Question:

Hi Ed and all you other ROFFers, I too enjoy fly fishing from a float tube, canoe or small boat (pram). Have not tried the kayaks but looks great. The hottest float tube for us is the v-boat. Outcast makes the ‘top of the line’ "Super Fat Cat". This is great for still water where you need portability. We see more pontoon boats on still water too. They are just a little more to pack around than a float tube. A canoe is the favorite of Chico Fernandez, Flip Pallot and others in Florida for sneaking back into the shallow jungle of the Everglades. They like the Merrimack "Souhegen16 "(sp) or the Narrvaro " Otter 16". These are great for fly fishing because they are 36" wide, flat bottom with a keel. Chico and his friends use a 12′ pole for poling in water less than 4′ in the Everglades for snook, tarpon and bass. Not all canoes are good for fly casting. He said that there are shorter models that are wider, but they don’t perform too well. Here in Nor Cal, we have used 8′, 10′ & 12′ pram made from aluminum or fiberglass for car-topping. These boats are very flat and wider than average boats this length. Valco boat company still makes  8′, 10′ and 12′ aluminum prams that is very wide. Most small prams (Jon boats) are 36" at the rear & bottom of the boat. These are 44" which makes them very good for standing and fly casting in lakes and tide water of small rivers for steelhead and salmon. There are many other good pram made but you just have to look for them. Don’t buy anything that is too narrow. An 8 footer is for mostly one person. The 10 footer is for one or two. The 12 footer is for 2 to 3 anglers. We use long oars(most are too short), electric motors(12v/50#tiller) and/or small outboards to propel these little boats. You have to watch the total weight you put in these boats or they will not work too well. Columbia Fiberglass makes the ‘Olympia’ fiberglass boats that come in many sizes too. They come in 7′ to 14′ and are very good for fly fishing. PS: If you have any questions about small boats & motors (8′ to 16′) for fly fishing let me know. — Bill Kiene Kiene’s Fly Shop http://www.kiene.com 800/4000FLY USA toll free

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Here in Texas we have plenty of small ponds, larger lakes and I have been looking for some help in selecting a method to float this type of still warmwater…any suggestions on pros/cons of Float tubes, Cats, canoes and fishing kayaks? Thanks Ed

Response:

Here in Texas we have plenty of small ponds, larger lakes and I have been looking for some help in selecting a method to float this type of still warmwater…any suggestions on pros/cons of Float tubes, Cats, canoes and fishing kayaks? Thanks Ed

I use a 15′ canoe for fishing area lakes and ponds, it also serves as my duck hunting boat.  Canoes can be very stable platforms for pursuing sporting endeavors if they have the proper qualities.  I would look for: 1. Flat to nearly flat bottom 2. a good wide, full length keel 3. at least a 36" beam The model I have fits the bill for me.  It’s light enough for me to easily carry and cartop alone (around 60lbs) and if desired can be outfitted with an electric trolling motor. I can stand and cast with no trouble, although it does take a while to get your sea legs, so to speak.  Mad River, Old Towne and Great Canadian all make models that will serve you well.  I’m sure there are many others but these come to mind first. Good luck and enjoy whatever you decide to get. Natty

Response:

Ed, I fish out of a Keowee  here’s the link.. http://www.asudoit.com/RetailKayakAquPix.html and would love to buy another one for the Mrs. Durable, light, works up to class three rapids..(rated at two but class three is a real roller coaster in it..) there are one or two or three other varities out there but there are two musts….. Adjustable foot rests…(ask your back why) A folding seat back (storage space) Some yaks have a small watertight compartment that is good for wallets and keys and such, I just have a dry bag…okay make a dry bag a must. You can check locally, a lot of kayak clubs have an introductory course you can sign up for…of course they will be into high thrills whitewater but most of the basic info and safety considerations are the same. For fishing, short, broad beam and big cockpit are the keys… gimme an e-mail if i can answer any questions john

Response:

Here in Texas we have plenty of small ponds, larger lakes and I have been looking for some help in selecting a method to float this type of still warmwater…any suggestions on pros/cons of Float tubes, Cats, canoes and fishing kayaks? Thanks Ed

Response:

Here in Texas we have plenty of small ponds, larger lakes and I have been looking for some help in selecting a method to float this type of still warmwater…any suggestions on pros/cons of Float tubes, Cats, canoes and fishing kayaks?

I like sit-on-top kayaks for this kind of fishing. Wilderness Systems Ride is my favorite. — Charlie…

Response:

Same thing here in Georgia, Ed. I ended up getting an aluminum boat and a trailer. I’ve got a 50 pound trolling motor on it. Buying it the way I did, bare bones, I didn’t spend that much, and, hopefully, have a boat that will last many years. Also, if I get a wild hair, I can tow it just about anyplace I would want to go. Also, if I ever get a friend, I have room for two… — Michael Collier Citizen Fisherman – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Here in Texas we have plenty of small ponds, larger lakes and I have been looking for some help in selecting a method to float this type of still warmwater…any suggestions on pros/cons of Float tubes, Cats, canoes and fishing kayaks? Thanks Ed

Response:

Question:

(Sandy’s observations snipped) — /* Sandy Pittendrigh                  –oO0

I think we’ve been down these threads before Sandy, but they are worth repeating.  I asked the question once before and never got a definitive answer (like you ever do in this group); What about crushing ants and rolling your ant pattern around in a bottle of crushed ants?  Work? Ethical?  I was stopped and questioned at length once by a game warden because he thought my Bio-Strike looked like Power Bait!  I might try the ant thing this summer though.  Mossy Creek Browns are notoriously pickey! Just an additional note here about the scent thing.  A Wildlife Biologist/Fraternity Brother always swore by Oil of Anise.  Said fish and small game couldn’t resist the smell.  What if some enterprising floatant maker developed Anise scented floatant?  Ant scented, Mayfly scented floatant lines? — Wayne To fish is human….To release Divine! Before you buy.

Response:

Just an additional note here about the scent thing.  A Wildlife Biologist/Fraternity Brother always swore by Oil of Anise.  Said fish and small game couldn’t resist the smell.  What if some enterprising floatant maker developed Anise scented floatant?  Ant scented, Mayfly scented floatant lines?

I know I’ve mentioned this here before; but it’s been a while, so here it is again.   The state regs in MD used to have a simple clause for artificials-only water, "if it smells like bait, it is bait." Joe F.

Response:

I know I’ve mentioned this here before; but it’s been a while, so here it is again.   The state regs in MD used to have a simple clause for artificials-only water, "if it smells like bait, it is bait." Joe F.

If your gonna smear dead ants all over your fly then why not just hook a dead ant on the thing.  For that matter, why not dispense with the extra furry junk and just use the ant?  Let’s see, worms will hang on a hook easier than ants.  How about just using a worm and a big ball of strike indicater about 2 feet up the line?  Add to that a one piece bamboo "fly" rod and you have something which sounds familiar. — Wayne To fish is human….To release Divine! Before you buy.

Response:

Dear Chief the extra chili last night and they really enjoyed it. They howled alot during the night but seemed fine this A.M.  You forgot to take the extra set of underware I washed for you.  Perhaps you can borrow a pair from DEave, use your suspenders to keep them up.   Try to stay away from that Fontenberry guy, last time you went fishing with him you came home with alot of new dirty words and some screwed up opinions.  Take your celostral pill each  morning.your metamusal each night and don"t forget you should have one Manhatten each night. Your side of the tribe has never been able to handle firewater,

Response:

"Wayne Hart" wrote <snip Just an additional note here about the scent thing.  A Wildlife Biologist/Fraternity Brother always swore by Oil of Anise.  Said fish and small game couldn’t resist the smell.  What if some enterprising floatant maker developed Anise scented floatant?  Ant scented, Mayfly scented floatant lines? Wayne

How about giving the whole area a rotten egg scent after one of Dave LaCourse’s clave breakfasts?  It isn’t from Anise but that’s close. Ernie

Response:

Knowledge is power.

Excellent post Sandy. Mu, who spent the morning alternating between spinnerbaits and wooly buggers.  Didn’t bring my minoow trap though.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I know I’ve mentioned this here before; but it’s been a while, so here it is again.   The state regs in MD used to have a simple clause for artificials-only water, "if it smells like bait, it is bait." Joe F. If your gonna smear dead ants all over your fly then why not just hook a dead ant on the thing.  For that matter, why not dispense with the extra furry junk and just use the ant?  Let’s see, worms will hang on a hook easier than ants.  How about just using a worm and a big ball of strike indicater about 2 feet up the line?  Add to that a one piece bamboo "fly" rod and you have something which sounds familiar. — Wayne To fish is human….To release Divine!

Man, y’all gotta complicate thangs…get a old field phone and a bucket…or for you wacky types, Nitromon S and a good defense lawyer…you can fish and check fer erl… R To crank is exercise…. To blast Dangerous!

Response:

Joe Fleischman writes: I know I’ve mentioned this here before; but it’s been a while, so here it is again.   The state regs in MD used to have a simple clause for artificials-only water, "if it smells like bait, it is bait." Joe F.

Well hell, Joe!  I guess I can’t fish in my favorite waders.   Hmmmmm, come to think of it, they don’t smell like bait, they smell Dave

Response:

Ernie Harrison writes: How about giving the whole area a rotten egg scent after one of Dave LaCourse’s clave breakfasts?  It isn’t from Anise but that’s close. Ernie

Ernie, damn it, I resent that!  My breakfasts at the clave are eaten by all with much gusto and no complaints.  If you ever get your scrawny ass to one of these claves, I will prove it to you, if I have to force feed the %&# eggs to ya!  <g And then I will get my buddy Jeffy to deep fry you an egg in bacon grease and we will force you to eat it.  Then, we’ll seal you in your waders, and send you on your way.   And people will shun you, forever and ever. Dave

Response:

Indian Joe sends a smoke signal: Dear Chief the extra chili last night and they really enjoyed it. They howled alot during the night but seemed fine this A.M. You forgot to take the extra set of underware I washed for you.  Perhaps you can borrow a pair from DEave, use your suspenders to keep them up.   Try to stay away from that Fontenberry guy, last time you went fishing with him you came home with alot of new dirty words and some screwed up opinions. Take your celostral pill each  morning.your metamusal each night and don"t forget you should have one Manhatten each night. Your side of the tribe has never been able to handle firewater,

Golly, Forty, only you and I made IJ’s celebrity  list this time around.  That underware stuff — is that like Tupper-ware? Your Pal, DEave

Response:

Charlie Choc: My breakfasts at the clave are eaten by all with much gusto and no complaints.   Never knew you were the cook at Tooties (where I ate *my* clave breakfasts)<g. — Charlie…

That’s right, you never stay at clave central.  Put it this way, if you liked Tooties, you will love the breakfast IJ and I will fix you.  (pssst, don’t eat Jeffy’s eggs). Dave LaCourse

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Charlie Choc: My breakfasts at the clave are eaten by all with much gusto and no complaints. Never knew you were the cook at Tooties (where I ate *my* clave breakfasts)<g. — Charlie… That’s right, you never stay at clave central.  Put it this way, if you liked Tooties, you will love the breakfast IJ and I will fix you.  (pssst, don’t eat Jeffy’s eggs). Dave LaCourse

i’m workin on lasagna this year…hmmm…now, lemmesee, where’s the bacon grease… jeff

Response:

In the Great State of North Carolina, it is unlawful to desecrate the body of the dead.  Furthermore, anyone who *smears* the dead aunt onto a fly pattern is just plain sick!!

Umm, Rosanne Rosannadanna, that’s "ant".  Not "aunt", "ant". Regards, Jeff

Response:

My God man, don’t unbuckle that wader belt up wind! Fishing tip for the day:  A fisherman in neoprenes with a tight wader belt can be used to replace a punctured pontoon if you feed him enuf Burro Chilli.  Hint: ensure he is secured with a slip knot for easy release and to allow for expansion.                                     Frank Reid

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Joe Fleischman writes: I know I’ve mentioned this here before; but it’s been a while, so here it is again.   The state regs in MD used to have a simple clause for artificials-only water, "if it smells like bait, it is bait." Joe F. Well hell, Joe!  I guess I can’t fish in my favorite waders.   Hmmmmm, come to think of it, they don’t smell like bait, they smell Dave

Response:

Folks, In the Great State of North Carolina, it is unlawful to desecrate the body of the dead.  Furthermore, anyone who *smears* the dead aunt onto a fly pattern is just plain sick!!

If you just hold it close to aunt Bea, though, it’ll pick up some of that gravy smell and that should work. — Charlie…

Response:

Folks, In the Great State of North Carolina, it is unlawful to desecrate the body of the dead.  Furthermore, anyone who *smears* the dead aunt onto a fly pattern is just plain sick!! Op

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I know I’ve mentioned this here before; but it’s been a while, so here it is again.   The state regs in MD used to have a simple clause for artificials-only water, "if it smells like bait, it is bait." Joe F. If your gonna smear dead ants all over your fly then why not just hook a dead ant on the thing.  For that matter, why not dispense with the extra furry junk and just use the ant?  Let’s see, worms will hang on a hook easier than ants.  How about just using a worm and a big ball of strike indicater about 2 feet up the line?  Add to that a one piece bamboo "fly" rod and you have something which sounds familiar. — Wayne To fish is human….To release Divine! Before you buy.

Response:

You’ll have to ask Al for sure, but I think Tupper just wears big ol’ cotton panties…

Gee thanks.   That’s a visual I could have done without.  :-) Joe F.

Response:

Nice post.  The only thing I would question is the part about lateral lines left out of the fly fishing definition – I think everyone agrees a muddler minnow is a fly, and part of its appeal is supposedly that it gives off enough vibration to get a trout’s interest. Anyway, I think part of the reason some people are attracted to fly fishing is to challenge themselves to fool trout.  The less real the "bait/fly" is, the more challenge there is in the deception.  The more real it is, the less challenge.  How much people care to challenge themselves in this respect seems to be a very personal thing.  The more natural the whole *scenario* is, the more challenge.  Some people will set up a chum line of real beetles to be followed by their own beetle imitation.  I don’t know how legal that is, but it’s not entirely natural. Knowledge is power.

– Regards, Jeff Before you buy.

Response:

Golly, Forty, only you and I made IJ’s celebrity  list this time around.  That underware stuff — is that like Tupper-ware?

You’ll have to ask Al for sure, but I think Tupper just wears big ol’ cotton panties… — Charlie…

Response:

My breakfasts at the clave are eaten by all with much gusto and no complaints.  

Never knew you were the cook at Tooties (where I ate *my* clave breakfasts)<g. — Charlie…

Response:

Knowledge is power. I like to know things about fish behavior. I often try things just to see what will happen. Once my experiment is finished, my new experimental technique may or may not become a steady habit. But I seldom regret trying something once. There is a lot to be learned from bait fishing for instance. Years ago–when it was still legal to fish with sculpins in Montana–I used to go sculpin fishing once every two or three years. If you use barbless hooks and set the hook when you first detect the strike, you get to return the fish unharmed, if you choose to do so. More important, in a few short hours of sculpin fishing you can learn about large brown trout behavior what might take a lifetime of fishing with flies. I used bait fishing to make myself a better streamer fisherman. You can learn a lot about riffle feeding behavior too–by fishing with live nymphs. The feedback rate (the number of fish you catch) is so great you learn more in a very short period of time (when you fish with live nymphs). When fishing with live nymphs doesn’t work, for instance, you know the fish are asleep. You learn to recognize those times, and not to waste your time. When the fish *are* on the feed, you can catch so many more fish in such a short period of time, you don’t have to work with hunches anymore. You quickly learn how to size up a riffle: to know where the big ones lie and how the little ones line up behind. You learn how much weight to use, how much slack to throw, and how and when to wait for the strike. You can learn all of those things from fly fishing too, of course. But you learn it slower, over a much longer time period, and you reach conclusions with far less confidence when fly fishing—-because the feedback rate is so slow. We do what we want. I choose to bait fish occasionally because I learn from it. I fly fish frequently because I prefer to fish that way. PUNCHLINE:    The line between bait fishing and fly fishing can be substantially obscured.  I’ve been making soft-bodied, open-cell foam nymphs for years. They’re good looking nymphs. Because they’re soft, fish don’t spit them out. They swim around chewing on soft nymphs, which makes it easier to detect the strikes. With soft foam nymphs, you don’t necessarily get more strikes, but you definately feel more of them happen.   Then, the other day, while fishing in the Madison canyon, I found a fat golden stonefly nymph under a rock. I killed it on a whim: I crushed it up and squeezed the resulting paste into the body of a soft foam nymph. I rolled the soft foam nymph back and forth in the palm of my hand, in a puddle of bug paste. That (open-cell foam) nymph, at that point, became equally effective as a live bait. But I could cast it as far as my fly rod would reach. I caught one fish after another in a riffle I had been working steadily and unsuccessfully foam nymph, but without the bug paste. Now I’m not suggesting anybody else should do anything like this at all. But this is interesting information. Fish detect their prey by: 1) eye sight 2) by detecting vibrations with their lateral line 3) by smell. And smell, I think, is the most powerful attractant of all. Now that I think of it, perhaps fly fishing (for those who worry about categories and definitions) means fishing with a fly rod in a way that only targets the piscatorial visual cortex: IE with no help from the lateral line, nor from the (fishes) olfactory system. For those of us who enjoy breaking the rules occasionally (but still like casting with a fly rod), you can also target the lateral line–with lightweight fly rod wigglers. And you can target the olfactory system too (and still do long distance fly rod casting) by fishing with soft foam nymphs……and bug paste. — /* Sandy Pittendrigh                  –oO0  * http://nervana.montana.edu/~sandy  */

Response:

Question:

Why write what you would like to express in such large letters?

It’s a question of a diciple to his / her beloved master Osho. In order to make a clear viewable difference the bookprinting company decided to choose this typo with large letters for the question.  It seems to me that you aren’t very confident of beliefs and that’s why you feel forced to "scream" your thoughts.

Who’m are you talking to? This was a question asked by an anonymous disciple at the 18th of August 1976 in the Buddha Hall of the Ashram in Poona / India and I’m not shure that this disciple will read your posting in this NG … However it’s fruitless to make assumptions because I don’t know you.

Indeed – we all don’t know this person. Or are you assuming that I’m – Hari Har Singh – Osho??? I don’t hope so … Arguing is worthless, if it’s knowledge we seek, then open-discussion is more appropriate.

There are many ways to knowledge. An open discussion is allways wellcomned. Who likes to be told that they’re wrong, anyway.

Better to be told that 1 time than running along the wrong way a whole lifetime, hm? We all have different points of view, different perceptions of things, so how could you tell someone that they are wrong?

Many ppl have been and are wrong. That’s nothing impossible. To make mistakes is human. And do you want to leave them in their mistake if you can give them a hint? Simply because you’re right doesn’t make someone else wrong, does it?

??? To who’m are you talking to?? I never said that I’m "right"! Science can’t be denied, I agree with that…however I feel something, an energy that I can’t describe personally through science.  If anyone would be felt by everyone.

Are the Ionsons possibly thinking that I’m Osho?? Shall I really write big QUOTE – QUOTE – QUOTE – QUOTE lines in the next Osho quote I send? The next time I quote Mr. Bill Clinton, Albert Einstein or the Pope maybe somebody thinks I’m one of these persons … That’s a nice trick!! )) — Sat Nam – Hari Har Singh The second question: Question 2

<snipped

Response:

Why write what you would like to express in such large letters?  It seems to me that you aren’t very confident of beliefs and that’s why you feel forced to "scream" your thoughts.  However it’s fruitless to make assumptions because I don’t know you.  Arguing is worthless, if it’s knowledge we seek, then open-discussion is more appropriate.  Who likes to be told that they’re wrong, anyway.  We all have different points of view, different perceptions of things, so how could you tell someone that they are wrong?  Simply because you’re right doesn’t make someone else wrong, does it?  Science can’t be denied, I agree with that…however I feel something, an energy that I can’t describe personally through science.  If anyone would be felt by everyone. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The second question: Question 2 EACH CENTER OPENING BRINGS A DIFFERENT JEWEL: KUNDALINI, BALANCE, LOVE, EXPRESSION, A DIAMOND MIND. THIS IS THE DILEMMA: WHICH TO CHOOSE? YOU SAY CHOICELESSNESS IS BLISS, BUT SOCIETY REWARDS SPECIALISTS. ALSO, ON THE CELLULAR LEVEL, THE EVOLUTION OF COMPLEX ORGANISMS ARISES OUT OF THE INCREASING SPECIALIZATION OF ITS CELLS. YES, my emphasis is not to choose — be choiceless. Because if you choose, you become narrow. Every choice narrows you down. Every choice says, "Now I will have a window to the sky, not the whole sky." Why? Why have a frame to the sky? The sky is frameless. When you stand at a window and look into the sky, you have falsified the sky — because your window-frame looks as if it is framed on the sky. Then you have only a limited vision, narrow. Why be poor? Why not come out of the house and see the sky as it is — infinite? To me, life is an infinite expanding energy. Don’t make any choice! That’s why I don’t put sannyas against the world. I say be a sannyasin and be in the world, because a sannyasin, if he chooses the life of the monk and escapes from the world, will be poorer for that — because the world has many things to give to you. It is a tremendously beautiful device of God’s — to help you grow, to give you challenges, to give you new adventures; to give you opportunities to test yourself, your awareness, your being. If you escape from the world you will be escaping from all these opportunities. Sitting in a cave in the Himalayas you will be very poor — poor in the sense that you will not have richness of experience. And by and by you will become stupid. You will become silent — that’s true — because there will be nothing to distract you. But that silence also is of the Himalayas, it is not yours. Come back to the world and in the marketplace you will see your silence has disappeared. It was not yours — it was part of the Himalayan silence. You were deceived by yourself. When silence happens in the marketplace then it is true, then it is yours — now nobody can take it away. Now no distraction can be a distraction to you. You can remain anywhere; whatsoever the situation, your silence will remain there as a deep substratum to your being. It is inner. So I don’t say leave the world. I say be in the world and yet be beyond it — so that you can have both the experiences of the sansari, the worldly, and the sannyasin, the other-worldly. When both are possible, why choose? Make life as big as possible. Don’t narrow it down. "Each center opening brings a different jewel… the dilemma is which to choose." No, no need to choose any center. All the centers, all the seven chakras of the body, have to function well. All the centers of the body have to function in a unity, in an organic unity. From sex to sahasrar, from the first to the seventh, they should vibrate like an orchestra. You can choose one center. That’s what people have done: some people have chosen the sex center — they remain, around and around they go. They move in a circle. Their whole life remains just a process of sexuality — very poor. I don’t call them sinners; I simply call them very poor people. And poor by their own choice — when more was possible. It is as if you have an aeroplane and you yoke bullocks to it and use it as a bullock-cart. You are poor — not a sinner. You are simply foolish, stupid! Or you can use the aeroplane like a truck, like a bus — a little better than the bullock-cart, but still you are foolish. Such a costly vehicle, and you are using it as a bus! A vehicle that can fly into the skies, you are using it as a truck on the road. That’s what is happening. You have a beautiful orchestra within you, the full range, all the colors, all the notes — all that is possible is possible within you, but you cling to one center: the sex. Somebody clings to some other center, somebody to some other. And then there are people who think: "Leave all this, and we should just remain in the ajna chakra — in the third-eye center." That too is narrowing down your being. Better than being a bullock-cart but still you are a truck on the road. Then there are a few who think that they have to use only the sahasrar against all the six — then again you are confining your being. Then you have an aeroplane, but you never get down on the earth. You are going to have a big accident sooner or later because sooner or later the gas will be finished, the petrol will not be there. Flying continuously is dangerous. Sometimes come back to the earth, down to earth; refill the petrol, rest, relax; get ready to fly again. That’s the way. And the earth is beautiful — as much as the sky. The stars are beautiful, but have you watched, sitting in an aeroplane? — you cannot look very long in the sky, it is boring. It is beautiful, but it is monotonous. People start falling asleep sooner or later. They look outside the window for a little while and then they feel bored — it is monotonous. Earth is tremendously beautiful, never monotonous. So many flowers, so many trees, s o many birds, so many people. My emphasis is to live in all the seven centers together. Never lose contact with the lowest, and never avoid flying with the highest. Use all the centers! Then your wings will be in the sky and your roots will be in the earth. And a perfect man is a meeting of heaven and earth — that’s what Taoists say: a meeting of heaven and earth. That’s what a perfect man is: meeting of the physical and the spiritual, meeting of the body and the soul, meeting of the world and renunciation, meeting of prose and poetry. AND THE questioner asks: "You say choicelessness is bliss but society rewards specialists." That’s true — society is not interested in your bliss: society is interested in its own efficiency. Society is not bothered whether you are ecstatic or not — that is none of its business. Society wants you to be just efficient mechanisms, robots. Do the work that society wants you to do, and then the society is finished with you. What you do with your own being is none of its business. In fact, the society wants you not to do anything on your own, because that can become a distraction from efficiency. A man who is very happy cannot be so efficient — because he is so bubbling with happiness that efficiency seems trivial. What does it matter whether you earn one thousand rupees a month or ten thousand rupees a month? If his needs are fulfilled, a happy man doesn’t bother. He stops at a point; he is not obsessed with money. If a happy man sees that five days working is enough, then two days he rests — goes fishing or to the mountains. If he sees that only two days working is enough, then he works two days — in five days there are many more important things to do. He has to compose poetry, and he has to play his guitar, and he has to dance; and he has to just sit with friends and gossip; he has to meditate, pray, dance — he has a thousand and one things. His work is a need he has to fulfill. He enjoys it, but he is not obsessed with it. A happy man is never a perfectionist. Only unhappy people are perfectionists, only unhappy people are obsessed with their work — because that is the only way they can avoid themselves, they can avoid facing themselves. they can avoid encountering themselves. They are continuously working; late hours they will go on working; unless they fall asleep they go on working. Why? because they are afraid. If they stop work, then what to do? Then they are left to themselves and they cannot face themselves. Society is, of course, interested in specialists. And specialists, more or less, become inhuman — because they know too much about too little. Their whole vision becomes narrow, narrow, narrow. I have heard — the story must belong to the twenty-first century: One man knocked at a doctor’s, an eye specialist’s office, and he said, "My left eye is hurting very much, and I cannot see rightly, my vision is blurred." The doctor said, "Excuse me, I am sorry, but I specialize only in right eyes. For the left eye you will have to go to some other specialist." Narrower and narrower goes on the path of the specialist. He never sees the tree; he only can see the leaf. The whole is lost in the part. And, of course, the part cannot exist without the whole. In fact, all divisions are arbitrary. The leaf is not separate from the branch; the branch is not separate from the tree; the tree is not separate from the roots; the roots are not separate from the earth. Everything is in organic unity. The specialist goes on dividing, and by and by those divisions, those demarcations, take on too much importance. A specialist becomes inhuman. I have heard: A doctor put an elderly man on a diet because of his weight problem. The man returned to his doctor in two months’ time and he had lost dozens of pounds. The doctor was very pleased with the result. The patient said, "I

… read more »

Response:

The second question: Question 2 EACH CENTER OPENING BRINGS A DIFFERENT JEWEL: KUNDALINI, BALANCE, LOVE, EXPRESSION, A DIAMOND MIND. THIS IS THE DILEMMA: WHICH TO CHOOSE? YOU SAY CHOICELESSNESS IS BLISS, BUT SOCIETY REWARDS SPECIALISTS. ALSO, ON THE CELLULAR LEVEL, THE EVOLUTION OF COMPLEX ORGANISMS ARISES OUT OF THE INCREASING SPECIALIZATION OF ITS CELLS. YES, my emphasis is not to choose — be choiceless. Because if you choose, you become narrow. Every choice narrows you down. Every choice says, "Now I will have a window to the sky, not the whole sky." Why? Why have a frame to the sky? The sky is frameless. When you stand at a window and look into the sky, you have falsified the sky — because your window-frame looks as if it is framed on the sky. Then you have only a limited vision, narrow. Why be poor? Why not come out of the house and see the sky as it is — infinite? To me, life is an infinite expanding energy. Don’t make any choice! That’s why I don’t put sannyas against the world. I say be a sannyasin and be in the world, because a sannyasin, if he chooses the life of the monk and escapes from the world, will be poorer for that — because the world has many things to give to you. It is a tremendously beautiful device of God’s — to help you grow, to give you challenges, to give you new adventures; to give you opportunities to test yourself, your awareness, your being. If you escape from the world you will be escaping from all these opportunities. Sitting in a cave in the Himalayas you will be very poor — poor in the sense that you will not have richness of experience. And by and by you will become stupid. You will become silent — that’s true — because there will be nothing to distract you. But that silence also is of the Himalayas, it is not yours. Come back to the world and in the marketplace you will see your silence has disappeared. It was not yours — it was part of the Himalayan silence. You were deceived by yourself. When silence happens in the marketplace then it is true, then it is yours — now nobody can take it away. Now no distraction can be a distraction to you. You can remain anywhere; whatsoever the situation, your silence will remain there as a deep substratum to your being. It is inner. So I don’t say leave the world. I say be in the world and yet be beyond it — so that you can have both the experiences of the sansari, the worldly, and the sannyasin, the other-worldly. When both are possible, why choose? Make life as big as possible. Don’t narrow it down. "Each center opening brings a different jewel… the dilemma is which to choose." No, no need to choose any center. All the centers, all the seven chakras of the body, have to function well. All the centers of the body have to function in a unity, in an organic unity. From sex to sahasrar, from the first to the seventh, they should vibrate like an orchestra. You can choose one center. That’s what people have done: some people have chosen the sex center — they remain, around and around they go. They move in a circle. Their whole life remains just a process of sexuality — very poor. I don’t call them sinners; I simply call them very poor people. And poor by their own choice — when more was possible. It is as if you have an aeroplane and you yoke bullocks to it and use it as a bullock-cart. You are poor — not a sinner. You are simply foolish, stupid! Or you can use the aeroplane like a truck, like a bus — a little better than the bullock-cart, but still you are foolish. Such a costly vehicle, and you are using it as a bus! A vehicle that can fly into the skies, you are using it as a truck on the road. That’s what is happening. You have a beautiful orchestra within you, the full range, all the colors, all the notes — all that is possible is possible within you, but you cling to one center: the sex. Somebody clings to some other center, somebody to some other. And then there are people who think: "Leave all this, and we should just remain in the ajna chakra — in the third-eye center." That too is narrowing down your being. Better than being a bullock-cart but still you are a truck on the road. Then there are a few who think that they have to use only the sahasrar against all the six — then again you are confining your being. Then you have an aeroplane, but you never get down on the earth. You are going to have a big accident sooner or later because sooner or later the gas will be finished, the petrol will not be there. Flying continuously is dangerous. Sometimes come back to the earth, down to earth; refill the petrol, rest, relax; get ready to fly again. That’s the way. And the earth is beautiful — as much as the sky. The stars are beautiful, but have you watched, sitting in an aeroplane? — you cannot look very long in the sky, it is boring. It is beautiful, but it is monotonous. People start falling asleep sooner or later. They look outside the window for a little while and then they feel bored — it is monotonous. Earth is tremendously beautiful, never monotonous. So many flowers, so many trees, so many birds, so many people. My emphasis is to live in all the seven centers together. Never lose contact with the lowest, and never avoid flying with the highest. Use all the centers! Then your wings will be in the sky and your roots will be in the earth. And a perfect man is a meeting of heaven and earth — that’s what Taoists say: a meeting of heaven and earth. That’s what a perfect man is: meeting of the physical and the spiritual, meeting of the body and the soul, meeting of the world and renunciation, meeting of prose and poetry. AND THE questioner asks: "You say choicelessness is bliss but society rewards specialists." That’s true — society is not interested in your bliss: society is interested in its own efficiency. Society is not bothered whether you are ecstatic or not — that is none of its business. Society wants you to be just efficient mechanisms, robots. Do the work that society wants you to do, and then the society is finished with you. What you do with your own being is none of its business. In fact, the society wants you not to do anything on your own, because that can become a distraction from efficiency. A man who is very happy cannot be so efficient — because he is so bubbling with happiness that efficiency seems trivial. What does it matter whether you earn one thousand rupees a month or ten thousand rupees a month? If his needs are fulfilled, a happy man doesn’t bother. He stops at a point; he is not obsessed with money. If a happy man sees that five days working is enough, then two days he rests — goes fishing or to the mountains. If he sees that only two days working is enough, then he works two days — in five days there are many more important things to do. He has to compose poetry, and he has to play his guitar, and he has to dance; and he has to just sit with friends and gossip; he has to meditate, pray, dance — he has a thousand and one things. His work is a need he has to fulfill. He enjoys it, but he is not obsessed with it. A happy man is never a perfectionist. Only unhappy people are perfectionists, only unhappy people are obsessed with their work — because that is the only way they can avoid themselves, they can avoid facing themselves. they can avoid encountering themselves. They are continuously working; late hours they will go on working; unless they fall asleep they go on working. Why? because they are afraid. If they stop work, then what to do? Then they are left to themselves and they cannot face themselves. Society is, of course, interested in specialists. And specialists, more or less, become inhuman — because they know too much about too little. Their whole vision becomes narrow, narrow, narrow. I have heard — the story must belong to the twenty-first century: One man knocked at a doctor’s, an eye specialist’s office, and he said, "My left eye is hurting very much, and I cannot see rightly, my vision is blurred." The doctor said, "Excuse me, I am sorry, but I specialize only in right eyes. For the left eye you will have to go to some other specialist." Narrower and narrower goes on the path of the specialist. He never sees the tree; he only can see the leaf. The whole is lost in the part. And, of course, the part cannot exist without the whole. In fact, all divisions are arbitrary. The leaf is not separate from the branch; the branch is not separate from the tree; the tree is not separate from the roots; the roots are not separate from the earth. Everything is in organic unity. The specialist goes on dividing, and by and by those divisions, those demarcations, take on too much importance. A specialist becomes inhuman. I have heard: A doctor put an elderly man on a diet because of his weight problem. The man returned to his doctor in two months’ time and he had lost dozens of pounds. The doctor was very pleased with the result. The patient said, "I feel so young. doctor. Only today I saw a girl’s bare arm and I felt like biting it!" The doctor said, "You could have done. It’s only about forty calories.’ A specialist is a specialist. All specialization becomes basically inhuman. It loses track of the whole. But the society is interested in efficiency. So beware of the society. Society is not interested in your happiness, in your joy. The interest of the society is more production, efficiency, more work — and don’t ask for what, because they don’t know for what. If you work hard they will say to create better situations — for what? — to work still harder. It is just like a man who earns money and you ask him "For what?" He says, "To earn more money. "And then you earn more money, then what?" He says "To earn still more money." The thing seems to be vicious. The individual has totally different interests from the society, because the society has no soul. The society is soulless. And if you become too much a part of the society, it will reduce your soul also to a … read more »

Response:

Question:

Help save our migratory fishery.  I’ve heard that we should all throw a bale of straw into the Columbia River.  It seems the straw bales get soggy and take out gill nets, thus helping the fish to survive them. Does this really work or make sense as ‘a protest vote?’ — Mr. G. http://www.gink.com (World’s Best Dry Fly Dressing) http://www.rodbuilding.com (For the Serious Rod Builder) http://www.xink.com (World’s Best Wet Fly Sink)

Question:

Anyone using a fly line with sinking tip for nymphs or streamer fishing? If so, do you use weighted nymph? How long for the leader/tippet? In what circumstances should such lines be used? I have tested scientific angler class 3 and class 5 in a park near my home. Class 3 was hard to cast. Class 5 was very hard to cast. Comments and recommendation anyone?

I agree with the gentleman previous toi this thread. When you cast heavy line of any kind (above 7) the idea is to false cast NEVER, well maybe once if you have to. On the Roannoke in NC casting for those monster sex crazed stripers, I cast a seven wt with a fast sinker to get it down in the seams that would whip a weighted fly all over. The technique is to find  a pocket cast to the side, draw the line to the suface with a slow backcast, then just before the fly reaches the suface, load the rod by the surface tension of the water. even with this powerful back cast-not by the speed of it, but by loading the rod, you get the line in the air. Make your foreward cast count-and place your fly. If you back cast here, your line will drop,it s just too heavy. If you muff the cast, Start from the begining or suffer frustration. Good luck and tight lines! Thanks to Lefty for this tip, he deserves the credit. Steve

Response:

Leader length of 3 or 4 feet work well for me. Weight the nymph as you see appropriate. Most cases an unweighted nymph is best. Some flies seem to benefit from weight of some sort. Casting sink tips requires a more carefull, slower stroke, don’t hold too much line in the air and keep false casting to a minimum. Ralph H – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Anyone using a fly line with sinking tip for nymphs or streamer fishing? If so, do you use weighted nymph? How long for the leader/tippet? In what circumstances should such lines be used? I have tested scientific angler class 3 and class 5 in a park near my home. Class 3 was hard to cast. Class 5 was very hard to cast. Comments and recommendation anyone?

Response:

Jean, Try the AirFlo Fast Sink or Intermediate Sink leaders.  They cast extremely well and the Fast Sink really takes the fly down.  I have been using one this week to cast small Clousers to shad in the Rappahannock and it is working beautifully.  I use a heavier, stiffer (regular monofilament) tippet and keep it to under 3 feet.  The AirFlo leader comes in a 10 foot length for Fast Sink.  If they have the 5 foot model out now it might be a good bet depending on where and what you are fishing.  Another handy thing is they handshake to a line loop and a surgeon’s knot on one end of the tippet. Makes swapping between floating and sinking a matter of seconds and changing tippets the same. Wayne To fish is human…to release divine. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Anyone using a fly line with sinking tip for nymphs or streamer fishing? If so, do you use weighted nymph? How long for the leader/tippet? In what circumstances should such lines be used? I have tested scientific angler class 3 and class 5 in a park near my home. Class 3 was hard to cast. Class 5 was very hard to cast. Comments and recommendation anyone?

Response:

Anyone using a fly line with sinking tip for nymphs or streamer fishing? If so, do you use weighted nymph? How long for the leader/tippet? In what circumstances should such lines be used? I have tested scientific angler class 3 and class 5 in a park near my home. Class 3 was hard to cast. Class 5 was very hard to cast. Comments and recommendation anyone?

Response:

Question:

I’ll be in the Denver area next weekend and have 1 day free for some fly fishing.  Any suggestions on where to go this time of year? Don

Hi Don, Denver sits on the banks of Lake Norman. It’s a lake full of specs, bass, catfish, and panfish. The Catawba river flows into it and out of it through a dam. It’s a great place to fish and relax here in the NC piedmont. It does get hot as hell in the summer though. Ooops, oh, that Denver……sorry, Waldo…to damn early in the am.

Response:

I’ll be in the Denver area next weekend and have 1 day free for some fly fishing.  Any suggestions on where to go this time of year? Don

Response:

Question:

Hi all, 1. The cost of fishing is going up, up, up. A good Sage rod can cost upwards of $600 for a piece of inexpensive graphite.  A day with a guide can cost above $300.  A night at a fishing lodge can cost $600.  (Firewood kindling can cost $40!<g)

Of course, we’ve always justified these things by pointing out how expensive cocaine is in comparison.  (just kidding) I am living proof that you can get an enormous amount of enjoyment from fishing for very little money.

Response:

Hi all, I’ve received a couple of nasty emails over the past few days which tell me at least a few people do not understand what I am saying in my posts under the thread "Orvis Bashing."  (Believe me, I understand that most do not care!)  I am concerned others who read what I write, but do not send me email believe I am complaining about my salary.  I am not.  Like almost everyone, I wish it were more, and I believe it should be, but I have plenty of options if I am really unhappy about salary.  I’m sorry if what I write comes off as complaining at all, but I assure you, I am not talking about my salary.  Let me try and be as clear with my ideas as possible. 1. The cost of fishing is going up, up, up.   A good Sage rod can cost upwards of $600 for a piece of inexpensive graphite.  A day with a guide can cost above $300.  A night at a fishing lodge can cost $600.  (Firewood kindling can cost $40!<g) 2. We, the consumers, are as guilty as Orvis or anyone in this game.   We do not critically examine what the return is for the cost.  We pay it, just like we pay for overpriced Nike shoes.  We have been marketed. This I think, is a relatively recent phenomenon in fishing. 3. We do not do this with all things, like taxes or education.   We want to know what we will get for increased expenditures and most of us are suspicious of those who ask for more.  Therefore, it is not an innate part of the human condition to automatically overpay for things we value.  There is no a priori connection. 4. In fact, public education (and the local library, etc., whatever your local taxes go towards) in this country is generally an outrageous bargain.  We do not recognize this (in part) because there is no slick brochure, no beautiful movie or hilarious TV advertisement that tells us it is true.  There is no marketing.   5. If we really thought about this stuff, there is no way most of us could justify paying more for our own recreation than our children’s needs. Summary: The real beef with Orvis (or Sage, etc.) is that they are great marketers. This is not a crime, and we as consumers are partners in the activity. We must first realize this.  I made some comparisons of things I know about in order to demonstrate how much we pay for things which need not be expensive.  "Costs more" is not always better, nor is it necessary. Fishing for trout is about standing in a beautiful river in a beautiful setting and that is still free.  Resist the rest.   — Rick T. Rick Fletcher   –   http://www.chem.uidaho.edu/~fletcher/ Associate professor of chemistry  |  That’s Idaho, not Iowa.    | ad hominem University of Idaho               |  Upper Left Hand Corner.    | ad hominem Moscow, ID 83844-2343             |  No, I don’t grow potatoes. | ad hominem

Response:

Rick Fletcher schrieb in Nachricht Hi all, I’ve received a couple of nasty emails over the past few days which tell

Hi Rick, I read all the Orvis bashing posts etc with interest. Understood your posts as well, in fact I invariably do understand your posts. Think it has to do with the fact that they are well composed and spelled, and you seem to know what you are talking about usually.  I think many people dislike being faced with moral issues, especially when this has to do with their passions and hobbies.   Some of the comparisons are a little hard to take, because they are obviously too close to the mark. I am bound to disagree with one or two of your points however, many people have no problem at all justifying the cost of their recreation as opposed to their childrens, or anybody elses needs for that matter, this is part of the problem. Also, one of the reasons many people go fishing, is to forget their problems for a while, and do not wish to be reminded of them in this context, because it probably makes them feel guilty as hell, having spent all that money which they shouldnt really have done in the first place !.  A lot of people are firmly convinced that it is not possible to enjoy anything much at all unless it is done using the " best" tools etc available, this all too often translates into the "most expensive" and I have actually heard people discussing tackle etc. in shops and the like, when somebody has said "it must be good, look how expensive it is ! ". This phenomenon is not new either, read some of the older literature, and you will see what I mean, Skues plugging Leonard rods etc. Hardys being praised to the skies for some perfectly ordinary ( but expensive ! ) bit of totally useless equipment etc. etc.  The high power marketing of today was not apparent of course, but then the market was far more limited. Even otherwise sensible people fall for "hype" when it has to do with their hobby, and this is what makes the market so attractive, the very fact that people will spend very large amounts of money for "names" etc, without really being able to judge whether it is worth it or not, and without making any appreciable difference to their capabilities, although pride of ownership etc might increase their enjoyment a little. Sorry you got nasty e-mails, but not everybody does things like that. Lastly, and on a somewhat lighter note, can you  tell me where this free beautiful river in a beautiful setting is ? ( just kidding ! ) Tight lines ! Mike Connor

Response:

Hi all, I’ve received a couple of nasty emails over the past few days

        ok, rick, send me their addresses, and i’ll have o.c. and the bad boys from rowan county, n.c. chill the bastards.  anything goes in the defense of literacy! T. Rick Fletcher   –   http://www.chem.uidaho.edu/~fletcher/ Associate professor of chemistry  |  That’s Idaho, not Iowa.    | ad hominem University of Idaho               |  Upper Left Hand Corner.    | ad hominem Moscow, ID 83844-2343             |  No, I don’t grow potatoes. | ad hominem

        a. wayne harrison

Response:

Hi Rick, You are trying to link your desire of a high end rod with Orvis marketing. And then blaming Orvis for your need of an expensive rod.  Am I getting close?  Hard to resist though.   My wife and I have two children about to enter college.  I surely want them in the Dennisons, Harvards, and the Dukes of this world but, guess what, it costs money.  My daughter wants to go into elementary education.  Talk about a return on her (my) money!  My son wants to be a flyfishing, rock climbing bum.  But he also realizes that after the good times, he might have the need to provide for a retirement. Rather than grip about the ‘high end’ colleges, we simply pay the costs (without grabbing an appropriate newsgroup and soap box) or we council a college priced fairly for the educational degree we are after. Buy a rod on sale and make it do and don’t worry yourself over the Orvis marketing that none of us can do anything about.   Hope this makes sense. Mike Warren, OH/Cook Forest, PA – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi all, I’ve received a couple of nasty emails over the past few days which tell me at least a few people do not understand what I am saying in my posts under the thread "Orvis Bashing."  (Believe me, I understand that most do not care!)  I am concerned others who read what I write, but do not send me email believe I am complaining about my salary.  I am not.  Like almost everyone, I wish it were more, and I believe it should be, but I have plenty of options if I am really unhappy about salary.  I’m sorry if what I write comes off as complaining at all, but I assure you, I am not talking about my salary.  Let me try and be as clear with my ideas as possible. 1. The cost of fishing is going up, up, up. A good Sage rod can cost upwards of $600 for a piece of inexpensive graphite.  A day with a guide can cost above $300.  A night at a fishing

Response:

Well said Mike, I guess it really isn’t Orvis that I dislike, it is just their marketing, advertising and promotional methods. — Ernie Harrison Remove NOSPAM to send E-mail GO TO  http://www/ccnet.com/~emh FOR TRAVEL TIE BOX PLANS – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Rick Fletcher schrieb in Nachricht Hi all, I’ve received a couple of nasty emails over the past few days which tell Hi Rick, I read all the Orvis bashing posts etc with interest. Understood your posts as well, in fact I invariably do understand your posts. Think it has to do with the fact that they are well composed and spelled, and you seem to know what you are talking about usually.  I think many people dislike being faced with moral issues, especially when this has to do with their passions and hobbies.   Some of the comparisons are a little hard to take, because they are obviously too close to the mark. I am bound to disagree with one or two of your points however, many people have no problem at all justifying the cost of their recreation as opposed to their childrens, or anybody elses needs for that matter, this is part of the problem. Also, one of the reasons many people go fishing, is to forget their problems for a while, and do not wish to be reminded of them in this context, because it probably makes them feel guilty as hell, having spent all that money which they shouldnt really have done in the first place !.  A lot of people are firmly convinced that it is not possible to enjoy anything much at all unless it is done using the " best" tools etc available, this all too often translates into the "most expensive" and I have actually heard people discussing tackle etc. in shops and the like, when somebody has said "it must be good, look how expensive it is ! ". This phenomenon is not new either, read some of the older literature, and you will see what I mean, Skues plugging Leonard rods etc. Hardys being praised to the skies for some perfectly ordinary ( but expensive ! ) bit of totally useless equipment etc. etc.  The high power marketing of today was not apparent of course, but then the market was far more limited. Even otherwise sensible people fall for "hype" when it has to do with their hobby, and this is what makes the market so attractive, the very fact that people will spend very large amounts of money for "names" etc, without really being able to judge whether it is worth it or not, and without making any appreciable difference to their capabilities, although pride of ownership etc might increase their enjoyment a little. Sorry you got nasty e-mails, but not everybody does things like that. Lastly, and on a somewhat lighter note, can you  tell me where this free beautiful river in a beautiful setting is ? ( just kidding ! ) Tight lines ! Mike Connor

Response:

Rick – thanks for the well thought out post. Based on your perspective of money and costs and value(s), I am certain that we could fish together. I could not agree more. Ben

Response:

Hi all, I’ve received a couple of nasty emails over the past few days which tell me at least a few people do not understand what I am saying in my posts under the thread "Orvis Bashing."  

[snip] Been there, fun eh? 3. We do not do this with all things, like taxes or education.   We want to know what we will get for increased expenditures and most of us are suspicious of those who ask for more.  Therefore, it is not an innate part of the human condition to automatically overpay for things we value.  There is no a priori connection. 4. In fact, public education (and the local library, etc., whatever your local taxes go towards) in this country is generally an outrageous bargain.  We do not recognize this (in part) because there is no slick brochure, no beautiful movie or hilarious TV advertisement that tells us it is true.  There is no marketing.  

These complaints work both ways. Canada has a universal health care system paid for by tax revenue.  I was at a party last year when one party goer (with a six figure income in anyone’s currency) whined and complained about how much he had to pay in taxes to support this system.  I wondered how many tens or hundreds of thousands he was willing to commit to an early death, just so he could become even filthier rich.  Neither was he willing to consider that the alternatives would have ended up costing the country and him, even more.  Limited minds don’t necessarily come attached to limited pockets. 5. If we really thought about this stuff, there is no way most of us could justify paying more for our own recreation than our children’s needs.

Only the most selfish would. Summary: The real beef with Orvis (or Sage, etc.) is that they are great marketers. This is not a crime, and we as consumers are partners in the activity. We must first realize this.  I made some comparisons of things I know about in order to demonstrate how much we pay for things which need not be expensive.  "Costs more" is not always better, nor is it necessary. Fishing for trout is about standing in a beautiful river in a beautiful setting and that is still free.  Resist the rest.   — Rick T. Rick Fletcher   –   http://www.chem.uidaho.edu/~fletcher/ Associate professor of chemistry  |  That’s Idaho, not Iowa.    | ad hominem University of Idaho               |  Upper Left Hand Corner.    | ad hominem Moscow, ID 83844-2343             |  No, I don’t grow potatoes. | ad hominem

What’s that old saying? Caveat emptor?  True in flyfishing as in anything else. Peter

Response:

Oy, an intelligent post.  I had to, like, read it. As a public school teacher I can relate.  I often do extra duty and spend summer days in curriculum development or whatever to make enough money to indulge in my addiction.  Regular money covers other luxuries like food.  I think of this extra money not as dollars but as flyrods, which are very expensive even if you get the "good guy" price. Dave

Response:

Question:

I purchased  9′ #6  4- piece rod early this summer and have loved it….however  it not a sage or an orvis…but at a  better price…

Response:

Check the reel seat. I purchased 2 rods for my grandsons a few years ago, and the reelseats failed in 6 months. the metal formed ring that holds the reel broke on both rods had to tape the reels on. While they don’t cost as much as a Sage, or Orvis, if you do a lot of flyfishing buy a rod that will give you years of service not 6 months. I have been flyfishing for 50+ years and have seen them all. Buy good blanks, build your own. Use snake guides, rather than single foot, as single foot bend, and snake guides don’t. Tight lines Art

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -I purchased  9′ #6  4- piece rod early this summer and have loved it….however it not a sage or an orvis…but at a  better price…

Response:

Check the reel seat. I purchased 2 rods for my grandsons a few years ago, and the reelseats failed in 6 months. …While they don’t cost as much as a Sage, or Orvis, if you do a lot of flyfishing buy a rod that will give you years of service not 6 months.

You could have returned the rods to Bean for repair or refund;Bean has a 100% guarantee on everything.  So really a Bean rod should be able to give you years of service. You might also take the time (if you can) to visit the Bean store in Freeport, and check the workmanship on their different rods.  The $400+ rods are nicer than the $100 ones.  You get what you pay for, eh?  On the other hand, *all* their rods are guaranteed, no matter the price. BTW, I agree that the best value is in building your own. Russell Gelinas

Response:

Question:

Craig writes:

<<I’ve never used a strike indicator, but thought I’d try.  What material do you use?  Where on the line do you place the material? And, how do you affix the material to the line?  I’d appreciate any suggestions? There are many different kinds of commercial strike indicators out there. I prefer the wool yarn type (and it’s cheap).  It is easy to attach with a slip knot and can be moved or removed easily.  Putty would be my second choice.  All are available at any fly shop. I generally place the indicator at 1 1/2 times the depth of the water. Use it, please, but beware!  There are those on ROFF who say this is NOT fly-fishing.  Their condemnation will follow you the rest of your life. Your children may even suffer from this stigma.  They may suffer taunting at school ("Yuck.  Your father uses a strike indicator!")  You and your children may even be ostracized!  I  use one because I have trouble finding the leader/line.  Getting old, I guess. BTW, you can put Gink on the wool to help it float better, but there are those who think using Gink to help *anything* float is not fly-fishing. Sort of like being lazy and stupid.   Dave L.

Response:

Wool works well because of it’s high visibility and floatability.  I prefer putty for these reasons and I find putty easier to move up and down.  (I don’t like the little kink caused in your line when you move the wool, and it’s more hassle for me).  Wool enthusiasts claim they can see a strike better with wool.  They might be right.  I find that the distance between the indicator and the terminal tackle seems to make the most difference for me as far as strike success is concerned, so I’m constantly adjusting. Putty suits my style. Dave L is right about the anti-nymphing contingent.  I prefer to think of them as God’s way of challenging me to learn to ignore the unimportant, with grace! —                                                            -dnc- – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Dave L. writes: <<Craig writes: <<I’ve never used a strike indicator, but thought I’d try.  What material do you use?  Where on the line do you place the material? And, how do you affix the material to the line?  I’d appreciate any suggestions? There are many different kinds of commercial strike indicators out there. I prefer the wool yarn type (and it’s cheap).  It is easy to attach with a slip knot and can be moved or removed easily.  Putty would be my second choice.  All are available at any fly shop.

Response:

Craig, I learned the method from a guide this summer fishing for salmon.  It works great and I’ll be using it on trout and smallmouth down here in VA now.  I would definitely look for the ‘putty’ indicators I liked red better than yellow but thats up to you.  Put it on so that the lowest nymph is just reaching the bottom (or a close guess in reality).  All you have to do is stick this stuff on and you can move it up or down when needed and reuse it many many times.  Its worth it and its better than my old favorite the bobber types with rubber plugs. Bob

Response:

Dave,      Great reply!  I fully understand the purists’ position.  I grew up fly fishing in California — and remember doing quite well.  My Father and grandfather were both purists (as was I).  I didn’t fish for a number of years but recently picked it up again.  However, since moving to Georgia I’ve enjoyed very little success with a fly (It’s me, not the lack of fish).  I fish the backcountry for natives (or at least try) and I’m ready to try most anything to improve my success.  Also, I’ve enjoyed good vision until the last couple of years (middle age) and watching the line isn’t as easy as it used to be.      In any case I appreciate both the information and the writing style.

Response:

Dave L. writes: <<Craig writes:

<<I’ve never used a strike indicator, but thought I’d try.  What material do you use?  Where on the line do you place the material? And, how do you affix the material to the line?  I’d appreciate any suggestions? There are many different kinds of commercial strike indicators out there. I prefer the wool yarn type (and it’s cheap).  It is easy to attach with a slip knot and can be moved or removed easily.  Putty would be my second choice.  All are available at any fly shop. I generally place the indicator at 1 1/2 times the depth of the water. Use it, please, but beware!  There are those on ROFF who say this is NOT fly-fishing.  Their condemnation will follow you the rest of your life. Your children may even suffer from this stigma.  They may suffer taunting at school ("Yuck.  Your father uses a strike indicator!")  You and your children may even be ostracized!  I  use one because I have trouble finding the leader/line.  Getting old, I guess. BTW, you can put Gink on the wool to help it float better, but there are those who think using Gink to help *anything* float is not fly-fishing. Sort of like being lazy and stupid.   Dave L. Gee, Craig.  I forgot to add:  If you use a strike indicator, DO NOT repeat DO NOT wear a baseball hat backwards.  This is a very serious infraction of the tenets of fly fishing.  But then again, if you use a strike indicator, some will think you are NOT fly fishing, so therefore you CAN wear your hat backwards.  Regardless, be careful, and enjoy nymphing. Dave L.

Response:

DNC writes: I prefer to think of

them as God’s way of challenging me to learn to ignore the unimportant, with grace! Thank you, D.  What a wonderful way of putting it!  ;0) Dave L.

Response:

Dave L. writes: <<Craig writes: Gee, Craig.  I forgot to add:  If you use a strike indicator, DO NOT repeat DO NOT wear a baseball hat backwards.  This is a very serious infraction of the tenets of fly fishing.  But then again, if you use a strike indicator, some will think you are NOT fly fishing, so therefore you CAN wear your hat backwards.  Regardless, be careful, and enjoy nymphing. Dave L.

Greetings to all, a small addition from france !! Putty strike indicators are great IMHO because you can choose very precisely how much flotation it will provide. I like to put very little of it ( less that what is needed to balance the nymph weight), so the nymph fish on the bottom (i fish rocky streams) but you can still see it and see the take. this way the indicator does not interfere your drag free float  and is less sensitive to surface currents which are different from bottom currents. BEWARE not to spread this technique too much because it s really a killer on those days when you see fishes everywhere, but none of them are coming to the surface to take a dry fly. In the center mountains of france where I m using it. I use a very small nymph tied on 16 hooks 2x long with a pheasant herl body ribbed with red copper wire and a gold pearl head (black thread) we call it "casque d’or" (I.E golden helmet). In 2 days and 6 hours of fishing I landed 29 fishes from 5 to 15 inches (in this area the legal size is 18 to 20 centimeter). best regards Gh —                          http://www.cortosys.fr                               Paris FRANCE                              01-46-38-06-93     "I have also seen children successfully surmounting the effects of     "an evil inheritance. That is due to purity being an inherent     "attribute of the soul."                                                      [Mahatma Gandhi]

Response:

Question:

Estimates of the survivability of game fish that are caught and then released back into the water range from 10% to as high as 50%.  With mortality rates this high, I feel that the practice of catch and release should be outlawed. The simple fact of the matter is that a catch and keep sportfisherman, who obeys laws concerning catch limits and possession limits causes the demise of far fewer fish than the catch and release fisherman. The person who catches fish only for the fun of it without regard to there value as a food source is not unlike the big game hunter who kills a bull

If you had been flyfishing twenty, well thirty years ago…believe me… you would have second thought about your position.  It seemed ok to keep your whole catch then simply because there weren’t so many fishermen, plus you now unfortunately HAVE to add in the factor of habitat degradation. I look at the whole spectrum and figure on even just a small percentage of the trout caught…being those that have been caught several times, thus saving many trout from being caught that first time. tight_lines, steve d.

Response:

giorgio writes:    Catch and release is technique… Survival is in the very high 90% (I’ll bet I get 100%!!)

That’s right, it’s all those other people, who aren’t as clever as I am, that kill fish.  I can catch fish all day, and never kill even one.  They seem to enjoy being caught.  As I was saying to my wife… Morgan Fairchild, yeah, that’s the ticket…. CQ

Response:

Estimates of the survivability of game fish that are caught and then released back into the water range from 10% to as high as 50%.  With mortality rates this high, I feel that the practice of catch and release should be outlawed. The simple fact of the matter is that a catch and keep sportfisherman, who obeys laws concerning catch limits and possession limits causes the demise of far fewer fish than the catch and release fisherman. The person who catches fish only for the fun of it without regard to there value as a food source is not unlike the big game hunter who kills a bull elk only for the fun of it(or perhaps a set of horns over the mantle.)

Where the heck did you get your numbers? This "estimate" (Defined as an educated guess) is way out of line with data gathered from actual research, which shows mortality on released fish to be lower than 3% with barbless flys, and never even near this 50% even with multi-point, barbed and baited hooks. The "Simple fact" is that those who ignorantly condemn certain practices based on false conjecture serve only to harm the resource they intend to protect, if that is even their true motive. And how, then, would you explain why certain fish can be fooled and released over and over year after year, in the same place? And those beautiful wild Deschutes red-band rainbows that (sadly) have several hook-holes in their jaws a couple of weeks into the famous salmon fly hatch? They would never reach their 14" to 20" typical size even at a 10% mortality rate! Get your facts straight before you start throwing words like "outlaw" around OK? The last thing we (or the fish) need is more misguided legislation!

Response:

Ever notice how people who post messages like this don’t use their name? Hey Mike: I never really though about it, logflyer is my E-mail account name.  But for your information my name is Mike Golden, I live in Idaho and if there is anything else youd like to know about me please dont hesitate ot E-mail me.

I think, Mike Golden (if that is your real name), that where fishing is concerned I already know as much about you as I ever want to. — "…but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Article VI, US Constitution

Response:

giorgio writes:       Catch and release is technique… Survival is in the very high 90% (I’ll bet I get 100%!!) That’s right, it’s all those other people, who aren’t as clever as I am, that kill fish.  I can catch fish all day, and never kill even one.  They seem to enjoy being caught.  As I was saying to my wife… Morgan Fairchild, yeah, that’s the ticket…. CQ

I’ve had fish die in my hand or after release so I’d never claim 100% though I’m sure I do far better than 50 oh yeah despite rumours to the contrary I am not married to Nicole Kidman –  my wife sort of looks like her (she smarter too!) 8^) Ralph H "…      the sabbath rang slowly      in the pebbles of the holy streams!" Dylan Thomas, "Fern Hill"

Response:

 Hey Mike: I never really though about it, logflyer is my E-mail account name.  But for your information my name is Mike Golden, I live in Idaho and if there is anything else youd like to know about me please dont hesitate ot E-mail me.

Thanks Mike. Maybe it’s just psychological but I like to think that there is a real person at the other end of a post. When someone doesn’t use a name it seems like they just want to stir the pot, stand back and watch the results. Some people get their kicks from this kind of activity. I share some of your concerns for catch & release fishing but I don’t agree with many of your statements. I practise catch & release regularily, but will I always keep the fish when I have a doubt as to whether it will survive (when legal to do so). I have observed fishermen do not because the fish was "too small" or it means the end of their fishing day or just simply through ignorance. Perhaps some sort of training should be mandatory to obtain a fishing license? (Maybe just a quiz that you must pass?) Any thoughts on this folks? Should we fish a lake or stream that is catch & release because of conservation reasons? Maybe not, but fishers are some of our most active conservationists. Fishing keeps people in touch with aquatic ecosystems and I feel this benefit can outweigh the disadvantages. — Mike Robinson

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -logflyer writes: Estimates of the survivability of game fish that are caught and then released back into the water range from 10% to as high as 50%.  With mortality rates this high, I feel that the practice of catch and release should be outlawed.   Those figures are probably correct if you’re talking about marlin, or if you’re talking about salmonids that are played to total exhaustion, or kept out of the water long enough for a carefully posed picture (arrrgh!).  If you’re fishing for salmonids, bringing them in green, not taking them out of the water, and you’re reviving them correctly, studies have shown that survivability is above 90%, unless water temps are high. A 10% mortality rate is a good, conservative rule of thumb to use when you’re deciding when it’s time to stop for the day. The simple fact of the matter is that a catch and keep sportfisherman, who obeys laws concerning catch limits and possession limits causes the demise of far fewer fish than the catch and release fisherman. Absolutely, if the c&r angler doesn’t limit his catch, but it doesn’t have to be that way.  It’s more relaxing (for me, anyway) to take breaks and enjoy the area than it is to work like hell to see how many dozen fish you can catch in a day, anyway. A modest proposal: C&R shouldn’t exempt you from the ethic of limiting your kill. If the limit is 6 trout, and you’re releasing all the fish you catch, assume that as many as 10% die after release, and limit yourself to a half-limit of fish killed (3 fish), since they are being left behind uneaten (by you, anyway).   This still permits you to land as many as 30 fish in a day.   Another, even more conservative method would be to stop when you’ve released a limit of "keepers."  Landing six nice fish (or whatever the limit would allow) in a day is still nothing to complain about! The person who catches fish only for the fun of it without regard to there value as a food source is not unlike the big game hunter who kills a bull elk only for the fun of it(or perhaps a set of horns over the mantle.) I don’t know if I’d describe fishing as fun; fulfilling would be more accurate. I get something good from the fish I harvest, something equally good from the fish I release, and something else (equally good) from the fish that I can’t (or choose not to) catch. I’d agree that (at least for some) there is an element of trophy hunting, and even gluttony, in catch-and-release.  I no longer photograph live fish, as the time out of water decreases their chance of survival, and always limit my catch, whether I’m keeping fish or not. (BTW, all of the elk hunters I know around here hunt mainly for the freezerful of meat that comes with those horns.) CQ

Charlie ; you’re a blessing to the group! Ralph H " … the sabbath rang in the pebbles of the holy streams!" Dylan Thomas, "Fern Hill" " One man free to love his minute   in the realms of flesh and sun   breaks down more pain than ages   of humane law or lawyers can." Leonard Cohen, " Crying, Come Back, Hero"

Response:

logflyer writes: Estimates of the survivability of game fish that are caught and then released back into the water range from 10% to as high as 50%.  With mortality rates this high, I feel that the practice of catch and release should be outlawed.  

Those figures are probably correct if you’re talking about marlin, or if you’re talking about salmonids that are played to total exhaustion, or kept out of the water long enough for a carefully posed picture (arrrgh!).  If you’re fishing for salmonids, bringing them in green, not taking them out of the water, and you’re reviving them correctly, studies have shown that survivability is above 90%, unless water temps are high. A 10% mortality rate is a good, conservative rule of thumb to use when you’re deciding when it’s time to stop for the day. The simple fact of the matter is that a catch and keep sportfisherman, who obeys laws concerning catch limits and possession limits causes the demise of far fewer fish than the catch and release fisherman.

Absolutely, if the c&r angler doesn’t limit his catch, but it doesn’t have to be that way.  It’s more relaxing (for me, anyway) to take breaks and enjoy the area than it is to work like hell to see how many dozen fish you can catch in a day, anyway. A modest proposal: C&R shouldn’t exempt you from the ethic of limiting your kill. If the limit is 6 trout, and you’re releasing all the fish you catch, assume that as many as 10% die after release, and limit yourself to a half-limit of fish killed (3 fish), since they are being left behind uneaten (by you, anyway).   This still permits you to land as many as 30 fish in a day.   Another, even more conservative method would be to stop when you’ve released a limit of "keepers."  Landing six nice fish (or whatever the limit would allow) in a day is still nothing to complain about! The person who catches fish only for the fun of it without regard to there value as a food source is not unlike the big game hunter who kills a bull elk only for the fun of it(or perhaps a set of horns over the mantle.)

I don’t know if I’d describe fishing as fun; fulfilling would be more accurate. I get something good from the fish I harvest, something equally good from the fish I release, and something else (equally good) from the fish that I can’t (or choose not to) catch. I’d agree that (at least for some) there is an element of trophy hunting, and even gluttony, in catch-and-release.  I no longer photograph live fish, as the time out of water decreases their chance of survival, and always limit my catch, whether I’m keeping fish or not. (BTW, all of the elk hunters I know around here hunt mainly for the freezerful of meat that comes with those horns.) CQ

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Estimates of the survivability of game fish that are caught and then released back into the water range from 10% to as high as 50%.  With mortality rates this high, I feel that the practice of catch and release should be outlawed. The simple fact of the matter is that a catch and keep sportfisherman, who obeys laws concerning catch limits and possession limits causes the demise of far fewer fish than the catch and release fisherman. The person who catches fish only for the fun of it without regard to there value as a food source is not unlike the big game hunter who kills a bull elk only for the fun of it(or perhaps a set of horns over the mantle.) Estimates of the survivability of game fish that are caught and then released back into the water range from 10% to as high as 50%.  With mortality rates this high, I feel that the practice of catch and release should be outlawed. The simple fact of the matter is that a catch and keep sportfisherman, who obeys laws concerning catch limits and possession limits causes the demise of far fewer fish than the catch and release fisherman. The person who catches fish only for the fun of it without regard to there value as a food source is not unlike the big game hunter who kills a bull elk only for the fun of it(or perhaps a set of horns over the mantle.)

Where the heck did you get your numbers? This "estimate" (Defined as an educated guess) is way out of line with data gathered from actual research, which shows mortality on released fish to be lower than 3% with barbless flys, and never even near this 50% even with multi-point, barbed and baited hooks. The "Simple fact" is that those who ignorantly condemn certain practices based on false conjecture serve only to harm the resource they intend to protect, if that is even their true motive. And how, then, would you explain why certain fish can be fooled and released over and over year after year, in the same place? And those beautiful wild Deschutes red-band rainbows that (sadly) have several hook-holes in their jaws a couple of weeks into the famous salmon fly hatch? They would never reach their 14" to 20" typical size even at a 10% mortality rate! Get your facts straight before you start throwing words like "outlaw" around OK? The last thing we (or the fish) need is more misguided legislation!

Response:

Ever notice how people who post messages like this don’t use their name?

Response:

Estimates of the survivability of game fish that are caught and then released back into the water range from 10% to as high as 50%.  With mortality rates this high, I feel that the practice of catch and release should be outlawed. The simple fact of the matter is that a catch and keep sportfisherman, who obeys laws concerning catch limits and possession limits causes the demise of far fewer fish than the catch and release fisherman. The person who catches fish only for the fun of it without regard to there value as a food source is not unlike the big game hunter who kills a bull elk only for the fun of it(or perhaps a set of horns over the mantle.)OR POSTS indefensible trip such as this. If this is your actual thought,

you really and truly should contact any qualified biologist that has monitored catch and release lakes. I think you would have to rethink your position.         Further, If I catch 10 keepers and release them, even with your high mortality rates-which are very suspect-I am hundreds of percentage points ahead of the surviavability rates of those that end up in your fry pan.           I don’t begrudge someone their meal of legally caught and kept fish, and there is a balance to be kept in mind on that point, but  for you or anyone else to begrudge my releasing fish that you might end up having for dinner next week is ludicrous. Enjoy the fishing; return the fish. Jeff O’Donnell

Response:

Where did you get your numbers? The studies that I have read list the survival rate of a fish caught and released on a fly at about 99%. With a spinner, it drops to 90 to 95%. The lowest is with bait because the fish has the opprotunity to take the hook deep in the vital areas. With bait it drops to about 75%. I spend alot of time fishing in the South Platt River, you would be hard pressed to find a harder fished river and much of it is C&R. It is full of some large and very smart rainbow and brown trout, I reciently caught a 24 inch rainbow. If your numbers were correct, there would be no fish in the river.Amen! Further, thos of us that fish the same small waters can track some

fish over a period of two to four years. Enjoy the fishing;return the fish Jeff O’Donnell

Response:

Ever notice how people who post messages like this don’t use their name? Hey Mike:

I never really though about it, logflyer is my E-mail account name.  But for your information my name is Mike Golden, I live in Idaho and if there is anything else youd like to know about me please dont hesitate ot E-mail me.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Estimates of the survivability of game fish that are caught and then released back into the water range from 10% to as high as 50%.  With mortality rates this high, I feel that the practice of catch and release should be outlawed. The simple fact of the matter is that a catch and keep sportfisherman, who obeys laws concerning catch limits and possession limits causes the demise of far fewer fish than the catch and release fisherman. The person who catches fish only for the fun of it without regard to there value as a food source is not unlike the big game hunter who kills a bull elk only for the fun of it(or perhaps a set of horns over the mantle.)OR POSTS indefensible trip such as this. If this is your actual thought, you really and truly should contact any qualified biologist that has monitored catch and release lakes. I think you would have to rethink your position.    Further, If I catch 10 keepers and release them, even with your high mortality rates-which are very suspect-I am hundreds of percentage points ahead of the surviavability rates of those that end up in your fry pan.      I don’t begrudge someone their meal of legally caught and kept fish, and there is a balance to be kept in mind on that point, but  for you or anyone else to begrudge my releasing fish that you might end up having for dinner next week is ludicrous. Enjoy the fishing; return the fish. Jeff O’Donnell

        If you’re ripping the swallowed #4 hook from the guts of the fish while squeezing hard with a dry hand. . . then yes you will kill the fish.         Catch and release is technique: barbless hooks, set in the jaw, released without touching or lifting the fish from the water. And don’t play them ’til they’re "dead in the water" . . . These fish sustain insignificant wounds to the jaw and swim away unharmed. Survival is in the very high 90% (I’ll bet I get 100%!!)

Response:

What species of fish are you talking about? Is this just salmonoids or are you applying your rules to tarpon, bonefish, fresh water catfish, etc? Just curious. Charlie…

Response:

Estimates of the survivability of game fish that are caught and then released back into the water range from 10% to as high as 50%.  With mortality rates this high, I feel that the practice of catch and release should be outlawed.   The simple fact of the matter is that a catch and keep sportfisherman, who obeys laws concerning catch limits and possession limits causes the demise of far fewer fish than the catch and release fisherman. The person who catches fish only for the fun of it without regard to there value as a food source is not unlike the big game hunter who kills a bull elk only for the fun of it(or perhaps a set of horns over the mantle.)

Response:

Where did you get your numbers? The studies that I have read list the survival rate of a fish caught and released on a fly at about 99%. With a spinner, it drops to 90 to 95%. The lowest is with bait because the fish has the opprotunity to take the hook deep in the vital areas. With bait it drops to about 75%. I spend alot of time fishing in the South Platt River, you would be hard pressed to find a harder fished river and much of it is C&R. It is full of some large and very smart rainbow and brown trout, I reciently caught a 24 inch rainbow. If your numbers were correct, there would be no fish in the river.

Response:

survivability of game fish that are caught and then released back into the water range from 10% to as high as 50%.  With mortality rates this high, I feel that the practice of catch and release should be outlawed.<< If that were in fact the case I’d agree with you. Fortunately there was a good study in MI two years ago or so that indicated that if fish were properly handled and released then mortality rates in the very low single digits could be expected. After this study was published Paul Burgess at Airflo in the UK sponsored a study that had similar results. If I’m not mistaken a PA study also showed similar results. Methinks the bottom line is that if a fish is brought in as soon as possible rather than being played to death, is kept in the water, handled gently with wet hands and properly revived, then released, mortality can be very low. I keep lots of panfish and the occasional trout for the skillet, but C&R has been proven effective as a tool for better management of a declining resource in a time of increased fishing pressure. All this chest thumping by those opposed to C&R was entertaining for a while, and hopefully gets the attention of those who would force C&R as a religion down the throats of everyone. Just the same the entertainment factor has worn off, the chest thumping of those who want to stick their heads in the sand and pretend C&R is not a good management tool is just so much schlock, and the debate now sounds like what you get listening to both sides of either the abortion or gun debates in the U.S. with everyone talking, but no one really paying much attention. Fair winds and following seas, Pat in Pawtucket  RI

Response:

Estimates of the survivability of game fish that are caught and then released back into the water range from 10% to as high as 50%.  With mortality rates this high, I feel that the practice of catch and release should be outlawed.   The simple fact of the matter is that a catch and keep sportfisherman, who obeys laws concerning catch limits and possession limits causes the demise of far fewer fish than the catch and release fisherman. The person who catches fish only for the fun of it without regard to there value as a food source is not unlike the big game hunter who kills a bull elk only for the fun of it(or perhaps a set of horns over the mantle.)

Logflyer,     Where did you get those stats, they are much lower than those reported in the literature ? I have ( read) numbers for flyfishing in the 90 – 99 % range.     I do think you are being unfair about the C & R / gamehunter analogy. Most fisherman I think practice C  & R to selfishly conserve the resource so they (we) can go back and catch them again, quite unlike the Big-game hunter. If your stats are correct, and it is a reputable scientific study then we should rethink C & R because we are fooling ourselves. But  "gamefish" is a rather large generic. Does your info break out fish species, angling methods, etc. with an                                                                                           Jody – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

Estimates of the survivability of game fish that are caught and then released back into the water range from 10% to as high as 50%.  With mortality rates this high, I feel that the practice of catch and release should be outlawed.  

virtually all published studies indicate that release mortalities with artificial lures range from less than 4% (BC STEELHEADS) to no more than 10 or 12 %. Bait produces mortality of 15 % or higher on some salmonids. Experience with many catch and release fisheries including those under very heavy fishing pressure is that fish populations stay high or increase What studies or information are you using? What terminal tackle choices are you inferring are being used? DH

Response:

logflyer, For some reason your logic isn’t fiting for me.  As much as I fish here in Montana and kept all the fish I caught during the season and all my freind did it also  100% of the fish would be gone and we all’d be eating Trout everyday to keep possesion limits legal. If I kill 50% of the fish I land that’s better than 100% taken. My freind like that, expecially if it’s a big spawner. If my logic has flaws please explain more I’m always open to new logic. Lar’s – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Estimates of the survivability of game fish that are caught and then released back into the water range from 10% to as high as 50%.  With mortality rates this high, I feel that the practice of catch and release should be outlawed.   The simple fact of the matter is that a catch and keep sportfisherman, who obeys laws concerning catch limits and possession limits causes the demise of far fewer fish than the catch and release fisherman. The person who catches fish only for the fun of it without regard to there value as a food source is not unlike the big game hunter who kills a bull elk only for the fun of it(or perhaps a set of horns over the mantle.)

Response: