Question:

wish ‘em luck Peter

An article in The Electronic Telegraph, a London e-paper, has an article on the SAS unit.  Also mentioned was the deployment of Tornados to the "little" military exercise in Oman, with about 20,000 people.  I don’t think most people, on either side, are aware of the size of the wave about to break. Wayne to fish is human….to release Divine!

Response:

An SAS group was active for a brief time in South Yemen a few years ago (when there were *two* Yemens – now there is one).  These folks, like most shadow warriors are seldom seen, heard about only in rumor, and you surely wouldn’t want to wake up with them standing by your bed, if you are on the task list. This will likely be the sharpest edge of that terrible swift sword. Tom – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Peter Collin: SAS = ? Special Air Service.  Roots from WWII.  It’s the Kippers’ answer to our SEALS, Special Forces, Rangers, etc.  Damn fine bunch even if they are Brits!  <g Dave According to the Washington Post, they’ve been training in the Pakistani mountains for the past five years and before that, with the Pathan warriors against the Soviets.  If they follow standard SAS ops, most will speak the local language – they’ll concentrate on recon, demolition, and ambush; vectoring in a larger force for the capture and covering it on the extraction.  Then they’ll disappear again and we’ll probably never hear about their contribution. If anyone wants to get an inkling of current SAS ops, check out Andy McNab’s "Bravo Two Zero" about the Gulf War.  An 8 man SAS patrol lead by McNab on a Scud busting mission, was dropped inadvertently in the middle of two Iraqi divisions.  Their mission compromised right from the start, they made a 110 mile escape and evasion to the Syrian border.  One made it, three died (two from exposure) and four were captured at the Euphrates River, the border with Syria.  On the way, it was estimated that they took out over 250 Iraqi soldiers. They were started in WWII by David Stirling, operating in the desert, doing recon and blowing up Rommel’s airplanes and ammunition dumps. The old TV series Rat Patrol was, as is usual for Hollywood, stolen from SAS service history.  The series does give some sense of what their WWII desert ops were like.  Hitler gave orders that any captured SAS soldiers were to be executed immediately as they were too dangerous to be left alive. Peter Visit The Streamer Page at http://members.home.net/pcharles/streamers/index.html

Response:

The British SAS were used in the Iranian embassy siege in London a few years ago.  They went in from the roof and balcony and killed all, but one, of hostage takers.  The stroy goes that when they realised one of the hostage takers was hiding among the hostages outside the embassy, they went out to drag him inside to kill him.  Hostages pleaded for his life to be spared. He is serving life in jail. They took out IRA members in Gibraltar, leaving the bodies on the road. There was accusations of a "shoot-to-kill" policy. They turn up in many places where justice, law and order fails to take hold.  For example, an IRA man was found not guilty at the Old Bailey (Central Criminal Court, London) despite overwhelming evidence.  A few weeks later, he was shot dead, along with his mates, in a Northern Ireland churchyard, having just robbed a bank. The SAS are based at Hereford.  Its best to say "Sir" to anyone you speak to in Hereford. Bobby Bewl —

I haven’t seen it mentioned on CNN but the Toronto Sun has reported a fire fight between a Taliban force and an SAS recon patrol. Apparently, they’ve been in country for nearly a week, looking for bin Laden. wish ‘em luck Peter Visit The Streamer Page at

http://members.home.net/pcharles/streamers/index.html

Response:

and if you think *they’re* tough, wait ’til they get a whiff of the 24th foot…the south wales borderers.

Any relation to the 24th Yorkshire Foot and Mouth? Bobby

Response:

has long been the unwritten rule that one does NOT write about one’s life in the Regiment

Then this article, in yesterday’s Sunday Times, will not have gone down very well: www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/2001/09/23/stiusausa02023.html "Tom Carew, an SAS soldier who helped turn Afghanistan’s fighters into an effective modern guerrilla force, on the daunting task facing allied troops in the air or on the ground.  My life with the mujaheddin." — Phil Jones

Response:

They were started in WWII by David Stirling, operating in the desert, doing recon and blowing up Rommel’s airplanes and ammunition dumps. I was in high school during WW II, but I remember reading about British "Commandos," which I vaguely recall was a word taken from a Dutch word "commando" used during the Boer War. Was "Commandos " another name for the SAS? vince norris

In WWII, the Commandos were Royal Marines whereas the SAS were drawn mostly from the army and RAF.  The Commandos specialized in amphibious raids while the SAS, as the name suggests, used airborne and overland approaches. There is a Royal Marine version of the SAS called the SBS (Special Boat Squadron) that is even more clandestine than the SAS (and if you ask a Marine – tougher.)  Just to confuse matters, the SAS has a Boat Troop that operates similarly to the SBS while the SBS also operates from naval helicopters.  Both the SAS and the SBS originated in WWII. http://business.thisisnorthscotland.co.uk/Nsco/a/r/m/armedforces/mari… http://www.britains-smallwars.com/main/SBS.htm Peter Visit The Streamer Page at http://members.home.net/pcharles/streamers/index.html

Response:

If there is a reasonably accurate account of the SAS in book form or official history, I woiuld like to add a copy to our Museum’s library.  We currently have a little material from W.W.II North African campaigns in the collection including some Desert Rats material.  Our collection includes significant material from England and Commonwealth counries from both World Wars and the Cold War.  We hold the largest ANZAC collection in the US and need to expand input from the British. Wayne to fish is human….to release Divine!!

Response:

They were started in WWII by David Stirling, operating in the desert, doing recon and blowing up Rommel’s airplanes and ammunition dumps.

I was in high school during WW II, but I remember reading about British "Commandos," which I vaguely recall was a word taken from a Dutch word "commando" used during the Boer War. Was "Commandos " another name for the SAS? vince norris

Response:

Thanks for getting back to us.  BTW, there are a number of regiment histories out there – preferences? Peter Visit The Streamer Page at http://members.home.net/pcharles/streamers/index.html

Response:

Thanks for getting back to us.  BTW, there are a number of regiment histories out there – preferences?

One that was semi-officially sanctioned by the Regiment several years ago was "Who Dares Wins" by Tony Geraghty.  It is pretty factual, although obviously just a selection of stuff that can be made public.  Of interest is the fact that Tony Geraghty, an ex-Territorial (Reserve) paratrooper and journalist wrote a book about Northern Ireland only a couple of years ago and got himself arrested for spilling a few too many beans.  His earlier book mentioned above, is pretty accurate up to the Gulf War. There are numerous others, but most are either glamourizing tales of bravado written with an eye to the dollars, or semi-political works that try to make the authors’ pet point. The more accurate books are restricted circulation ones within the SAS Association or Special Forces Club library. There is one by Ken Connor, a long-time member of the Regiment, called "Ghost" I think from memory – it’s not too bad, but he does push his own barrow a fair bit, and has a slightly jaundiced view of things.  Some say he was in there too long.  I had just under 6 years in, and I saw enough to make me appreciate all the good things in life, and also to recognize what’s REALLY important in life as opposed to what society and peer- pressure try to tell us is important.  That’s why I enjoy fly-fishing! (Nifty, cunning return to topic there – heheh — NightStalker Email addy is nightstalker87 at hot(you know).com

Response:

British special forces (Special Air Service) – originated during WW II as a raiding force to fight Rommel’s forces in Africa, and obviously it stuck together.  The man who started it (Stirling) was knighted about 10 years ago I believe.

Just for the record, he was knighted back in the 1980s, and he died in 1991, just a few months before the Regiment’s jubilee (50th) birthday celebrations, which I attended and was marked by a touch of sadness that the founder had not quite made it. — NightStalker Email addy is nightstalker87 at hot(you know).com

Response:

I’m aware that McNab’s book hasn’t received the best of reviews from his former associates, though to the best of my knowledge, the 250 number came from other sources, not McNab.  Having had a former SAS Flt. Lt. as a training officer, I know about their reticence regarding any sort of publicity.  So I wonder whether the regiment’s dislike of the book comes from perceived inaccuracies in the story or the fact that McNab has profited from matters that should not have been made public.

Both.  The inaccuracies are real and grossly exaggerated.  It’s interesting that no mention of these huge body counts was made in the video-taped debriefings of both ‘McNab’ or ‘Ryan’.  And the other reason for the dislike of the books is that has long been the unwritten rule that one does NOT write about one’s life in the Regiment.  It’s for this reason that the two writers mentioned are now persona non grata in the Regiment and its Association.  Mind you – I’m sure they’re crying all the way to the bank…. (Cultural information note to the U.S. contingent in the ROFFian Universe.)  Over the past few decades the British and especially the Canadians have developed the bad habit of viciously tearing down their heros as soon as they’ve elevated them.  While it’s always wise to view claims to heroism with a clear eye, the counter-claims from these sources should be viewed, at the very least, the same way.

Just to balance the accounts a bit – let me just say that several ex- members of the Regiment HAVE written books that are held in much higher esteem than the ‘McNab’ and ‘Ryan’ books, but these are (a) factual, (b) usually limited distribution through the Association, and (c) not glorifying or exaggerating any deeds or misdeeds. Knocking down heroes is a peculiar sport, but in the opinion of most members and ex-members of the Regiment, neither ‘McNab’ or ‘Ryan’ were heroes – they just did a bloody good E + E (escape and evasion) effort, then tried to cash in on this stuffed up patrol and make ‘heroes’ out of themselves. — NightStalker Email addy is nightstalker87 at hot(you know).com

Response:

As a (shhh!) ex-member of the said regiment, back in the 60’s, allow me, as a long-time lurker here, to say a couple of words.  Andy ‘McNab’’s book is hugely exaggerated, especially about the number of Iraquis they allegedly ‘took out’ on the patrol which was a total stuff-up from day one.  There is another book about the same patrol, called "The One That Got Away" by Chris ‘Ryan’ (all pseudonyms) that is even more exaggerated and self-grandising. Now I’ll just fade silently back into "lurker-dom"

I’m aware that McNab’s book hasn’t received the best of reviews from his former associates, though to the best of my knowledge, the 250 number came from other sources, not McNab.  Having had a former SAS Flt. Lt. as a training officer, I know about their reticence regarding any sort of publicity.  So I wonder whether the regiment’s dislike of the book comes from perceived inaccuracies in the story or the fact that McNab has profited from matters that should not have been made public. (Cultural information note to the U.S. contingent in the ROFFian Universe.)  Over the past few decades the British and especially the Canadians have developed the bad habit of viciously tearing down their heros as soon as they’ve elevated them.  While it’s always wise to view claims to heroism with a clear eye, the counter-claims from these sources should be viewed, at the very least, the same way. Peter Visit The Streamer Page at http://members.home.net/pcharles/streamers/index.html

Response:

SAS = ?

British special forces (Special Air Service) – originated during WW II as a raiding force to fight Rommel’s forces in Africa, and obviously it stuck together.  The man who started it (Stirling) was knighted about 10 years ago I believe. By the way, at one point Stirling was a POW in Colditz Castle, which was the inspiration for the computer game that "started it all" (yes, a shooter game that preceded Doom) – Castle Wolfenstein.  (There was also a board game called "Escape From Colditz".)  A later version of the computer game was "Spear of Destiny", where a commando was sent in to retrieve the spear that pierced the side of Christ, which was supposedly being kept by Himmler in the belief that Nazi armies would be invincible while it was in their possession (in keeping with his occult leanings.)  "Return to Castle Wolfenstein" is due out this fall, for more Nazi-killing goodness.  Boy is this OT.

Response:

An SAS group was active for a brief time in South Yemen a few years ago (when there were *two* Yemens – now there is one).  These folks, like most shadow warriors are seldom seen, heard about only in rumor, and you surely wouldn’t want to wake up with them standing by your bed, if you are on the task list. This will likely be the sharpest edge of that terrible swift sword. Tom

I was involved in that little lot.  It was in the Radfan mountains in the mid-60s, (1966 to be exact) the mountain range between what was then South Yemen and the Protectorate of Aden, as the Brits were withdrawing from Aden, we were basically covering their collective backsides.  The terrain there was like the flipside of the moon, about 50degrees Celsius by day, and sub-zero at night, with rocks underfoot that could cut through a pair of tough desert boots in no time. Special Air Service.  Roots from WWII.  It’s the Kippers’ answer to our SEALS, Special Forces, Rangers, etc.  Damn fine bunch even if they are Brits!  <g Dave

One small difference of opinion if I may – the SEALs were the USA’s answer to the SAS, not the other way around  The whole idea of Special FOrces, where small teams of highly-trained individuals could wreak more havoc than a company of grunts, originated in the fertile minds of David Stirling, his brother Bill Stirling, Paddy Maine, Jock Lewis, and a few others in 1942. According to the Washington Post, they’ve been training in the Pakistani mountains for the past five years and before that, with the Pathan warriors against the Soviets.  If they follow standard SAS ops, most will speak the local language – they’ll concentrate on recon, demolition, and ambush; vectoring in a larger force for the capture and covering it on the extraction.  Then they’ll disappear again and we’ll probably never hear about their contribution.

22SAS has had a very long involvement in the middle east, and particularly in desert terrain, including Aden as above, Oman (southern area called Dhofar) etc etc, and the regiment was actually started in the northern deserts of Africa in 1942.  They are long-time masters of ‘low- intensity’ campaigns, fighting guerilla tactics and winning hearts and minds as well as using all sorts of means to stay undetected deep behind enemy lines and across borders.  They are primarily a recon and special ops outfit rather than front-line engagement troops. If anyone wants to get an inkling of current SAS ops, check out Andy McNab’s "Bravo Two Zero" about the Gulf War.  An 8 man SAS patrol lead by McNab on a Scud busting mission, was dropped inadvertently in the middle of two Iraqi divisions.  Their mission compromised right from the start, they made a 110 mile escape and evasion to the Syrian border.  One made it, three died (two from exposure) and four were captured at the Euphrates River, the border with Syria.  On the way, it was estimated that they took out over 250 Iraqi soldiers. They were started in WWII by David Stirling, operating in the desert, doing recon and blowing up Rommel’s airplanes and ammunition dumps. The old TV series Rat Patrol was, as is usual for Hollywood, stolen from SAS service history.  The series does give some sense of what

As a (shhh!) ex-member of the said regiment, back in the 60’s, allow me, as a long-time lurker here, to say a couple of words.  Andy ‘McNab’’s book is hugely exaggerated, especially about the number of Iraquis they allegedly ‘took out’ on the patrol which was a total stuff-up from day one.  There is another book about the same patrol, called "The One That Got Away" by Chris ‘Ryan’ (all pseudonyms) that is even more exaggerated and self-grandising. Now I’ll just fade silently back into "lurker-dom" — NightStalker Email addy is nightstalker87 at hot(you know).com

Response:

Ditto Op

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – having read down to bobby’s post…..I’m impressed… john

Response:

having read down to bobby’s post…..I’m impressed… john

Response:

  The series does give some sense of what their WWII desert ops were like.  Hitler gave orders that any captured SAS soldiers were to be executed immediately as they were too dangerous to be left alive. Peter Visit The Streamer Page at http://members.home.net/pcharles/streamers/index.html

        up the empire, peetah!         thanks to the brits from         their friend in the old north state         wayno         and if you think *they’re* tough, wait ’til they get a whiff of the 24th foot…the south wales borderers.

Response:

Peter Collin: SAS = ? Special Air Service.  Roots from WWII.  It’s the Kippers’ answer to our SEALS, Special Forces, Rangers, etc.  Damn fine bunch even if they are Brits!  <g Dave

According to the Washington Post, they’ve been training in the Pakistani mountains for the past five years and before that, with the Pathan warriors against the Soviets.  If they follow standard SAS ops, most will speak the local language – they’ll concentrate on recon, demolition, and ambush; vectoring in a larger force for the capture and covering it on the extraction.  Then they’ll disappear again and we’ll probably never hear about their contribution. If anyone wants to get an inkling of current SAS ops, check out Andy McNab’s "Bravo Two Zero" about the Gulf War.  An 8 man SAS patrol lead by McNab on a Scud busting mission, was dropped inadvertently in the middle of two Iraqi divisions.  Their mission compromised right from the start, they made a 110 mile escape and evasion to the Syrian border.  One made it, three died (two from exposure) and four were captured at the Euphrates River, the border with Syria.  On the way, it was estimated that they took out over 250 Iraqi soldiers. They were started in WWII by David Stirling, operating in the desert, doing recon and blowing up Rommel’s airplanes and ammunition dumps. The old TV series Rat Patrol was, as is usual for Hollywood, stolen from SAS service history.  The series does give some sense of what their WWII desert ops were like.  Hitler gave orders that any captured SAS soldiers were to be executed immediately as they were too dangerous to be left alive. Peter Visit The Streamer Page at http://members.home.net/pcharles/streamers/index.html

Response:

SAS = ?

Special Air Service. — Gary (Email address is munged with x’s)

Response:

Peter Collin: SAS = ?

Special Air Service.  Roots from WWII.  It’s the Kippers’ answer to our SEALS, Special Forces, Rangers, etc.  Damn fine bunch even if they are Brits!  <g Dave

Response:

I haven’t seen it mentioned on CNN but the Toronto Sun has reported a fire fight between a Taliban force and an SAS recon patrol. Apparently, they’ve been in country for nearly a week, looking for bin Laden. wish ‘em luck Peter Visit The Streamer Page at http://members.home.net/pcharles/streamers/index.html

Response:

Peter Charles: I haven’t seen it mentioned on CNN but the Toronto Sun has reported a fire fight between a Taliban force and an SAS recon patrol. Apparently, they’ve been in country for nearly a week, looking for bin Laden. wish ‘em luck

Damn straight, Peter!  Hope they get him.  Betcha you’re poppin’ some buttons! <g Dave

Response:

SAS = ?

Response:

aka "m-14" …special forces for Britain i believe… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – SAS = ?

Response:

Question:

No, not the muskie lure.  Over the years I’ve read many posts here extolling the virtues of spinner baits.  I never much liked them, preferring crankbaits, body baits and soft plastics. However, this year I decided to give them a serious try.  In deep dark water I have thrown a black/red with heavy single Colorado blade.  In the spring I was using a silver plated double willow leaf with pumpkinseed colored skirt.  Muddy, post-rain storm conditions on the river I switch to a chartreuse buzzbait.   Over the tops of slop and lily pads.  OK, I like them.  I’ve had good success with spinnerbaits all season. The coup de grace came yesterday. I was standing up on top of the boat, one foot on the gunwhale and one on the dashboard of my friend’s boat.  I had my wide brimmed hat and wrap around polarized sunglasses.  I was fly casting and wanted a high vantage point.  My friend told me that if I damaged his dashboard I’d be crawling back to shore on my hands.  Anyway, it was really slow going.  Suddenly I spotted a large isolated fish cruising in just inches of water.  It was well camouflaged and even with my glasses I could only pick out the silhouette of its dark back.  I wasn’t sure if it was a bass or some other fish.  I turned to my other friend and told him where the fish was.  He threw a chartreuse and white buzzbait just perfectly – ahead of and to the side of the fish in such a way that once retrieved it moves across the field of vision of the fish but also away from the fish, appropriate prey behavior.  The fish changed course once it saw the lure and slowly followed but wouldn’t take.  Finally he stopped retrieving and while it dropped, I saw the mouth opening and the silicone skirt disappear.  "He’s got it! Set the hook!" I yelled and the fish was on.  It was well over five pounds.  The whole episode was very exciting but it all happened so perfectly that we were left speechless for a few moments.  I put away my fly rod and picked up my casting rod which already had a spinner bait attached.  I soon caught a smallish pike. OK, so that was only one incident but it capped off a couple of weeks of good fishing with spinnerbaits and I have gained much more confidence in them.  I still don’t use spoons or jigs too often.   Mu

Response:

Excellent story, thanks for sharing. — Early to Bed, Early to Rise…    Fish all Day, Make up Lies    Shawn – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – No, not the muskie lure.  Over the years I’ve read many posts here extolling the virtues of spinner baits.  I never much liked them, preferring crankbaits, body baits and soft plastics. However, this year I decided to give them a serious try.  In deep dark water I have thrown a black/red with heavy single Colorado blade.  In the spring I was using a silver plated double willow leaf with pumpkinseed colored skirt.  Muddy, post-rain storm conditions on the river I switch to a chartreuse buzzbait. Over the tops of slop and lily pads.  OK, I like them.  I’ve had good success with spinnerbaits all season. The coup de grace came yesterday. I was standing up on top of the boat, one foot on the gunwhale and one on the dashboard of my friend’s boat.  I had my wide brimmed hat and wrap around polarized sunglasses.  I was fly casting and wanted a high vantage point.  My friend told me that if I damaged his dashboard I’d be crawling back to shore on my hands.  Anyway, it was really slow going.  Suddenly I spotted a large isolated fish cruising in just inches of water.  It was well camouflaged and even with my glasses I could only pick out the silhouette of its dark back.  I wasn’t sure if it was a bass or some other fish.  I turned to my other friend and told him where the fish was.  He threw a chartreuse and white buzzbait just perfectly – ahead of and to the side of the fish in such a way that once retrieved it moves across the field of vision of the fish but also away from the fish, appropriate prey behavior.  The fish changed course once it saw the lure and slowly followed but wouldn’t take.  Finally he stopped retrieving and while it dropped, I saw the mouth opening and the silicone skirt disappear.  "He’s got it! Set the hook!" I yelled and the fish was on.  It was well over five pounds.  The whole episode was very exciting but it all happened so perfectly that we were left speechless for a few moments.  I put away my fly rod and picked up my casting rod which already had a spinner bait attached.  I soon caught a smallish pike. OK, so that was only one incident but it capped off a couple of weeks of good fishing with spinnerbaits and I have gained much more confidence in them.  I still don’t use spoons or jigs too often. Mu

Response:

Mu, I got into spinner baits last year, blame it on Warren. Recently, my oldest son and I was out.  I picked up one of my rods pretied with a spinner bait.  He fishes mostly with natural looking lures, and gave me a odd look.  "You catch things on that?", he asked. When you think about it, a spinner bait looks nothing like what the Beauties normally forage on.  Can’t imagine what ran through the mind of the person who invented the first one! On my second cast, I hooked into a nice 2+ pound beauty.  "Sometimes," I said! —    Go Fishing.  And may your fish be as big as your tales.    Columbia, SC  Lake Murray – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – No, not the muskie lure.  Over the years I’ve read many posts here extolling the virtues of spinner baits.  I never much liked them, preferring crankbaits, body baits and soft plastics. However, this year I decided to give them a serious try.  In deep dark water I have thrown a black/red with heavy single Colorado blade.  In the spring I was using a silver plated double willow leaf with pumpkinseed colored skirt.  Muddy, post-rain storm conditions on the river I switch to a chartreuse buzzbait. Over the tops of slop and lily pads.  OK, I like them.  I’ve had good success with spinnerbaits all season. The coup de grace came yesterday. I was standing up on top of the boat, one foot on the gunwhale and one on the dashboard of my friend’s boat.  I had my wide brimmed hat and wrap around polarized sunglasses.  I was fly casting and wanted a high vantage point.  My friend told me that if I damaged his dashboard I’d be crawling back to shore on my hands.  Anyway, it was really slow going.  Suddenly I spotted a large isolated fish cruising in just inches of water.  It was well camouflaged and even with my glasses I could only pick out the silhouette of its dark back.  I wasn’t sure if it was a bass or some other fish.  I turned to my other friend and told him where the fish was.  He threw a chartreuse and white buzzbait just perfectly – ahead of and to the side of the fish in such a way that once retrieved it moves across the field of vision of the fish but also away from the fish, appropriate prey behavior.  The fish changed course once it saw the lure and slowly followed but wouldn’t take.  Finally he stopped retrieving and while it dropped, I saw the mouth opening and the silicone skirt disappear.  "He’s got it! Set the hook!" I yelled and the fish was on.  It was well over five pounds.  The whole episode was very exciting but it all happened so perfectly that we were left speechless for a few moments.  I put away my fly rod and picked up my casting rod which already had a spinner bait attached.  I soon caught a smallish pike. OK, so that was only one incident but it capped off a couple of weeks of good fishing with spinnerbaits and I have gained much more confidence in them.  I still don’t use spoons or jigs too often. Mu

Response:

I flat-out love spinnerbaits and fish them every chance I get. They are easy to use, extremely versatile, they seldom snag and they really catch fish. Interesting how the more I use them and the more things I try, the more I catch on them. I have probably used spinnerbaits about every way they can be used, except with a float (and that will probably happen someday). One of my favorite ways to use spinnerbaits is rapidly coming upon us; summertime deep water patterns. I particularly enjoy catching fish deep with my spinnerbaits while my boatmates are trying to unhang their crankbaits, and then rubbing it in as I land a nice one and promptly go back after another. A great method here is to jig a 3/8 oz. to 1/2 oz. crawfish-colored spinnerbait with a single small ( #3 Oklahoma or #5 Indiana) nickel blade, which I fish with a swift lift of 2′ to 4′ and follow with a slow controlled drop where the strikes take place. It can often be deadly and is always fun. — ~Bob Rickard Vote early and often this November; the country you save may be your own.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Mu, I got into spinner baits last year, blame it on Warren. Recently, my oldest son and I was out.  I picked up one of my rods pretied with a spinner bait.  He fishes mostly with natural looking lures, and gave me a odd look.  "You catch things on that?", he asked. When you think about it, a spinner bait looks nothing like what the Beauties normally forage on.  Can’t imagine what ran through the mind of the person who invented the first one! On my second cast, I hooked into a nice 2+ pound beauty.  "Sometimes," I said! —    Go Fishing.  And may your fish be as big as your tales.    Columbia, SC  Lake Murray No, not the muskie lure.  Over the years I’ve read many posts here extolling the virtues of spinner baits.  I never much liked them, preferring crankbaits, body baits and soft plastics. However, this year I decided to give them a serious try.  In deep dark water I have thrown a black/red with heavy single Colorado blade.  In the spring I was using a silver plated double willow leaf with pumpkinseed colored skirt.  Muddy, post-rain storm conditions on the river I switch to a chartreuse buzzbait. Over the tops of slop and lily pads.  OK, I like them.  I’ve had good success with spinnerbaits all season. The coup de grace came yesterday. I was standing up on top of the boat, one foot on the gunwhale and one on the dashboard of my friend’s boat.  I had my wide brimmed hat and wrap around polarized sunglasses.  I was fly casting and wanted a high vantage point.  My friend told me that if I damaged his dashboard I’d be crawling back to shore on my hands.  Anyway, it was really slow going.  Suddenly I spotted a large isolated fish cruising in just inches of water.  It was well camouflaged and even with my glasses I could only pick out the silhouette of its dark back.  I wasn’t sure if it was a bass or some other fish.  I turned to my other friend and told him where the fish was.  He threw a chartreuse and white buzzbait just perfectly – ahead of and to the side of the fish in such a way that once retrieved it moves across the field of vision of the fish but also away from the fish, appropriate prey behavior.  The fish changed course once it saw the lure and slowly followed but wouldn’t take.  Finally he stopped retrieving and while it dropped, I saw the mouth opening and the silicone skirt disappear. "He’s got it! Set the hook!" I yelled and the fish was on.  It was well over five pounds.  The whole episode was very exciting but it all happened so perfectly that we were left speechless for a few moments.  I put away my fly rod and picked up my casting rod which already had a spinner bait attached.  I soon caught a smallish pike. OK, so that was only one incident but it capped off a couple of weeks of good fishing with spinnerbaits and I have gained much more confidence in them.  I still don’t use spoons or jigs too often. Mu

Response:

Question:

Sounds like you need a chill pill.If you don’t want to read it don’t click on it. Sometimes I see some new or even good Things that has been posted by Manufacters or Tackle shops.I don’t guess it was you that posted the following.      FLY FISHIN’ LURE FOR SALE! Newsgroups:   rec.outdoors.fishing [More Headers] [Subscribe to rec.outdoors.fishing]<Picture make offer. never been used. nothin’ wrong with it. refunds available email me you adress if you interested ill deal with you the amount your willing to pay danyrat  TRYING TO SELL SOMETHING  IN THE NEWS GROUP ARE YOU!!!   GEEZE GET A LIFE <’(((<  Work is for people that don’t like to fish <’(((<

Response:

DITTO!!! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Sounds like you need a chill pill.If you don’t want to read it don’t click on it. Sometimes I see some new or even good Things that has been posted by Manufacters or Tackle shops.I don’t guess it was you that posted the following.      FLY FISHIN’ LURE FOR SALE! Newsgroups:   rec.outdoors.fishing [More Headers] [Subscribe to rec.outdoors.fishing]<Picture make offer. never been used. nothin’ wrong with it. refunds available email me you adress if you interested ill deal with you the amount your willing to pay danyrat  TRYING TO SELL SOMETHING  IN THE NEWS GROUP ARE YOU!!!   GEEZE GET A LIFE <’(((<  Work is for people that don’t like to fish <’(((<

Response:

I don’t know about Danyrat, but some of the best vendors I’ve found have come from the newsgroups. The lure manufacturers who do sales over the Internet make stuff about 999% better than the mass market junk. Matthew Carter "Fishing with Matt" http://www.albany.net/~buzzbait/fishing/index.htm

Response:

Thanks Buzzbait, I guess its us little folk that really keep things going. After all if it weren’t for us ,where would those big companies come from.Hell everything starts out as an idea. Oh yea while yer at it, how bout stoppin by The RodCrafters Journal. Wer’e small and trying to grow. http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Gorge/2865 The RodMaker

Response:

Question:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <stuff I deletedThen there’s the ‘cruelty’ aspect of industrial meat production,which no doubt has some merit in some cases.  But so what? They’re*animals*.  <more stuff deleted for brevity Actually, the animal rights argument runs a little deeper than just the nastiness of factory farms.  They would probably say that an animal is the experiencing subject of a life and, as such, has a good of its own that is independent of, and unrelated to, any practical good humans derive from its consumption.  Since animals are the experiencing subjects of a life with a good of their own it is wrong (in their view) to kill them for fun or profit. These are not my views necessarily–just some stuff that I picked up in a course on enviromental ethics.  I’m not saying that I agree with them, or that you should.  Just that there’s way more to that side of the argument than the people who inhabit the blood sport newsgroups like this one want to look at (yeah . . . flyfishing’s a blood sport whether you want it to be or not).  There is a strong philosophical foundation in much of the animal rights debate.  Study some of it and you might not be so sure about what you think.  This is called character growth.  It’s practiced by people who haven’t limited how big they want to be. The PETA people are not all the irrational terrorists many in this group would like to make them out to be.  Just as the people here are not all the bloodthirsty yahoos that some PETA folks would like us to be. Though some posts you encounter here gotta make you wonder . . . Pete People Eating Tasty Animals

Response:

<stuff I deletedThen there’s the ‘cruelty’ aspect of industrial meat production,which no doubt has some merit in some cases.  But so what? They’re*animals*.  <more stuff deleted for brevity

Actually, the animal rights argument runs a little deeper than just the nastiness of factory farms.  They would probably say that an animal is the experiencing subject of a life and, as such, has a good of its own that is independent of, and unrelated to, any practical good humans derive from its consumption.  Since animals are the experiencing subjects of a life with a good of their own it is wrong (in their view) to kill them for fun or profit. These are not my views necessarily–just some stuff that I picked up in a course on enviromental ethics.  I’m not saying that I agree with them, or that you should.  Just that there’s way more to that side of the argument than the people who inhabit the blood sport newsgroups like this one want to look at (yeah . . . flyfishing’s a blood sport whether you want it to be or not).  There is a strong philosophical foundation in much of the animal rights debate.  Study some of it and you might not be so sure about what you think.  This is called character growth.  It’s practiced by people who haven’t limited how big they want to be. The PETA people are not all the irrational terrorists many in this group would like to make them out to be.  Just as the people here are not all the bloodthirsty yahoos that some PETA folks would like us to be. Though some posts you encounter here gotta make you wonder . . . Pete

Response:

<stuff I deletedThen there’s the ‘cruelty’ aspect of industrial meat production,which no doubt has some merit in some cases.  But so what? They’re*animals*.  <more stuff deleted for brevity

flyfishing’s a blood sport whether you want it to be or not).  There is a strong philosophical foundation in much of the animal rights debate.

(snipped a lot. . .) The fish get released. I don’t play them until they’re exhausted, not even close. Fish don’t have nerves in the mouth area.  Fish don’t reflect and philosophize a great deal on the existential paradigm. I sometimes wonder if being caught and released might not break up the monotony encountered in a aqueous existence of sucking bugs in a stream. Annie Oakley’s Casting & Blasting Page, shooting and fly fishing links: http://members.tripod.com/~AnnieOakley/CastAndBlast.html Annie’s retired and too busy to be a millionaire. Skip the spam.

Response:

These are not my views necessarily–just some stuff that I picked up in a course on enviromental ethics.  I’m not saying that I agree with them, or that you should.  Just that there’s way more to that side of the argument than the people who inhabit the blood sport newsgroups like this one want to look at (yeah . . . flyfishing’s a blood sport whether you want it to be or not).  There is a strong philosophical foundation in much of the animal rights debate.  

Emotional maybe – but philosophical?  I don’t think so. I know a person who used to belong to PETA and we have had many debates on the subject.  She was opened minded about debating it and realized in the end that most of her arguments were not based on logic.  I married that lady.  She still doesn’t eat meat but OUR son likes nothing better than a thick juicy elk steak. Marty

Response:

I sometimes wonder if being caught and released might not break up the monotony encountered in a aqueous existence of sucking bugs in a stream.

Maybe they view it like humans who run with bulls or some other exhilarating adventure. They may enjoy the challenge(especially if they know they are living in a C&R only stream. How do you know they are not playing with us anglers? Judging by some of the antics I have seen fish pull, that little splash in the face before the return to their space in the stream or making a victory lap of the whole with a leap after they throw your hook. I think about this sometimes. Do you think I spend to much time with trout? regards, Joe Webb Atlanta Macintosh User Group

Response:

These are not my views necessarily–just some stuff that I picked up in a course on enviromental ethics.  I’m not saying that I agree with them, or that you should.  Just that there’s way more to that side of the argument than the people who inhabit the blood sport newsgroups like this one want to look at (yeah . . . flyfishing’s a blood sport whether you want it to be or not).  There is a strong philosophical foundation in much of the animal rights debate.  Study some of it and you might not be so sure about what you think.  This is called character growth.  It’s practiced by people who haven’t limited how big they want to be.

Pete – I have studied what PETA proposes and I disagree with about 99% of it. I find NO strong philosophical foundation to any of the AR drivel. The self righteous statement about character growth at the end of this paragraph is typical of the holier than thou AR propaganda.   The PETA people are not all the irrational terrorists many in this group would like to make them out to be.  Just as the people here are not all the bloodthirsty yahoos that some PETA folks would like us to be. Though some posts you encounter here gotta make you wonder . . . Pete

Pete – If you truly believe that PETA represents a rational approach then go for it, QUIETLY!!!! Regards – DICK

Response:

These are not my views necessarily–just some stuff that I picked up in a course on enviromental ethics.  I’m not saying that I agree with them, or that you should.  Just that there’s way more to that side of the argument than the people who inhabit the blood sport newsgroups like this one want to look at Pete – I have studied what PETA proposes and I disagree with about 99% of it. I find NO strong philosophical foundation to any of the AR drivel

see if your library has a copy of Singers’ "Practical Ethics" which contains several chapters on animals rights vegetarianism etc. I believe he also wrote a book called "Animal Rights". Peter (I think) Singer is a professor of Philosophy (not sure where right now) and bases much of his argument on the well established notion of "utilitarianism". Of course many of the groups like PETA have been infuenced by people such as Singer but lack his control of rhetoric or depth of thought. This is not to say I agree with Singer. Others have argued that animals are outside the normal ‘realm’ of ethics or at least moral law. Singer refers to some of these authors in his book and you can follow those up if you have access to a good (ie university) library. Ralph H remove "take_this_out" for email reply

Response:

see if your library has a copy of Singers’ "Practical Ethics" which contains several chapters on animals rights vegetarianism etc. I believe he also wrote a book called "Animal Rights". Peter (I think) Singer is a professor of Philosophy (not sure where right now) and bases much of his argument on the well established notion of "utilitarianism".

Yes, I’ve read Singer, and am familiar with utilitarianism (simply stated:  do what brings the least pain and the most pleasure). Of course many of the groups like PETA have been infuenced by people such as Singer but lack his control of rhetoric or depth of thought.

Yes.  But the folks who did the dying 1774 – 1783 didn’t have Thomas Paine’s or James Madison’s control of rhetoric or depth of thought either (to use just one example of many possible). This is not to say I agree with Singer. Others have argued that animals are outside the normal ‘realm’ of ethics or at least moral law. Singer refers to some of these authors in his book and you can follow those up if you have access to a good (ie university) library.

Understood.  I don’t agree either.  One excellent author well worth reading is Paul Taylor, a professor (Stanford?) also.  His book "Respect for Nature" is a classic.  Taylor would argue that sports like fishing show a lack of respect for nature.  The explanation for why is complicated and well beyond the scope of a post like this (not sure I could explain it well from memory anyway). My point was–and is–that there is WAY more to this debate than than meets the eye.  Before we reject the arguments out of hand (as some have done to my original post) remember this:  folks who once said that slavery was bad were derided as sanctimonious moralizers too.  AndI guess we know how that debate ended. To conclude too quickly that the "other side" is kooky is to put your opinions in the service of your own comfort.  Life sure is a lot less complicated if you don’t think too hard.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <stuff I deletedThen there’s the ‘cruelty’ aspect of industrial meat production,which no doubt has some merit in some cases.  But so what? They’re*animals*.  <more stuff deleted for brevity Actually, the animal rights argument runs a little deeper than just the nastiness of factory farms.  They would probably say that an animal is the experiencing subject of a life and, as such, has a good of its own that is independent of, and unrelated to, any practical good humans derive from its consumption.  Since animals are the experiencing subjects of a life with a good of their own it is wrong (in their view) to kill them for fun or profit. These are not my views necessarily–just some stuff that I picked up in a course on enviromental ethics.  I’m not saying that I agree with them, or that you should.  Just that there’s way more to that side of the argument than the people who inhabit the blood sport newsgroups like this one want to look at (yeah . . . flyfishing’s a blood sport whether you want it to be or not).  There is a strong philosophical foundation in much of the animal rights debate.  Study some of it and you might not be so sure about what you think.  This is called character growth.  It’s practiced by people who haven’t limited how big they want to be. The PETA people are not all the irrational terrorists many in this group would like to make them out to be.  Just as the people here are not all the bloodthirsty yahoos that some PETA folks would like us to be. Though some posts you encounter here gotta make you wonder . . . Pete Long live P(eople)E(ating)T(asty)A(nimals)

Hank

Response:

If the reincarnationists are right, you may get a chance to find out! —                                                            -dnc- AnnieOakley wrote [snip] – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I sometimes wonder if being caught and released might not break up the monotony encountered in a aqueous existence of sucking bugs in a stream.

Response:

… you are correct to focus on the ‘non-personhood’ question, because this is exactly where the entire discussion hinges.  The animal rights people have made a mental leap that you, me, and probably everyone else in this group won’t (or at least hasn’t).  If you posit that animals are the EXPERIENCING SUBJECTS OF A LIFE and that as such they have a GOOD OF THEIR OWN that is unrelated to their usefulness to humans then the waters become murkier.

restricting the discussion to fish alone I would say the fish have a value beyond their use to fishers or the food value of their flesh. I believe a fish or fish (pl) in the water have a near immeasurable value. I would also agree that being ‘alive’ and having a central nervous system (8^) fish must experience ‘a life’; though what sort of life we can’t really know. I don’t base the value of my angling on fish being of no intrinsic worth and being insensate. I would say I fish because I am a human being and we are natural creatures in that we are products of nature. The natural way of things sees living things using other living things to their own end. I accept this inherent part of my nature. Fishing is an expression of this, my chance to partcipate at the natural level of things. Where I differ with other animals is that rationality of reason gives me foresight to see how my actions my effect the value of fish or of nature as a whole in the future. This governs and influences my actions as a fisher. I don’t divorce myself from nature or myself as the PETA people do rather I ‘dive right in’ to use a related metaphor. Ralph H remove "(take_this_out)" for email reply.

Response:

…but a fish is not a person. The superflurous analogy of slavery and racism dies quickly and easily there.

Yeah but all analogies are superfluous.  The more you want them to be superfluous, the more superfluous they seem. However, you are correct to focus on the ‘non-personhood’ question, because this is exactly where the entire discussion hinges.  The animal rights people have made a mental leap that you, me, and probably everyone else in this group won’t (or at least hasn’t).  If you posit that animals are the EXPERIENCING SUBJECTS OF A LIFE and that as such they have a GOOD OF THEIR OWN that is unrelated to their usefulness to humans then the waters become murkier. Again I say . . . you don’t have to agree, but if you want to be intellectually honest you must concede that there is more to the AR arguments that the simplified arguments "our" side sometimes likes to toss out.  Ralph, I don’t think you’re part of that crowd.  But they’re here. This battle is going to get bigger as the years go by.  Do you think the yahoos will help us win it?  I don’t (yeeeehaaaa . . . let’s go four wheelin’ and tear up some wildflowers!) Pete

Response:

see if your library has a copy of Singers’ "Practical Ethics"  One excellent author well worth reading is Paul Taylor, a professor (Stanford?) also.  His book "Respect for Nature" is a classic.  Taylor would argue that sports like fishing show a lack of respect for nature.  remember this:  folks who once said that slavery was bad were derided as sanctimonious moralizers too.  AndI guess we know how that debate ended.

…but a fish is not a person. The superflurous analogy of slavery and racism dies quickly and easily there. Ralph H remove "take_this_out" for email reply

Response:

Question:

There is very nice fishing whater in the north of sweden. Lots of red solomon fish there and they are big.

Response:

= There is very nice fishing whater in the north of sweden. Lots of red solomon fish there and they are big.

Hi Peter, There is also some great trout and grayling fishing during the summer on the River Gim at Gimdalen (20 miles outside Bracke). Lars-Ake Olsson is the river keeper. — = Tight Lines ….. Al Beatty BT’s Fly Fishing Products http://www.btsflyfishing.com Tiemco quality hooks, under $6.00 pkg/50

Response:

Question:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’ve read about a trouts field of view and its ability to sense vibration/disturbance through its lateral line. Does anyone know how well a trout can distinguish one object from another? Where I fish there are a lot of boulders and laurel. If I’m wearing subdued clothing and not splashing around, can a trout pick me out from the surrounding terrain? Find a copy of "In the Ring of the Rise" (Vincent Marinaro). More than you’ll ever want to know about trout vision… Cheers! /dave

Hi Dave I sure agree, V.Marinaro explains things very well. I especially remember him explaining about "one" hackle fiber on a pattern making the difference on catching or not catching fish. As I remember the hackle fiber was misplaced and extended over the eye of the hook or some-such. Good tying &… — Tight Lines Al Beatty BT’s Fly Fishing Products Bozeman, MT http://www.flyshop.com/Expo/Specialty/BTsPdcts/index.html

Response:

I’ve read about a trouts field of view and its ability to sense vibration/disturbance through its lateral line. Does anyone know how well a trout can distinguish one object from another? Where I fish there are a lot of boulders and laurel. If I’m wearing subdued clothing and not splashing around, can a trout pick me out from the surrounding terrain?

Find a copy of "In the Ring of the Rise" (Vincent Marinaro). More than you’ll ever want to know about trout vision… Cheers! /dave <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< < Digital Equipment Corp.       Alpha Server Engineering < < Parker Street Campus            Maynard, Massachusetts   < <        Charter Member of "Curmudgeons Unlimited"       < <<<<<<<<<<<< AMA 548313 <<<<<<<<<<<< Disclaimer: Opinion and content is mine alone, and unlikely             to be shared by my employer, etc…

Response:

I am of the belief that if I can see a fish, the actual fish spots ‘n all, not shadows or riseforms, then they can definately see me. The problem then becomes one of threatening behaviour ie moving

I think you’ve got it about right there, Steve. Andrew

Response:

How well can trout REALLY see?

Too damn well! -AR

Response:

How well can trout REALLY see? Too damn well! -AR

After 15+ years of testing how well wild brown trout see…here are some basic conclusions IMHO: 1) they react to objects no farther than 45 feet left, right, and front in ideal visibility conditions 2) they react to objects (birds) as high as 80 ft. overhead in ideal visibility conditions 3) their optimum eyesight is about 8X that of a human’s from 4 ft. to 1 inch. BobE.

Response:

92 degree window of vision….the deeper they are, the bigger this window gets. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – How well can trout REALLY see? Too damn well! -AR

Response:

I’ll tell you what…I’m planning on taking a dark brown magic marker to those damned white letters on the waders I got for christmas. TimW

Response:

Re: How well can trout REALLY see? How well can trout REALLY see? Too damn well! -AR

After 15+ years of testing how well wild brown trout see…here are some basic conclusions IMHO: 1) they react to objects no farther than 45 feet left, right, and front in ideal visibility conditions 2) they react to objects (birds) as high as 80 ft. overhead in ideal visibility conditions 3) their optimum eyesight is about 8X that of a human’s from 4 ft. to 1 inch. BobE. <<<<<<<< How do you define "8X that of a humans?".  What experiments did you actually perform?  Have you published in a peer review journal? William Buchman

Response:

TimW — Ha! Ha! Just stay downstream…no need to worry. Seriously, I’d like to apologise to those who read my previous post about 8x vision…while I truly believe that *wild* browns (at least in my home waters) have this effective vision, the techniques I used to "prove" this to myself are not based on the kind of scientific procedure that I’d be willing to defend in public. I have done many of my own tests over the last 15 years to satisfy myself that the 8x figure is the accurate *effective* vision of a wild brown in certain (if not, most) feeding conditions…the theory has served me well, because using this principle my catch rate dramatically improved when I was actively fishing browns from 1982-1990, especially in spring creek and clear water habitates. It’s a long and complicated story that many flyfishers more knowledgeable than me (especially Dr. Bachman, TimW, Mr. Zink, Al Beatty, and a whole bunch more) could shoot a lot of holes thru. (Even I can shoot holes thru it.) When all is said and done, I don’t know for certain what and how well brown trout see. I just use the 8x as a rule of thumb to gage the quality of all brown trout flies I tie. Simply stated, I believe that if all tyers considered the 8x as a standard measurement to gage the quality of their flies they would catch a lot more trout …but only Seth Green knows this for sure. And, all of us have stories about the biggest trout we ever caught hitting a ragged and torn fly that looked terrible. From now on, I’ll be a little more cautious about spewing me theories. Thanks for your understanding. BobE. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’ll tell you what…I’m planning on taking a dark brown magic marker to those damned white letters on the waders I got for christmas. TimW

Response:

I’ll tell you what…I’m planning on taking a dark brown magic marker to those damned white letters on the waders I got for christmas. TimW

No Tim,  Those white letters are called Christmas cards.  All you need do is unstick them from your waders. If you have any further problems I am sure that there is a club nearby who hold beginners evenings and would be willing to help. Cheers Bruce….<g

Response:

How well can trout REALLY see?

Really well, but not nearly as acutely as human’s.  There is evidence that trout see farther into the ultraviolet and infrared at least while fingerlings and again during spawning.  If Ralph Cutter happens to read this, he could probably give you the specifics of the color spectrum studies.  No one can really tell you exactly what they see though, because no one has ever come back from being a fish – at least not with any memory of it.   However, based on the biological make-up of their eyes  we have some good guesses.   On the human eye, the fovea (sp?)  is a small indentation "" on the back of the retina that is covered with cone cells (color receptors).  They are in a very high concentration in this spot with very few rod cells (black and white or low-light receptors) in evidence.  The lens of the human eye focuses light on this fovea and that’s what gives us the visual acuity (sharp & clear vision) we enjoy – at least for a while.  In low light the rod cells expand allowing us to see in black & white.  Because there are few rod cells in the fovea,  you will often see an object more clearly in low light if you look slightly off to the side of it.  This puts more light on the surrounding rod cells and allows you to see the target better even if it is with your peripheral vision. Trout’s eyes have both rod cells and cone cells on the retina of their eye.  During normal light conditions the cone cells are expanded – during low light, the cone cells recede and the rod cells expand allowing them to see by starlight.  The retina does not however have a fovea, nor does the lens of the eye focus the light on any one small spot on the retina.  Best guess is that although trout can see color all around and can judge distances well within a 30 degree cone in front of them (binocular vision) everything is still blurry even from 2" away.  Acuity is somewhat lacking. This is perhaps one of the reasons why they take a fly that has an otherwise obvious hook hanging from it.  Also helps explain why impressionist or imitative flies usually work much better than "realistic flies" which may match the natural perfectly.                                  Hope this helps,                                             Dan Dan Gracia Orvis West Coast Fly Fishing Schools

Response:

, I know that I’ve seen trout streak 8-10 feet, from deep down, to take a small dry fly in moving water.  I’ve also seen one rise to a cigarette butt.  And I’ve scattered them from just far enough away for a good cast.  Suffice to say, that a trout’s vision in water is analogous to your vision in air–they’ve adapted to survive and flourish, as have we (assuming I’m a human and not a fish).  I can’t tell you if trout have 20/20 vision, what we think they see is just the best guess, only the trout know for sure.  I don’t pay much attention to what I wear under my vest, but I am careful about moving slowly and casting shadows. Anglerboy

And don’t forget they can see behind underwater objects like rocks and tree branches by using the reflective mirror of the surface film outside the ‘window’, where they see through the surface. Avoid heavy footfalls on the river bank or when wading as their lateral line vibration sense is acute. I think that may be how seatrout (anadromous browns) can detect my size 14 black pennel on a pitch black night…. Pete Marrow   work:  http://www.gsrg.nmh.ac.uk/   play:  http://www.gorp.com/gorp/activity/scottish_ff_faq.htm

Response:

There have been a number of recent posts presuming to know how well trout see.  My guess is that they are all WRONG!  Who can tell us about *experiments* that increase the liklihood of any of these assertions to be true. There are optical effects produced by a small flies that may attract trout even if they cannot see the fly clearly.  Certainly, even small dry flies dimple the surface of water causing light to refract in strange ways and cast fairly large shadows.  Glints off of peacock and various reflective materials may also attract attention.  A selective fish does not have to see the fly clearly.  It can wait until it gets close before making an eat or flee response. I make no assertions about how trout see or process information. William Buchman

Response:

Well put – no one really knows (and hence the vendors can sell us anything…). However, I DO know that a golf ball has eyes and a brain.  Having tried to play golf I do know that balls that I find in the woods while looking for my ball soon will return there.  It would seem that these "wild" balls differ in their genetic makeup from the store-bought put-n-putt cousins… but I digress….. — Tim Wohlford, DO NOT SEND JUNK E-MAIL: "By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer meets the definition of a telephone fax machine.  By Sec.227(b)(1)(C), it is unlawful to send any unsolicited advertisement to such equipment.  By Sec.227(b)(3)(C), a violation of the aforementioned Section is punishable by action to recover actual monetary loss, or $500, whichever is greater, for each violation." – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – There have been a number of recent posts presuming to know how well trout see.  My guess is that they are all WRONG!  Who can tell us about *experiments* that increase the liklihood of any of these assertions to be true. There are optical effects produced by a small flies that may attract trout even if they cannot see the fly clearly.  Certainly, even small dry flies dimple the surface of water causing light to refract in strange ways and cast fairly large shadows.  Glints off of peacock and various reflective materials may also attract attention.  A selective fish does not have to see the fly clearly.  It can wait until it gets close before making an eat or flee response. I make no assertions about how trout see or process information. William Buchman

Response:

I’ve read about a trouts field of view and its ability to sense vibration/disturbance through its lateral line. Does anyone know how well a trout can distinguish one object from another? Where I fish there are a lot of boulders and laurel. If I’m wearing subdued clothing and not splashing around, can a trout pick me out from the surrounding terrain?

Though clothing is definetely a big consideration, I wouldn’t worry too much. You see, apparently even today’s most advanced trout can’t see well enough to detect the bend, point and barb of a hook. It’s amazing how these cunning, fabled creatures we pursue -which can supposedly detect the most microscopic details in color and size of the insects they are feeding on- somehow, time and time again, fail to notice the large, metallic-brown, bent, nasty-looking organ that is protruding from the crotch of every artificial fly that has ever been created. Fly fishing or lock-picking… Spinolio

Response:

: I’ve read about a trouts field of view and its ability to sense : vibration/disturbance through its lateral line. Does anyone know how : well a trout can distinguish one object from another? Where I fish there : are a lot of boulders and laurel. If I’m wearing subdued clothing and : not splashing around, can a trout pick me out from the surrounding : terrain? : : Thanks in advance. Yes, no and maybe All the following occurred in bright sunny conditions about mid-day: Anecodote 1: at least 40 feet downstream of a fish tailing in 12" water … waved a fly away from my face, bow wave … one annoyed fish. Anecdote 2: next to, standing, a fish picking tasty morsels off a submerged log for 5 minutes.  Approached from downstream *verrrry* slowly with the sun behind and casting shadows away from the fish, probably could have tailed it if I’d been that way inclined, moved my rod arm something caught his eye … gone. Anecdote 3: fish hard against a bank in a riffly run, I’m within a rod length, a birds shadow made it change position then return after a minute or so.  Watching it feed, yup taking nymphs, scratched my nose … Gone. All three have a common thread, sudden or unexpected movement.   I am of the belief that if I can see a fish, the actual fish spots ‘n all, not shadows or riseforms, then they can definately see me. The problem then becomes one of threatening behaviour ie moving Steve Still in Melbourne, Australia.

Response:

I’ve read about a trouts field of view and its ability to sense vibration/disturbance through its lateral line. Does anyone know how well a trout can distinguish one object from another? Where I fish there are a lot of boulders and laurel. If I’m wearing subdued clothing and not splashing around, can a trout pick me out from the surrounding terrain? Thanks in advance.

Response:

 Does anyone know how well a trout can distinguish one object from another?

G & A, I know that I’ve seen trout streak 8-10 feet, from deep down, to take a small dry fly in moving water.  I’ve also seen one rise to a cigarette butt.  And I’ve scattered them from just far enough away for a good cast.  Suffice to say, that a trout’s vision in water is analogous to your vision in air–they’ve adapted to survive and flourish, as have we (assuming I’m a human and not a fish).  I can’t tell you if trout have 20/20 vision, what we think they see is just the best guess, only the trout know for sure.  I don’t pay much attention to what I wear under my vest, but I am careful about moving slowly and casting shadows. Anglerboy

Response:

     Trout have excellent vision, especially character recognition.  I’ve found that they usually read the fishing regulations before the season opens, and on opening day take an extended vacation to parts unknown. el coyotero was here

Response:

writes: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –  Does anyone know how well a trout can distinguish one object from another? G & A, I know that I’ve seen trout streak 8-10 feet, from deep down, to take a small dry fly in moving water.  I’ve also seen one rise to a cigarette butt.  And I’ve scattered them from just far enough away for a good cast.  Suffice to say, that a trout’s vision in water is analogous to your vision in air–they’ve adapted to survive and flourish, as have we (assuming I’m a human and not a fish).  I can’t tell you if trout have 20/20 vision, what we think they see is just the best guess, only the trout know for sure.  I don’t pay much attention to what I wear under my vest, but I am careful about moving slowly and casting shadows. Anglerboy

They can see better in smooth water vs. rippled water so you are more likely to spook trout in pools. Their eyes are placed on the sides of their heads so they have a wider angle of vision than we do. They can pick out a size #28 nymph without any problems. My best guess is that they see movement much better than we do. Their natural enemies (birds etc.) strike from above and food is also often found on the surface so they’re tuned into motion from above. Also they hear very well with a band of "ears" along their sides and can easily hear you stomping around on the banks long before they can see you in some cases. Good thing their brain is only the size of a pea. <G Don Burns

Response:

Question:

Can anyone give any advice for fishing the Waterbury/Stowe area of northern Vt? Places, patterns, etc.

Try the Little River below the Little River State Park in Waterbury and The Waterbury River above the park (resevoir).  Still very little surface activity, I mean there are some hatches but no surface feeding yet, at least not that I’ve seen.  I’d fish nymphs, dead drift and deep.  The Winooski River will likely be too high for flyfishing this weekend.  Good luck.

Response:

 Hi Can anyone give any advice for fishing the Waterbury/Stowe area of northern Vt? Places, patterns, etc. I will be visiting this weekend from CA. Thanks for any help you can give. Steve

Response:

Question:

oh come on !!! We all now how handy a 9 foot 8 weight comes in at a Klan Rally !   Tim Walker

Response:

Some people bring so much baggage to every sport they miss the very point! If you believe that flyfishing is a white-man elitist sport you are confusing social issues with angler-fish issues,for example. But why do we flyfish ? There are times when spinners, jigs, bait, etc. are far more successful in bringing a fish to the net. In reality flyfishing gear is the most versatile , capable of handling the obvious as well  as spinners, small jigs,  and bait ( sometimes the casting is not so pretty), offers nearly absolute lure control, and provides both visual and tactile strike detection. Finally , hooking, fighting, and landing a fish on a long, light rod with the fish and the angler connected through the line is magical and the guts of the sport. Flyfishing  masters ( even after 30 years / over 3000 fishing trips I am not one)  have used every tool at their disposal and have blurred the edges between flyfihing and spinning in the quest for this magic.

Response:

Question:

Has anyone had any experience with the Scientific Angelers fly fishing package that you see in the stores?

They are nice little outfits. I honestly don’t know how they can afford to sell the things so cheaply.  St. Croix makes the rod and it is similar to their Imperial XL series.  Good value for the money.  I think they are trying to get someone up to usable quality who might otherwise end up with the $75 KMart special.  Note:  New ones are the 9′ 6wts which features a redesigned rod, last years was an 8′ 6" 6 wt.  Since everyone knows us West Coast folk won’t fish anything that starts w/ 8′, you can tell my bias. . .  :-) –Jim in Northern CA

Response:

Has anyone had any experience with the Scientific Angelers fly fishing package that you see in the stores? I have a friend who may be interested in buying one to see if he likes fly fishing. Richard Warren Raleigh, NC

i’ve tried the 8wt.. The reel is good.. but the rod is not.. in my opinion they could have chosen from a hundred other better rods for less money.. if you get a chance.. take the rod out of the package and put it together and take a couple false casts on it.. it’s a real power house near the butt section but the tip section is slow.. keg

Response:

Has anyone had any experience with the Scientific Angelers fly fishing package that you see in the stores? I have a friend who may be interested in buying one to see if he likes fly fishing. Richard Warren Raleigh, NC

Response:

Question:

I have never tried fishing for steelhead and would like some pointers, if possible. Looking for Northern California waters. I know they run in the Klamath but are there any other streams/creaks that steelhead frequent? Is September, October best, or when is the best time? How about a surefire Steelhead Fly or 2? I need all the help I can get. TIA Rich P.S. Please respond to me directly  as I don’t read this newsgroup very often. Thanks again

Response:

Regarding Northern California steelhead fishing, call the fish phone at (707)444-8041.  They have recorded info on where the fish are biting and on what.  When the steelhead are running, a majority of the recording is devoted to them. If you are looking for a good Northern California river, I always suggest the Mad River.  There is good access as well as great fishing for steelhead.  Give it a shot. Steve

Response:

Regarding Northern California steelhead fishing, call the fish phone at (707)444-8041.  They have recorded info on where the fish are biting and on what.  When the steelhead are running, a majority of the recording is devoted to them. If you are looking for a good Northern California river, I always suggest the Mad River.  There is good access as well as great fishing for steelhead.  Give it a shot.

As I told him in email, a good reference for Steelhead fishing in Northern California is Jim Freemans "California Steelhead".  It covers the Klamath and Trinity rivers in great detail and has sections on about 20 other rivers.  There are many detailed maps showing the good holes and sections on recommended lures and flies. It is published by Chronicle Books in San Francisco, ISBN 0-87701-268-7. — John Fereira Pleasanton, CA

Response: