tigard (basically portland) at 8861 SW Commercial in tigard- Just a little ways off of I 5. You can call (503) 639-6400 for more info and directions. Id really reccomend Kaufmann’s – im sure theyll have whatever you need. tight lines -matt petkun

: In mid October we’re headed from San Francisco up to fish the Olympic : Peninsula and then on up to fish the Kispiox in upper BC.  I need a pair : of hip boots, 5mm with lug soles (don’t wade deep any more so hippers : should do fine).  Gear such as this are not available here in Hawaii. : We’ll be going thru Portland.  Can anyone tell me where I can buy such an : animal there, the address of the shop, and their phone number. : Aloha, : |Robert (aka: Bob) B. Graham – NINC-HON [retired]   Office: gone fishing  | : |(Nerd-In-Chief Honolulu)                             Home: (808) 395-9360| : |City & County of Honolulu         Prodigy: WTKW87A                       | : I have a vice, that vice is fishing – time stops, I’m in a different world.

Response:

Bob, I’m going to have to disagree with Mary. Kaufmann’s does not carry hip waders. (They believe them dangerous and/or undesireable). If you are just looking for a place during a layover, then grab a cab and go to GI Joe’s at Jantzen Beach. Any cabbie should know where that is. Actually, I would suggest GI Joe’s even if it will be an extended stay. I might suggest getting felt sole waders, though. The rocks in shallow water are the most slippery, usually. Sean Williams Student, Teacher, Angler Portland, Ore., USA

Response:

You can also check with the Larry’s Sporting Goods in Oregon City or in Gresham.  There is also a GI Joes and another Larry’s Sporting Goods in Gresham, plus one more GI Joes in the Rockwood area (somewhere around 182nd and Burnside) in Portland.  That is presuming they are all still open, it’s been 8 years since I lived in the area. Do you really want 5 mil neoprene hippers?  They’re real warm.  Also, keep in mind that if you are trying to be stealthy around trout or steelhead you can’t kneel down with hippers as they will fill up even in shallow water.                                                                   Dan Dan Gracia Schools Coordinator Orvis West Coast Fly Fishing Schools If you kill that big fish you can’t catch ‘em again.  So what if they eat other fish?  If you kill the big ones there will only be little ones left (funny how that works!).

Response:

Question:

Will be traveling in the vicinity of Greeneville, TN the 3rd week of June.  Will be introducing by father-in-law to fly fishing and would appreciate some help in locating areas that might be productive.  We’ll be visiting from California and would be happy to sway info on local hot spots. Thanks in advance.

Response:

TRY GATLINBURG AREA FOR SOME GREAT FLY FISHIND—GREENBRIAR AREA …CADES COVE….ELKMONT….HAD SOME GREAT HATCHES…GOOD FISHING!!!!!

Response:

Yes, Elkmont is a good spot.  Caught some nice browns there on a delta wing caddis, with olive body.  Nice fish!   A sunny day,      a box of midges,         and a wandering stream…   Man, this MUST be heaven!   <    Steve Kulpa    <<

Response: