Question:

 I find a 6 weight rod is a supurb compromise in that it is not worth a damn for either. You go Big Dale. Best gawdang advise posted here in months. A 6wt, imo, is the  ultimate all-around weight rod for flyfishing. From nc small-stream trout, to cedar key redfish, a 6wt is the best all- around weight rod any flyfisher can have in his arsenal.

Bullshit, a six weight is the most useless weight to own for any fly fisherman who owns more than one rod. Get a 4/5 and then a 7. Too damn big for MOST trout and pan fishing and too damn small for MOST sw and fw application. There’s a reason I only own one six weight <g — Wayne Knight Expert in creating tailing loops and windknots Otherwise Fishless in Kansas Before you buy.

Response:

if the drag on your reel is of sufficient quality, and if your tippet is sufficiently strong, and if you have sufficient experience, then landing a 100lb tarpon on a 3wt should be no different than doing the same thing on a 9wt, *assuming you can deliver the fly to the fish*.  

You could probably kill a tarpon with a 3wt, but I doubt you could lift it to the boat with a 3wt. Bigger fly rods have purpose other than delivering bigger files. FWIW — Charlie…

Response:

Bigger fly rods have purpose other than delivering bigger files. FWIW

Sounds like you may already own that ultimate rod RW was talking about. Does it deliver Chinese food and pizza as well? <g –Steve

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –  I find a 6 weight rod is a supurb compromise in that it is not worth a damn for either. You go Big Dale. Best gawdang advise posted here in months. A 6wt, imo, is the  ultimate all-around weight rod for flyfishing. From nc small-stream trout, to cedar key redfish, a 6wt is the best all- around weight rod any flyfisher can have in his arsenal. Bullshit, a six weight is the most useless weight to own for any fly fisherman who owns more than one rod. Get a 4/5 and then a 7. Too damn big for MOST trout and pan fishing and too damn small for MOST sw and fw application. There’s a reason I only own one six weight <g — Wayne Knight Expert in creating tailing loops and windknots Otherwise Fishless in Kansas

ehh? please allow me shuffle my feet and to clarify…. *if* I only had one rod available to me, *and* i wanted to fish many different situations, a 9′ 6wt would be my choice, lines down. that is the advise i received when i first started flyfishing down in FL and it, imo, was very good advise. it allowed me to fish in many different waters with very little monetary outlay. now that i own many different rods for different fishing situations, the 6wt is rarely used any more. however, it will be dusted-off very soon for chasin’ chromers. walt fellow expert in creating tailing loops and windknots otherwise up-to-my-knees-in-trout in God’s Country <g

Response:

8<…. if the drag on your reel is of sufficient quality, and if your tippet is sufficiently strong, and if you have sufficient experience, then landing a 100lb tarpon on a 3wt should be no different than doing the same thing on a 9wt, *assuming you can deliver the fly to the fish*.  let me repeat that:  *assuming you can deliver the fly to the fish*.  of course, in the real world, that is a rare assumption. wayno

wayno, with all due respect, fighting a 100 pound tarpon "properly" would destroy a 3wt rod. i say "properly" in the context of releasing the fish unharmed in a timely manner so that the fish could live to return to his environment, "unchanged", or more aptly stated, "wild." the length of time it would take to land a 100 pound tarpon on a 3wt, imo, would kill the fish either by exhaustion or by shark attack. that said, if you had said "hook" vs "landed" i could have agreed with you….it would be possible to deliver a thinly-dressed streamer using a 3wt to a cruising tarpon. why anyone would choose to do so is dahlwhinnian…. to clarify, hitch a ride with zimbo tomorrow am and i’ll put you on a mountain-version "tarpon" with your 3wt. <g –kamloopy wataugan waldo — Ezflyfish.com: http://www.ezflyfish.com Blue Ridge Book Gallery: http://users.boone.net/wgw/brbg.html

Response:

Bullshit, a six weight is the most useless weight to own for any fly fisherman who owns more than one rod. Get a 4/5 and then a 7. Too damn big for MOST trout and pan fishing and too damn small for MOST sw and fw application. There’s a reason I only own one six weight <g — Wayne Knight

and I have four (counting the mix & match East Branch) and it’s my most frequently used weight.  - diffferent folks, different strokes. (8′, 8′ 6", 9′ 6", & 10′6") Peter Visit The Streamer Page at http://members.home.net/pcharles/streamers/index.html

Response:

I’m looking to building a fly rod this winter just for yucks.  I’ve done several casting rods in the past, but this would be a first. Can anybody recommend a good blank to use – expense isn’t really a factor, so any recommendation would be appreciated. Thanks.

Response:

I’m looking to building a fly rod this winter just for yucks. … Can anybody recommend a good blank to use …

You’ll have to tell us more about yucks. — Ken Fortenberry

Response:

I’m looking to building a fly rod this winter just for yucks. … Can anybody recommend a good blank to use … You’ll have to tell us more about yucks.

He is my evil twin.      :)

Response:

I’m looking to building a fly rod this winter just for yucks. … Can anybody recommend a good blank to use … You’ll have to tell us more about yucks. He is my evil twin.      :)

Ah, so you want to build a rod capable of tossing a bottle of scotch 60 feet and landing a 185 lb twin. Definitely a 12wt. — Ken Fortenberry

Response:

He is my evil twin.

Oh shit, not another one of those!   <g For a cheap intro to rod building, I’d still stay away from anything too crummy.   After all, when you’re done, you do want to be proud of it and fish with it.   My first few rods were built on higher end St. Croix blanks. Well below $100 each.   I also just started on one that’s a discontinued Loomis blank (IM6) I bought off Ebay for about 40 bucks.   There are also some dealers out there who have a supply of discontinued blanks.   D&E Rods (www.danderods.com) is one.   I have a nice 3 wt. Loomis IMX blank from them awaiting my attention (don’t remember that price, but it was cheap enough that I bought a blank I don’t need.) Either way you go, I recommend a decent blank.   The hardware cost and time invested are too much to put it into a practice stick.   Even if you screw it up cosmetically, it will still fish well (I have one or two that fit that category.) Joe F.

Response:

The range and type of fly-rod blanks is very extensive. You will need to give us more information about what you wish to fish for, and under what circumstances, before we could be of any real assistance. TL MC — "Where fishing is concerned, most anglers are basically manic excessives" http://www.mikeconnor.de – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m looking to building a fly rod this winter just for yucks.  I’ve done several casting rods in the past, but this would be a first. Can anybody recommend a good blank to use – expense isn’t really a factor, so any recommendation would be appreciated. Thanks.

Response:

If anyone out there disagrees with me then I’ve got an only-once-used 6wt 3-piece Diamondback rod and matching Hardy reel I’ll sell at a very fair price –Steve

See below.  I’ve already got a 3 pce Diamondback 6 wt. with a Hardy reel but who knows, I might need a spare some day. $10.00 ?  <g Peter

Response:

Good for you. There are whores, and there are whores.  The main thing is to make sure you live happy, and if possible die in the same condition. TL MC — "Where fishing is concerned, most anglers are basically manic excessives" http://www.mikeconnor.de Yes, I’m a whore. My first fly rod, a Martin 6wt with matching martin 6 wt

<SNIP

Response:

You go Big Dale. Best gawdang advise posted here in months. A 6wt, imo, is the ultimate all-around weight rod for flyfishing. From nc small-stream trout, to cedar key redfish, a 6wt is the best all-around weight rod any flyfisher can have in his arsenal. Huh??? What happened to the *real* Walt Winter?? Not only would the real Waldo never recommend owning only one rod, but the real Waldo wouldn’t get caught dead on an NC stream *or* cedar key with a 6-weight rod.

        i don’t know what the hell this has to do with anything, or whether it makes any difference to anyone who might read this sort of thing (what *are* we doing discussing fly rods on roff, anyway?), but in my damn near fifty years of fishing with a fly rod, i have never owned a 6 weight rod.  in fact, i have never cast a heavier line than a 5 for trout, even when we girded our loins for the fabled big water and high winds of montana.  i think the issue is almost completely controlled by the question of what the size and weight of the fly might be.  if the drag on your reel is of sufficient quality, and if your tippet is sufficiently strong, and if you have sufficient experience, then landing a 100lb tarpon on a 3wt should be no different than doing the same thing on a 9wt, *assuming you can deliver the fly to the fish*.  let me repeat that:  *assuming you can deliver the fly to the fish*.  of course, in the real world, that is a rare assumption. wayno

Response:

You go Big Dale. Best gawdang advise posted here in months. A 6wt, imo, is the ultimate all-around weight rod for flyfishing. From nc small-stream trout, to cedar key redfish, a 6wt is the best all-around weight rod any flyfisher can have in his arsenal.

Huh??? What happened to the *real* Walt Winter?? Not only would the real Waldo never recommend owning only one rod, but the real Waldo wouldn’t get caught dead on an NC stream *or* cedar key with a 6-weight rod. I say buy two rods. A 7′6" 3wt for trout and (if you must) a 9′ 7wt for bass. If cost is an issue then buy two inexpensive rods. If anyone out there disagrees with me then I’ve got an only-once-used 6wt 3-piece Diamondback rod and matching Hardy reel I’ll sell at a very fair price –Steve

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – You go Big Dale. Best gawdang advise posted here in months. A 6wt, imo, is the ultimate all-around weight rod for flyfishing. From nc small-stream trout, to cedar key redfish, a 6wt is the best all-around weight rod any flyfisher can have in his arsenal. Huh??? What happened to the *real* Walt Winter?? Not only would the real Waldo never recommend owning only one rod, but the real Waldo wouldn’t get caught dead on an NC stream *or* cedar key with a 6-weight rod. I say buy two rods. A 7′6" 3wt for trout and (if you must) a 9′ 7wt for bass. If cost is an issue then buy two inexpensive rods. If anyone out there disagrees with me then I’ve got an only-once-used 6wt 3-piece Diamondback rod and matching Hardy reel I’ll sell at a very fair price –Steve

Yes, I’m a whore. My first fly rod, a Martin 6wt with matching martin 6 wt reel, was last used catching a steelie here in NC. It was first used catching bass on watermelon pond and it has also been used catching more species than any other rod in my inventory. Reminiscing, it has caught largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, suwanee bass, sunshine bass, peacock bass, many varieties of panfish, specs, redfish, black drum, snook, trout, stripers, weakfish, bonefish, gar, pickerel, barracuda, shad, tarpon, cobia (damn near lost it on that bad boy), mackeral, crevalles, ladyfish, and of course, that gorgeous chromer last winter in the company of that fine southern gentleman, Tom Brown. The butt of this rod  is still used daily as I use it as a reel "holder" when I manually load reels for sale. This rod is as much a part of me as my soul, as a matter of fact, blasphemously, one could say it is part and parcel of my soul. but i digress. my affliction spread like the plague. i acquired numerous rods and reels to fit certain needs, some psychological. although i suck at it, i even took up tying flies. i still was far from being satiated….. so, i opened a "flyshop". i now have more gawdang gear than any sane person should be allowed to possess. hundreds of reels and of rods, seemingly, enough line, leader & tippet to circumvent the earth. yet, be still, the fire burns hotter. my fervant desire now, as all invoices are paid, is to retire with all of this cool stuff. mine, all mine <g i, waldo, am a whore. ww — Ezflyfish.com: http://www.ezflyfish.com Blue Ridge Book Gallery: http://users.boone.net/wgw/brbg.html

Response:

 I find a 6 weight rod is a supurb compromise in that it is not worth a damn for either.

You go Big Dale. Best gawdang advise posted here in months. A 6wt, imo, is the ultimate all-around weight rod for flyfishing. From nc small-stream trout, to cedar key redfish, a 6wt is the best all-around weight rod any flyfisher can have in his arsenal. –walt Ezflyfish.com: http://www.ezflyfish.com Blue Ridge Book Gallery: http://users.boone.net/wgw/brbg.html

Response:

[snip] All good advice and I’ll add just one little bit more.  You can get away with a 7 or 8 wt. for small fish if you can find a short, slow action version and build it with a standard trout handle.  I lucked into an old 8′ 6" Orvis Green Mountain with a slow – moderate action and a small handle (no fighting butt.)  I’d have no difficulty using it for anything.  I’ve caught smallies under a pound that put a decent bend in it yet it’ll toss a 2/0 streamer about 80′.  I’ve tried a Fenwick HMGF 8′6" 7 wt. that also impressed me as a good all-round rod. Peter Visit The Streamer Page at http://members.home.net/pcharles/streamers/index.html

Response:

Ken wrote snip:Like I said, it’s a tough call, maybe some of the other warmwater guys in the group can recommend one and only one blank for both bluegill & bass but I’m afraid you have me stumped.

I think Ken is correct. I love my little 3 weight rods for bluegill and I take my fair share of bass on them, but they are all small bass. I don’t think I have landed a bass of over 3 pounds on one of them. There is no way in hell I can use a 3 weight to cast the flies that work best for large bass with a rod that small. I most often use  a 7 to 10 weight rod when I am fishing for sizable bass.  I find a 6 weight rod is a supurb compromise in that it is not worth a damn for either. Big Dale

Response:

RE choose a rod blank for "pan fish to bass?" Sandy’s treatise on blank choosing with an angle: A 6-weight rod is generally considered the most versatile trout rod. With a 6-weight you can cast anything from an itty-bitty mayfly on a 7x tippet to a #2 woolly bugger on 0x tippet. But if you want to cast pike flies, bass worms or extra-bushy bass poppers, you will probably want a 7 or 8 weight rod. I like 9′ rods. But some people think they have more control over shorter (8′) rods. Once you have the size down, you still have to zero in on cost and action. Some guys (actually) like soft, slow action rods, like many built by Orvis, Winston or Powell. Slow action rods are easier to cast, more graceful to use. But they don’t handle heavy flies, wind or distance casting very well. Orvis, Winston and Powell make some moderately fast rods too. The fastest, most powerful casting canons I know of are made by Sage and Loomis. Someone told me Scott makes a powerful rod, but I never tried one. Cost? The most expensive rods are the best. But how much better are they? Not a whole lot, I don’t think. I have some fly rods that cost almost $600 bucks. They’re damn good rods. But I have a few (Sage, Loomis and Cabelas) that (for finished rods) cost $180 to $220. And they’re damned good rods too. Who makes Cabelas blanks anyway? It’s Loomis isn’t it? There are some really cheap graphite fly rods showing up now, like those made by Eagle Claw. Has anybody tried those? If you like soft, slow action rods, I can’t see any reason to buy an expensive one. What you get–with more money–is casting power. — /* Sandy Pittendrigh   –O0  * http://cns.montana.edu/~sandy/  */

Response:

That’s a tough prescription to fill, Tom. I like a 3wt for bluegill and a 7wt for bass. Logically then a 5wt would be your blank of choice but I don’t think you’d be happy with it in either situation. Not that it wouldn’t work, I used an old 8′ Garcia Conolon 7/8wt for years as my one and only flyrod for bass & bluegill in the days before I knew any better and I caught a lot of fish and had great time with it. The other consideration besides rod weight is action. I like a slow action for most situations, my canoe bluegill rod is a 9′ Winston 3wt, but for tossin’ big, wind eatin’ bass bugs a faster action works better for me, something along the lines of the discontinued Sage RPL series. Like I said, it’s a tough call, maybe some of the other warmwater guys in the group can recommend one and only one blank for both bluegill & bass but I’m afraid you have me stumped. — Ken Fortenberry

Response:

Yucks,  slang, corruption of middle English, German Jux. =For fun TL MC — "Where fishing is concerned, most anglers are basically manic excessives" http://www.mikeconnor.de – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – You’ll have to tell us more about yucks. — Ken Fortenberry

Response:

The range and type of fly-rod blanks is very extensive. You will need to give us more information about what you wish to fish for, and under what circumstances, before we could be of any real assistance.

Response:

In which case, I at least, am unable to help much. I have never fished for such species. Someone else will doubtless be able to help you with regard to weight length etc. TL MC — "Where fishing is concerned, most anglers are basically manic excessives" http://www.mikeconnor.de – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The range and type of fly-rod blanks is very extensive. You will need to give us more information about what you wish to fish for, and under what circumstances, before we could be of any real assistance.

Response:

Question:

I will be making my first trip to Yosemite National Park at the end of the week and would be interested in hearing what specific recommendations people have for specific areas to flyfish for trout while I am there.  I do not have a float tube, so they would need to be lakes that are fly-fishable from the bank/wadable or  streams/creeks that are accessible for a daytrip/hike.  I am looking for areas, perhaps, where the fishing pressure hasn’t been excessive (if that exists) and someone of my beginner-intermediate skills would have a reasonable chance having fish take my fly.  Areas with plenty, albeit small trout are a-ok by me. I have tried to do some reading and one area I wondered about was the Dana Fork of the Tuolemne? Any thoughts or other rec’s? Thank you very much in advance.

Response:

Try Rafferty Creek in Tuolomne Meadows or go over 120 (Tioga Pass) and go to 395, then try the Owens drainage…large browns starting to spawn now! Larry #:)# www.sierraflyfish.com has some info (no affiliation)

Response:

Question:

This summer, starting in early June, I will be bicycling from Anchorage up the Parks Highway to Cantwell, across the Denali Highway and then over to the Alaska highway and out through the Yukon, B.C, Alberta….. I will be bringing a rod (4 pc, 6 wt?) and looking to do what fishing I can as I make my way.  Need to keep my fishing kit small.  Never been there before.  Expect I’ll see grayling.  Might I catch any of the King run on the Susitna? Any ideas on what flies I should bring would be appreciated.  I’m a newbie, but I just can’t pass on the chance to drop a line in the Great White North. I can con a friend of mine into tying up whatever you might suggest.  Also, if anyone wants to bestow the location of their favorite spots on me, I wouldn’t complain. Thanks a bunch.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – This summer, starting in early June, I will be bicycling from Anchorage up the Parks Highway to Cantwell, across the Denali Highway and then over to the Alaska highway and out through the Yukon, B.C, Alberta….. I will be bringing a rod (4 pc, 6 wt?) and looking to do what fishing I can as I make my way.  Need to keep my fishing kit small.  Never been there before.  Expect I’ll see grayling.  Might I catch any of the King run on the Susitna? Any ideas on what flies I should bring would be appreciated.  I’m a newbie, but I just can’t pass on the chance to drop a line in the Great White North. I can con a friend of mine into tying up whatever you might suggest.  Also, if anyone wants to bestow the location of their favorite spots on me, I wouldn’t complain. Thanks a bunch.

Andrew,   I assume you live in Anchorage, or are flying in for this bicycle trip. Either way, from experience flying the bush years ago up there (I flew out of Fairbanks Int’l and Merrill Field, Anchorage) if you don’t bring anything else, bring a headnet and clothes that will protect the rest of your skin from hordes of ravenous mosquitoes. They are not all that bad in the ‘big cities’ of Alaska, but can drive you absolutely crazy out in the muskeg, etc. As an example, I used to fly clients or friends out to a remote lake in the Tanana Valley, and always carried a can or two of Black Flag bug spray. As soon as the airplane doors are opened to de-plane, look out! Of course, headnets were already in place. The Black Flag was to kill ‘em when they boarded with us for the return trip. I have caught grayling on drys and wets, most of the time they are not too fussy. If you want some arm wrenching fun, try any streamer that imitates a minnow, then fish the rivers for pike. We caught pike in the Yukon and Tanana rivers until our arms hurt. These were not especially big fish, maybe average 3# or so, but just sheer numbers will wear you down. Good luck, your post brought back many fond memories. Frank Church Elkhart, IN

Response:

Question:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <snip If we’re going to split rec.boats.paddling (and rec.boats.canoing *is* a split despite the ambigous naming) the topic with the biggest chuck of traffic should be split off (whitewater) and a misc group created for everything else. For example, my proposal would be: rec.boats.paddling.whitewater rec.boats.paddling.flatwater rec.boats.paddling.misc even though I would still prefer that everything remains as it is, in one newsgroup. John, Creating rec.boats.paddling.whitewater and leaving "everyone else" in R.B.P is probably a more viable solution. 1) It’s less work than creating 3 new groups

Not really. All three groups could be proposed in the same RFD. 2) It’s less exclusive: ww postys would go to R.B.P.W and EVERYTHING else would go to R.B.P

The primary reason that I suggested using .misc is that a strong precedent has been set using this convention and it would likely be backed by Tale (David Lawrence) and other new.group gurus. 3) The volumes would be "balanced" between the groups 4) There wouldn’t be any arguments about where Sea Kayaks, S-O-T’s, etc would go

per my suggestion, anything that was ambiguous would go into r.b.p.misc. r.b.p. would only exist as a hierarchy, but not as a group.   This has been done many times before. IMHO, The creation of a WW-only group is the "best" solution to this issue.

I agree, but if a change is going to be made, following conventional usenet naming conventions would be very advantagous as far as getting support form outside the paddling newsgroups. John Fereira Stop Unsolicited Commercial Email – Join CAUCE (http://www.cauce.org) Support HR 1748, the anti-spam bill.

Response:

John, Your proposal is making excellent sense. Dan Amerman – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <snip If we’re going to split rec.boats.paddling (and rec.boats.canoing *is* a split despite the ambigous naming) the topic with the biggest chuck of traffic should be split off (whitewater) and a misc group created for everything else. For example, my proposal would be: rec.boats.paddling.whitewater rec.boats.paddling.flatwater rec.boats.paddling.misc even though I would still prefer that everything remains as it is, in one newsgroup. John, Creating rec.boats.paddling.whitewater and leaving "everyone else" in R.B.P is probably a more viable solution. 1) It’s less work than creating 3 new groups Not really. All three groups could be proposed in the same RFD. 2) It’s less exclusive: ww postys would go to R.B.P.W and EVERYTHING else would go to R.B.P The primary reason that I suggested using .misc is that a strong precedent has been set using this convention and it would likely be backed by Tale (David Lawrence) and other new.group gurus. 3) The volumes would be "balanced" between the groups 4) There wouldn’t be any arguments about where Sea Kayaks, S-O-T’s, etc would go per my suggestion, anything that was ambiguous would go into r.b.p.misc. r.b.p. would only exist as a hierarchy, but not as a group.   This has been done many times before. IMHO, The creation of a WW-only group is the "best" solution to this issue. I agree, but if a change is going to be made, following conventional usenet naming conventions would be very advantagous as far as getting support form outside the paddling newsgroups. John Fereira Stop Unsolicited Commercial Email – Join CAUCE (http://www.cauce.org) Support HR 1748, the anti-spam bill.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <snip If we’re going to split rec.boats.paddling (and rec.boats.canoing *is* a split despite the ambigous naming) the topic with the biggest chuck of traffic should be split off (whitewater) and a misc group created for everything else. For example, my proposal would be: rec.boats.paddling.whitewater rec.boats.paddling.flatwater rec.boats.paddling.misc even though I would still prefer that everything remains as it is, in one newsgroup.

John, Creating rec.boats.paddling.whitewater and leaving "everyone else" in R.B.P is probably a more viable solution. 1) It’s less work than creating 3 new groups 2) It’s less exclusive: ww postys would go to R.B.P.W and EVERYTHING else would go to R.B.P 3) The volumes would be "balanced" between the groups 4) There wouldn’t be any arguments about where Sea Kayaks, S-O-T’s, etc would go IMHO, The creation of a WW-only group is the "best" solution to this issue.

Response:

If we’re going to split rec.boats.paddling (and rec.boats.canoing *is* a split despite the ambigous naming) the topic with the biggest chuck of traffic should be split off (whitewater) and a misc group created for everything else. For example, my proposal would be: rec.boats.paddling.whitewater rec.boats.paddling.flatwater rec.boats.paddling.misc even though I would still prefer that everything remains as it is, in one newsgroup.

John, thank you for all the assistance you have been, and will continue to be in these discussions. Your long experience with these matters shows through, as does your wisdom. They are appreciated, even if we don’t necessarily agree. — Wes — Posted via Talkway – http://www.talkway.com Surf Usenet at home, on the road, and by email — always at Talkway.

Response:

Gregg, I am just curious, how long does it take you to scan the thread titles?

Seconds. "Hooked on Phonics" changed my life. Try it.

Response:

I have to disagree with the proposal to split this group, <snip                    …[I}  would miss many of 'characters' crochets by having to go back and forth between NG's. ...

In my experience, the interesting people continue to post to both groups (with some few exceptions.) It is easy enough to filter *for* these interesting people in your less-read group and just get headers for a quick scan of everything else. Mark me down for a rational split;   r.b.paddle.whitewater and optionally:  r.b.paddle.flatwater  r.b.paddle.misc (with r.b.paddle becoming a hierarchy-only) --   --Pete http://www.msen.com/~pwmeek/

Response:

- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text - John, Creating rec.boats.paddling.whitewater and leaving "everyone else" in R.B.P is probably a more viable solution. 1) It's less work than creating 3 new groups 2) It's less exclusive: ww postys would go to R.B.P.W and EVERYTHING else would go to R.B.P 3) The volumes would be "balanced" between the groups 4) There wouldn't be any arguments about where Sea Kayaks, S-O-T's, etc would go IMHO, The creation of a WW-only group is the "best" solution to this issue.

There is only one problem with this approach:  it won't work.  Since most of the whitewater folks don't mind the group as it is, they aren't going to put up the effort to "move" to a new group.  This is compounded by the folks who post only once every few months; they will continue to post to RBP for some time to come.  After this happens, WW people will crosspost to both groups (RBP and RBPW) to make sure that their messages get out to the intended audience. IMO, the only way that you will get some solitude is to create a new group. That way, you will leave the crowd behind (at least for a while). -- Steve Culy Visual Numerics, Inc.

Response:

I have to disagree with the proposal to split this group, although I haven't kayaked in years, I do marathon canoe racing, flatwater to III trips and would love to do more sea kayaking.  I enjoy this group as it is, with the hot shot rodeo'ers and the skin boaters and would miss many of 'characters' crochets by having to go back and forth between NG's.  That is if can get the new NG.  I have never felt intimidated about posting marathon stuff here and have gotten some interesting and unexpected replies.  Even the blather about religion makes me think of compfire discussions and Jack Daniels.  I fear that some of the pressure to split is "sour grapes."                 Don, an RBP 'bobber'

Response:

I encourage all interested parties to brainstorm for a renaming that would CORRECTLY describe the split.  An example might be rec.boats.paddle.whitewater rec.boats.paddle.flatwater or flatwater+touring or flatwater+tripping

Would the word  "flatwater" exclude canoe trips involving rapids?  I hope not. Would the word "touring" or "tripping" exclude flatwater paddlers who aren't into trips? Again, I hope not. Where do tripping rafters fit in? I agree that rec.boats.paddle.whitewater is a good name for paddlers who play in whitewater.  Is this likely though? Finally, let me say that I intend no criticism of Bob Solak. I think he's done a great thing by stepping up and actually doing the right thing, an RFD,

Yes. Lloyd Bowles The Mad Canoeist "Keep the open side up!" http://www.fortunecity.com/greenfield/clearstreets/358/index.html

Response:

- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text - I encourage all interested parties to brainstorm for a renaming that would CORRECTLY describe the split.  An example might be rec.boats.paddle.whitewater rec.boats.paddle.flatwater or flatwater+touring or flatwater+tripping Would the word  "flatwater" exclude canoe trips involving rapids?  I hope not. Would the word "touring" or "tripping" exclude flatwater paddlers who aren't into trips? Again, I hope not. Where do tripping rafters fit in? I agree that rec.boats.paddle.whitewater is a good name for paddlers who play in whitewater.  Is this likely though?

Good points. Also, where would surf boats fit in? The point is, is it REALLY taking people THAT long to scan thread titles? Let me time myself doing it right now....  OK, being honest now, it took me 20 seconds. Is that too big a burden to warrant splitting the groups off into discrete major chunks? If there are small special interest segments, the appropriate thing is to run a mailing list to meet those people needs. If you split the group roughly equally, all you are doing is saving, what, 10 of those 20 seconds that it took to scan thread titles? Again, this is just my opinion, but I don't think its worth it, in fact Ii fear it might actually be counter-productive when the inevitable cross postings start to occur leaving even more total thread titles to scan thru. regards, Njall regards, Njall

Response:

The point is, is it REALLY taking people THAT long to scan thread titles? Let me time myself doing it right now....  OK, being honest now, it took me 20 seconds.

And how many threads were there for you to scan through? Maybe it isn't a problem for you, but we keep having paddlers say that they are leaving this newsgroup because of the volume of posts that don't interest them.  There's a problem somewhere or this wouldn't happen. Is that too big a burden to warrant splitting the groups off into discrete major chunks? If there are small special interest segments, the appropriate thing is to run a mailing list to meet those people needs.

I've been part of a few mailing lists.  I find them less convenient & less spontaneous than newsgroups.  Also, they aren't easily found by potential new members.  If a mailing list is okay with you, why not a new newsgroup? If you split the group roughly equally, all you are doing is saving, what, 10 of those 20 seconds that it took to scan thread titles? Again, this is just my opinion, but I don't think its worth it, in fact Ii fear it might actually be counter-productive when the inevitable cross postings start to occur leaving even more total thread titles to scan thru.

So you go from 20 to 30 or 40 seconds?  It will only affect those who want to read both groups, such as myself.  It will be much better for people with interest in only one group. Lloyd Bowles The Mad Canoeist "Keep the open side up!" http://www.fortunecity.com/greenfield/clearstreets/358/index.html

Response:

I've been part of a few mailing lists.  I find them less convenient & less spontaneous than newsgroups.  Also, they aren't easily found by potential new members.  If a mailing list is okay with you, why not a new newsgroup?

Why? Because a mailing list, by nature, is intended to service a very small, very well defined topic group. A small mailing list would not create the cross-posting problems that 2 roughly equal in size and ILL-DEFINED newsgroups would. If you split the group roughly equally, all you are doing is saving, what, 10 of those 20 seconds that it took to scan thread titles? Again, this is just my opinion, but I don't think its worth it, in fact Ii fear it might actually be counter-productive when the inevitable cross postings start to occur leaving even more total thread titles to scan thru. So you go from 20 to 30 or 40 seconds?  It will only affect those who want to read both groups, such as myself.  It will be much better for people with interest in only one group.

Lloyd, thanks for acknowledging that due to cross-postings reading 2 newsgroups could take longer than reading the current rbp. One thing you didn't respond to though was my question, "Where would surf boating go?". It's an example of how ill-defined the proposed group is. Also, as a sea kayaker, i guarantee you that new people will think rec.boats.canoe is  NOT their newsgroup. Also, i notice that no one metions using kill files to screen title threads. Perhaps the real problem is that people need better newsreader software. If one filtered for about 5 river names, 5 boat brands and about 6 people's names I think about 85% of the whitewater posts could be screened out. regards, Njall

Response:

- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text - I agree that rec.boats.paddle.whitewater is a good name for paddlers who play in whitewater.  Is this likely though? Lloyd, what do you think about REC.BOATS.PADDLE.NON-WHITEWATER While I like the idea of the ww folks moving to a group called rec.boats.paddle.whitewater better, I agree that this is highly unlikely. Seems to me that the NON-WW name would accomplish what we need, it would be self descriptive, clear and understandable.

One of the best ways to go about coming up with a name for a new newsgroup proposal is to look at the precedents that have already been set. One of conventions you'll find that is commonly used is the creation of a "misc" group.  For example, for basketball discussions there are: rec.sport.basketball.misc rec.sport.basketball.pro rec.sport.basketball.college The "pro" group is for discussion of professional teams, "college" for college teams and players, and "misc" for everything else. The rec.skating hierarchy is set up similarly. It has: rec.sport.skating.misc rec.sport.skating.roller rec.sport.skating.racing rec.sport.skating.ice.recreational rec.sport.skating.ice.figure rec.sport.skating.figure The skating groups are actually similar in structure to how paddling groups could be.  Both involve different types of equipment (ice, roller, inline) as well as different styles (racing, figure, recreational) and could use a catch all group (misc) for things that don't fit into a more strictly defined box. The rec.boats.canoeing proposal follows a structure more like the rec.outdoors.fishing fiasco.   At one time there wasn't a newsgroup devoted to fishing and alt.fishing was created.  A year or so later someone had the bright idea to create a fishing group in the the rec hierarchy and chose rec.outdoors.fishing as it's title. For many years the only group in the rec.outdoors hierarchy were the fishing groups and there was no corresponding rec.indoors group.  Groups like rec.climbing, rec.kites, rec.scuba, rec.skydiving; all recreational activites that take place in outdoors never made it into the rec.outdoors hierarchy. A few years ago I wrote and initiated an RFD for rec.outdoors.fishing.fly.tying.  Even though the act of tying flies doesn't typically take place in the outdoors I was more or less forced to put it under rec.outdoors.fishing.fly because that's where all of the flyfishing discussion took place. If we're going to split rec.boats.paddling (and rec.boats.canoing *is* a split despite the ambigous naming) the topic with the biggest chuck of traffic should be split off (whitewater) and a misc group created for everything else. For example, my proposal would be: rec.boats.paddling.whitewater rec.boats.paddling.flatwater rec.boats.paddling.misc even though I would still prefer that everything remains as it is, in one newsgroup. John Fereira Stop Unsolicited Commercial Email - Join CAUCE (http://www.cauce.org) Support HR 1748, the anti-spam bill.

Response:

So you go from 20 to 30 or 40 seconds?  It will only affect those who want to read both groups, such as myself.  It will be much better for people with interest in only one group. Lloyd, thanks for acknowledging that due to cross-postings reading 2 newsgroups could take longer than reading the current rbp.

If your newsreader is compliant to standard this is not true.  When an article is crossposted to more then one newsgroup it should only appear in the first one that you read if your newsreader is written correctly.  If you're seeing an article that has been crossposted in both groups twice there's something wrong with your newsreader. I don't think correctly crossposted articles is the problem though.  The problem is articles which are posted to the two different groups separately. The most frequent postings of these types are article which are off-topic for *both* groups (i.e. make money fast postings, commercial solicitations). If I am reading two separate groups instead of one it means I have to delete inappropriately posted articles twice. One of the other problems with crossposting is thread drift.  It often doesn't take more then a couple of responses from a thread that might have been appropriate in two separate groups to drift to a topic that is only appropriate in one.   One thing you didn't respond to though was my question, "Where would surf boating go?". It's an example of how ill-defined the proposed group is. Also, as a sea kayaker, i guarantee you that new people will think rec.boats.canoe is  NOT their newsgroup. Also, i notice that no one metions using kill files to screen title threads. Perhaps the real problem is that people need better newsreader software. If one filtered for about 5 river names, 5 boat brands and about 6 people's names I think about 85% of the whitewater posts could be screened out. regards, Njall

John Fereira Stop Unsolicited Commercial Email - Join CAUCE (http://www.cauce.org) Support HR 1748, the anti-spam bill.

Response:

I have a good isp? Woah! That's the first time anyone has said that to me.

Compared to mine. Mine misses about 75% of RBP posts. It is HELL to follow a discussion like that. You can complain about AOL -- hey, it's got to be better than that! But, the nearest place I can get to AOL is still a long-distance call for me. -- Wes -- Posted via Talkway - http://www.talkway.com Surf Usenet at home, on the road, and by email -- always at Talkway.

Response:

If a mailing list is okay with you, why not a new newsgroup? Because a newsgroup is about 100 times as resource intensive as a mailing list.

Did that whole discussion, sounds totally facetious to me. Does all rbp equal one gif? Also it was being used as an excuse to silence people. It was a lame and ugly thread.  Also, we keep getting posts that say "I left because of too many posts" which is sort like saying "nobody here but us chickens!" It seems like the people that have "left" are the ones reading the most intently! The people that *have* left (like Heimer) are the ones tired of the whining and complaining. There is something very very suspicious going on with the "I left" posts, and it certainly seems to have raised doubts in the minds of the many people who respond "How long does it really take to read the subjects?" gregg

Response:

- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text - Good points. Also, where would surf boats fit in? The point is, is it REALLY taking people THAT long to scan thread titles? Let me time myself doing it right now....  OK, being honest now, it took me 20 seconds. Is that too big a burden to warrant splitting the groups off into discrete major chunks? If there You're lucky. You have a decent ISP. I have to use Talkways, because I have a lousy one, but it's the only one available through local dialup. It takes me an hour or more to go through RBP, post by post, because trying to do it by message headers is even slower. Since this is winter and I hate TV and the water is too hard for paddling, it doesn't matter, but as soon as things warm up a bit, I often won't have the time to dink around going through post after post, looking for the perhaps five percent that interest me. -- Wes

I have a good isp? Woah! That's the first time anyone has said that to me. regards, Njall

Response:

Also, we keep getting posts that say "I left because of too many posts" which is sort like saying "nobody here but us chickens!" It seems like the people that have "left" are the ones reading the most intently!

Um, Gregg, if they are reading all the posts then they must enjoy reading all the posts so volume isn't a problem. Volume is a problem when people are reading relatively FEW posts compared to the total. Think about it. The people that *have* left (like Heimer) are the ones tired of the whining and complaining.

Trust me, there will be plenty of whining and complaining in any new/split groups as well. So, that's irrelevant. There is something very very suspicious going on with the "I left" posts, and it certainly seems to have raised doubts in the minds of the many people who respond "How long does it really take to read the subjects?"

Huh? you lost me with this last part, what's the "suspicious" stuff that is "going on'? Gregg, I am just curious, how long does it take you to scan the thread titles? regards, Njall

Response:

Good points. Also, where would surf boats fit in? The point is, is it REALLY taking people THAT long to scan thread titles? Let me time myself doing it right now....  OK, being honest now, it took me 20 seconds. Is that too big a burden to warrant splitting the groups off into discrete major chunks?

How long would it take you to scan two newsgroups? 27 seconds maybe? The point behind all of this is to provide a forum for non-ww boaters to discuss non-ww topics. In an ideal world we would have a newsgroup dedicated to WW only, in which case all *other* forms of paddling would remain in R.B.P. This would prbably result in a good balance of posts between the groups. I have seen many posts roll of my server due to excessive volume on R.B.P - which is 2x rec.backcountry and 4-5x rec.boats.building on any given day. Nobody, as far as I'm concerned is advocating the fractionalization of RBP - just a logical division.

Response:

Good points. Also, where would surf boats fit in? The point is, is it REALLY taking people THAT long to scan thread titles? Let me time myself doing it right now....  OK, being honest now, it took me 20 seconds. Is that too big a burden to warrant splitting the groups off into discrete major chunks? If there

You're lucky. You have a decent ISP. I have to use Talkways, because I have a lousy one, but it's the only one available through local dialup. It takes me an hour or more to go through RBP, post by post, because trying to do it by message headers is even slower. Since this is winter and I hate TV and the water is too hard for paddling, it doesn't matter, but as soon as things warm up a bit, I often won't have the time to dink around going through post after post, looking for the perhaps five percent that interest me. -- Wes -- Posted via Talkway - http://www.talkway.com Surf Usenet at home, on the road, and by email -- always at Talkway.

Response:

If a mailing list is okay with you, why not a new newsgroup?

Because a newsgroup is about 100 times as resource intensive as a mailing list.  Each location it sends it to is less than a piece of e-mail, however there are 100,000 locations. Traditionally, the tradeoff was guestimated at around 100 members, however the internet (and usenet) has grown signifigantly since anyone looked at it, it's probably closer to 1000 now. Jay -- * Jay Denebeim  Moderator       rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated   *

Response:

what do you think about REC.BOATS.PADDLE.NON-WHITEWATER While I like the idea of the ww folks moving to a group called rec.boats.paddle.whitewater better, I agree that this is highly unlikely.

This name may be seen as excluding canoe trip reports or route descriptions that have whitewater as a minor element. Lloyd Bowles The Mad Canoeist "Keep the open side up!" http://www.fortunecity.com/greenfield/clearstreets/358/index.html

Response:

I agree that rec.boats.paddle.whitewater is a good name for paddlers who play in whitewater.  Is this likely though?

Lloyd, what do you think about REC.BOATS.PADDLE.NON-WHITEWATER While I like the idea of the ww folks moving to a group called rec.boats.paddle.whitewater better, I agree that this is highly unlikely. Seems to me that the NON-WW name would accomplish what we need, it would be self descriptive, clear and understandable. Chuck

Response:

                     REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)                  unmoderated group rec.boats.canoeing This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of a world-wide unmoderated Usenet newsgroup rec.boats.canoeing.  This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.  Procedural details are below. Newsgroup line: rec.boats.canoeing      Discussions related to flatwater canoeing. RATIONALE: rec.boats.canoeing Discussion of flatwater canoeing, canoes, and canoe tripping constitutes a minority of the traffic on rec.boats.paddle.  A brief, and admittedly unscientific sampling of the traffic on rec.boats.paddle yielded the following results: 8% of posts were applicable to flatwater canoeing, 8% *might* be of interest to a flatwater canoeist, and 84% of posts dealt with white-water kayaking. Precise percentages are not important, rather, these numbers are presented as a snapshot of a typical day of posts. At a conservative rate of 200 posts per day, a strictly flatwater canoeist would need to sort out 164 posts that he/she considers irrelavent. A rec.boats.canoeing newsgroup would provide an alternative group that strictly flatwater canoeists could subscribe to without the nuisance of sorting inapplicable headers. There have been lengthy discussions in the past on rec.boats.paddle about splitting the newsgroup.  They have frequently ended with no RFD being written.  This proposed group is not intended to split the newsgroup.  Rather, it simply provides a place for flatwater canoeing discussion.  Paddlers who enjoy both flatwater and whitewater paddling will benefit from the ability to direct specific comments and questions toward a more focused group. CHARTER: rec.boats.canoeing Appropriate topics for rec.boats.canoeing include questions and comments about canoes, canoe accesories, canoeing technique, flatwater canoeing locations/routes, canoe camping, canoe tripping, and other flatwater canoeing related topics.  Discussion about whitewater canoeing is not prohibited, but posters should be aware that their comments and questions would generate higher quality responses in the rec.boats.paddle newsgroup.  For Sale and Wanted to Buy posts should be preceded by a [FS] or [WTB] flag in the subject header.  Retailers of both used and new boats/gear should provide links to their webpages or e-mail addresses rather than post lists of available boats/gear. Retailers should also limit such posts to a total of 1 per month or less. END CHARTER. PROCEDURE: This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes.  In this phase of the process, any potential problems with the proposed newsgroups should be raised and resolved.  The discussion period will continue for a minimum of 21 days (starting from when the first RFD for this proposal is posted to news.announce.newgroups), after which a Call For Votes (CFV) may be posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion warrants it.  Please do not attempt to vote until this happens. All discussion of this proposal should be posted to news.groups. This RFD attempts to comply fully with the Usenet newsgroup creation guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and "How to Format and Submit a New Group Proposal".  Please refer to these documents (available in news.announce.newgroups) if you have any questions about the process. DISTRIBUTION: This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:   news.announce.newgroups news.groups   rec.boats.paddle rec.backcountry rec.boats.building rec.boats.racing   (mailing list, see canoecountry.com for info)

Response:

Note followup-to is news.groups!!! Summary:  This RFD would create a confusing namespace and would not solve the problem leading to the RFD.  While I understand and sympathize with the wishes of the flatwater minority on RBP, this RFD will only confuse the issue.         rec.boats.canoeing has been proposed as a place for the non-whitewater interests of rec.boats.paddle to use, as a solution for the problems with whitewater traffic drowning out non-whitewater traffic on rec.boats.paddle.  But the name is not descriptive, for the following reasons: 1) Some non-negligible percentage of the whitewater posters on rec.boats.paddle paddle canoes, not kayaks. 2) rec.boats.canoeing does not accurately cover the sea kayaking, kayak touring and kayak tripping interests that should also be covered by this split/newgroup. 3) In American English, a "canoe" is a boat paddled with a one-bladed paddle.  In British English, the word "canoe" covers both one-bladed and two-bladed craft; in short, what Yanks call a Kayak, Brits call a Canoe.         For these reasons, the hierarchy that would result from this proposal passing would result in two groups whose names do not describe the traffic they are supposed to be carrying.  The result of this vote passing would be "rec.boats.paddle" for whitewater interests and "rec.boats.canoeing" for flatwater/touring interests.  Can anyone honestly say that they figured that out from the names?         I cannot vote for this proposal as written, and I encourage all concerned parties to honestly ask themselves if they can.  There is a serious danger here that there are many frustrated flatwater boaters willing to vote for anything that will get them out of rec.boats.paddle’s traffic.  But a poor solution is worse than no solution in the long run, and this solution will only result in confusion.         I encourage all interested parties to brainstorm for a renaming that would CORRECTLY describe the split.  An example might be rec.boats.paddle.whitewater rec.boats.paddle.flatwater or flatwater+touring or flatwater+tripping         Please, people, we’ll have to live with this vote for a long time.  Don’t screw up everybody because it’s easier to vote for the first solution offered rather than wait for the right solution.         Finally, let me say that I intend no criticism of Bob Solak. I think he’s done a great thing by stepping up and actually doing the right thing, an RFD, as opposed to countless others who think that groups are formed by a quorum of whining.  I just disagree with the name chosen for the new group.  1.01 GCS/GO d++ p+ c++ l++ u++ e+ -m+ s++/- n- h !(f)? g+ -w+ t+ r– y?  "I want to permeate the air you breathe/slide my way under your skin/place myself behind your eyes/and watch you, watch me, looking in." Katell Keineg

Response:

Question:

Hi – I’m looking for an inexpensive 3 wt rod for occasional use for panfish and trout small enough to not need my normal 5 wt. rod. Cabela’s has a Greenwood combo, with rod, reel and line for under $100. Granted, at that price I’m not expecting tremendous quality, but price is a limiting factor right now, and I’ve never heard much about Cabela’s rods. Anyone ever cast or have any experience with this rod? Get the Three Forks combo. It’s even cheaper, and it’s a fabulous value. —

I agree wholeheartedly!  I got this combo in July and I’m very pleased with it. Bill  (:=[ ]  open wide something bogus to avoid spam)

– Bill D.  (:=[ ]  open wide

Response:

Years of being a gear slave has taught me that some very nice rods can hide in the strangest places.  A buddy got a drugstore rod for $50 that is actually a lot of fun.  Generally, though, you get what you pay for, one way or the other.  Warranties, for instance.  Spend $125 or so and go St Croix, Reddington Redd Start  or some others and get a lifetime replacement warranty.  I don’t know about Cabella’s but for a $50 rod it would be surprising.  Also: just because it is a 3-wt rod, made of Graphite XXII or whatever, doesn’t mean it was well-designed or casts worth a poop.  Good engineering really does tell. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi – I’m looking for an inexpensive 3 wt rod for occasional use for panfish and trout small enough to not need my normal 5 wt. rod. Cabela’s has a Greenwood combo, with rod, reel and line for under $100. Granted, at that price I’m not expecting tremendous quality, but price is a limiting factor right now, and I’ve never heard much about Cabela’s rods. Anyone ever cast or have any experience with this rod? TIA, Sam

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Years of being a gear slave has taught me that some very nice rods can hide in the strangest places.  A buddy got a drugstore rod for $50 that is actually a lot of fun.  Generally, though, you get what you pay for, one way or the other.  Warranties, for instance.  Spend $125 or so and go St Croix, Reddington Redd Start  or some others and get a lifetime replacement warranty.  I don’t know about Cabella’s but for a $50 rod it would be surprising.  Also: just because it is a 3-wt rod, made of Graphite XXII or whatever, doesn’t mean it was well-designed or casts worth a poop.  Good engineering really does tell. Hi – I’m looking for an inexpensive 3 wt rod for occasional use for panfish and trout small enough to not need my normal 5 wt. rod. Cabela’s has a Greenwood combo, with rod, reel and line for under $100. Granted, at that price I’m not expecting tremendous quality, but price is a limiting factor right now, and I’ve never heard much about Cabela’s rods. Anyone ever cast or have any experience with this rod? TIA, Sam

    I have a Cabelas 3 forks 3wt 3piece combo (rod,reel,line, and leader) costs on sale $50.00. the reel is a bit large being for a 5 to 7 wt. and the line supplied could be better. I’ve had it to NC for trout twice, use it a good bit for panfish and small bass here and it has never let me down. Believe me a big crappie or 14" large mouth on a three weight is a hoot. When it comes to someone who needs to watch the bucks but wants to get into fly fishing for panfish and smallish trout I always recommend this combo. The alternative is the loss of another fly fisherman. By the way I made a tube for it out of a window blind cardboard tube and is a constant compannion.                                                            John Popp                                                          in Sanford Fl.

Response:

Hi – I’m looking for an inexpensive 3 wt rod for occasional use for panfish and trout small enough to not need my normal 5 wt. rod. Cabela’s has a Greenwood combo, with rod, reel and line for under $100. Granted, at that price I’m not expecting tremendous quality, but price is a limiting factor right now, and I’ve never heard much about Cabela’s rods. Anyone ever cast or have any experience with this rod? TIA, Sam

Response:

Hi – I’m looking for an inexpensive 3 wt rod for occasional use for panfish and trout small enough to not need my normal 5 wt. rod. Cabela’s has a Greenwood combo, with rod, reel and line for under $100. Granted, at that price I’m not expecting tremendous quality, but price is a limiting factor right now, and I’ve never heard much about Cabela’s rods. Anyone ever cast or have any experience with this rod?

Get the Three Forks combo. It’s even cheaper, and it’s a fabulous value. — something bogus to avoid spam)

Response:

Hi, I’d agree.  My buddy has the 7′6" 3 forks combo and really likes the rod.  I think its around $50 for rod, reel, backing, line, and a leader.  He basically threw away the reel, line, backing, and leader (which are of pretty poor quality… but what do you expect?) and ended up with just a $50 rod, but really likes it. Good luck. Tom – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Get the Three Forks combo. It’s even cheaper, and it’s a fabulous value. — something bogus to avoid spam)

Response:

Hi – I’m looking for an inexpensive 3 wt rod for occasional use for panfish and trout small enough to not need my normal 5 wt. rod. Cabela’s has a Greenwood combo, with rod, reel and line for under $100. Granted, at that price I’m not expecting tremendous quality, but price is a limiting factor right now, and I’ve never heard much about Cabela’s rods. Anyone ever cast or have any experience with this rod? TIA, Sam

  I have a cabelas 3wt 6′6". Whole shebang (line reel rod) is now on designed for including some right nice sized rainbows (up to but not yet inclusive of 4lbs) 3 hand size (10" long) panfish and a couple of bass over 11".A real blast on these size fish. It’s the three forks combo model 763, order #tx-31-1504-763. I can tell you it is a great rod within it’s limits, the reel is a 567 so a bit large but is extremely light (graphite). I don’t think you can beat it for bang/buck buying.                                                     John Popp                                                   in Sanford Fl.

Response:

Thanks to everyone for the replies. It sounds unanimous – Three Forks it is! And for even less money than I had intended to spend… Sam – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi – I’m looking for an inexpensive 3 wt rod for occasional use for panfish and trout small enough to not need my normal 5 wt. rod. Cabela’s has a Greenwood combo, with rod, reel and line for under $100. Granted, at that price I’m not expecting tremendous quality, but price is a limiting factor right now, and I’ve never heard much about Cabela’s rods. Anyone ever cast or have any experience with this rod? TIA, Sam  I have a cabelas 3wt 6′6". Whole shebang (line reel rod) is now on designed for including some right nice sized rainbows (up to but not yet inclusive of 4lbs) 3 hand size (10" long) panfish and a couple of bass over 11".A real blast on these size fish. It’s the three forks combo model 763, order #tx-31-1504-763. I can tell you it is a great rod within it’s limits, the reel is a 567 so a bit large but is extremely light (graphite). I don’t think you can beat it for bang/buck buying.                                                    John Popp                                                  in Sanford Fl.

Response:

Question:

    my best buddy has managed an invitation to fish the headwaters of the north platte, just over the wyoming line from colorado, on a working ranch near saratoga.  he knows nothing about the water, although he is highly accomplished at fishing here in the appalachians.     thus, these requests for information…does anyone know any details about this section of the n.platte?  flies of choice (early to mid august); how big is the water; is it too cold to wade without neoprene; are there any tributaries in the area that hold brookies; any other good (or better) water within an hour or so?     remember, this is a one time trip, so it isn’t like you would be disclosing secrets to the great unwashed masses.  please send replies email, or call me collect at 336-275-1231.     thanks for the help.     wayne harrison

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –     my best buddy has managed an invitation to fish the headwaters of the north platte, just over the wyoming line from colorado, on a working ranch near saratoga.  he knows nothing about the water, although he is highly accomplished at fishing here in the appalachians.     thus, these requests for information…does anyone know any details about this section of the n.platte?  flies of choice (early to mid august); how big is the water; is it too cold to wade without neoprene; are there any tributaries in the area that hold brookies; any other good (or better) water within an hour or so?     remember, this is a one time trip, so it isn’t like you would be disclosing secrets to the great unwashed masses.  please send replies email, or call me collect at 336-275-1231.     thanks for the help.     wayne harrison

Wayne; Two information sources I can think of, and both are excellent IMO: <<www.rockymtnflyfisher.com and Fly Fishing The North Platte by Rod Walinchus, Pruett Publishing, Boulder, CO, 800-247-8224. Rocky Mountain Fly Fisher produces a Windows CD-ROM with info and maps on sevreal dozen Rocky Mountain streams. Al Marlowe

Response:

Question:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -My roomate and I want to go on a week long vacation sometime between 12/18 and 1/3   I want to be on a beach and outside of the US.  We’re flying out of NYC with a budget of approx $1100 each.  We may be able to use frequent flyer miles for the air.  Last year we went to Costa Rica and loved it, but want to try somewhere else. WE are flying out of New York and would like to stay within 5 hours of flight time. Everything either appears to be sold out or too expensive. Any recommendations? Thanks, Michelle

Michelle, I have been going to Belize for the last few years. Lots of eco/jungle stuff on the mainland, jungle rivers and Maya ruins. Life on the islands/cayes is very nice. Fishing, snorkeling, scuba, boating and sight seeing is great. Bill Kiene Kiene’s Fly Shop Sacramento,CA,USA 800/4000FLY

Response:

The Dominican Republic.  It should fit nicely into your budget and that would be for an all-inclusive resort.  We went to Paradise Beach Club in Puerto Plata a few years ago for $900. each. There are flights now directly into Punta Cana and there are specials on three resorts there for under to just above your budget; again for all inclusive resorts – all meals, drinks, activities. This year we went to Punta Cana and loved the beach there.  Had a wonderful vacation.  If you want specifics, e me directly. Kathy Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not to your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him and He will direct your paths.  Proverbs 3:5-6

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -My roomate and I want to go on a week long vacation sometime between 12/18 and 1/3 I want to be on a beach and outside of the US.  We’re flying out of NYC with a budget of approx $1100 each.  We may be able to use frequent flyer miles for the air.  Last year we went to Costa Rica and loved it, but want to try somewhere else. WE are flying out of New York and would like to stay within 5 hours of flight time. Everything either appears to be sold out or too expensive. Any recommendations? Thanks, Michelle

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – My roomate and I want to go on a week long vacation sometime between 12/18 and  1/3 I want to be on a beach and outside of the US.  We’re flying out of NYC with a  budget of approx $1100 each.  We may be able to use frequent flyer miles for  the air.  Last year we went to Costa Rica and loved it, but want to try  somewhere else. WE are flying out of New York and would like to stay within 5 hours of flight  time. Everything either appears to be sold out or too expensive. Any recommendations? Thanks, Michelle

Have you looked at Cancun, Mexico. A few years ago we stayed at the Club Las Velas.  It was all-inclusive, under $1000. had real good entertainment and a young party mood crowd if that is what you like. The food was pretty good and the rooms were not fancy but clean.  They are not directly on the ocean but on  the canal and have a boat that takes you to a beach club. (They do have their own beach on the canal with kayaks, sailboats, snorkling)  There are a lot of other things to see in the area also. and you can hop a bus for 30 cents right in front of the hotel and go anywhere you want on the strip – shopping, beach, restaurants, clubs, other hotels.  We also felt very safe there as it is geared to the tourist.  Check with your travel agents.  Marianne — Visit "The Grand Isle Connection" http://www.GrandIsle.together.com

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – My roomate and I want to go on a week long vacation sometime between 12/18 and 1/3 I want to be on a beach and outside of the US.  We’re flying out of NYC with a budget of approx $1100 each.  We may be able to use frequent flyer miles for the air.  Last year we went to Costa Rica and loved it, but want to try somewhere else. WE are flying out of New York and would like to stay within 5 hours of flight time. Everything either appears to be sold out or too expensive. Any recommendations? Thanks, Michelle

If you look at our BVI pages, below, you’ll see our preferences If you check with the major bareboat outfits, you might find an all-inclusive trip within your budget. They usually have a by-the-cabin charter running with one of their professional captains for a very reasonable price. Trouble is that you’re going during the absolute peak of the Caribbean season, but if you can swing it, all your land-based vacations will fade into a hazy memory. On my 4th trip, I introduced Pat to the BVI starting with 5 days onshore. Knowing the area, we hit all the good spots and she opined that it was up amongst her best vacations ever (and she’s got some good experience.) She Seemed a little sad as we prepared to take posession of our home for the next 8 days, leaving the shore behind. Two days later, her mind was completely and utterly blown. The time onshore had not prepared her for the intensity of sensations she experienced; anchoring for the night in a perfect little cove on a nearly deserted island. Waking up and sailing a short distance to The Baths and playing amongst boulders that seemed like a giant child’s blocks carelessly heaped an the shore; snorkling through virtual clouds of fish while examining coral (that she soon found out was not the most brilliant in the BVI). Then eating lunch and sailing into North Sound and the Bitter End Yacht Club, an upscale resort where they MUST rake the beach at least twice daily — not a cigarette butt to be found — and having dinner in those sumptous surroundings… And then it got better. And better. (44 days, 13 hours until we return….) — Jere Lull Xan-a-Deux — ‘73 Tanzer 28 #4 — out of Tolchester, MD Xan’s Pics & Specs:      http://www.dca.net/~jerelull/X-Main.html British Virgin Islands:  http://www.dca.net/~jerelull/BVI.html

Response:

Question:

Jess writes: Hello I am going to try flyfishing for stripers here in OK. this spring and I am wondering if I really need a reel with a 200 yd backing capacity ? It seems your tippet would break just from the resistance of the flyline in the water.

                                                                 Thanks                                                                    Jess Jess, you are correct.  ~~150 yards ought to do it…. I’ve had fish go " over the hill" of a rapid and take more than this, but don’t recall landing any of them.  In open water, chase ‘em, in a river, finesse is better. A common method is to let the line go completely slack, the fish will then swim upstream back to you…  Have fun… Alan E. Hoover Anglers’ Rest Powhatan, Va        *the trout teach many, lessons*

Response:

Hello I am going to try flyfishing for stripers here in OK. this spring and I am wondering if I really need a reel with a 200 yd backing capacity ? It seems your tippet would break just from the resistance of the flyline in the water.                                                                  Thanks                                                                    Jess

Response:

Question:

Hi everyone,         I am new to this sport.  I’ve been spin-fishing for all my life and was suddenly introduced to the world of fly-fishing last summer.  I am a beginner and would like to know where to purchase informative videos on this sport. My starting outfit consists of the L.L.Bean angler outfit (8 1/2 ft. 6-7 wt. rod and reel).  My local library doesn’t stock many books on the subject either, so if you have any recommendations, please e-mail them to me.  I accidentally broke about 3 inches off of my rod tip in my car window (damn those power windows!) and I would like to know how to go about repairing it. L.L.Bean said it would take 1-1 1/2 months!  Is the rod going to be as serviceable after repair?  Is my starting outfit of a quality worth investing into a repair?  If anyone would like to share their wisdom with me, I would greatly appreciate it!  If you wish to give me a hand, please e-mail me at:                                 Humbly Yours,                                 Robert Greenleaf  (Rob) P.S. I am also looking for someone to correspond with regarding tips and tactics until I am better versed in this sport.  I am a sport fisherman who believes in sustainable fishing.  Thank you once again.

Response:

: Hi everyone, :         I am new to this sport.  I’ve been spin-fishing for all my life and was : suddenly introduced to the world of fly-fishing last summer.  I am a beginner : and would like to know where to purchase informative videos on this sport. If you want specifics, I think the older 3M – Doug Swisher series is great.  Swisher is a good instructor, except he makes me mad the way he *always* hooks a large fish.  *Always*.  Even his buddies he brings in to help get large fish.  I wonder how that works…<g "Oh…Good Fish on!  Big Rainbow.  Good Fish…"  Thanks for the informative commentary, Doug. — Rick T. Rick Fletcher   –   http://www.chem.uidaho.edu/~fletcher/ Assistant 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:

Question:

: Every once in awhile I foul hook a trout. I think it is becasue : they are "bumping" the nymph so when I strike I’m likely to foul : hook it. Exactly.  And it seems an unavoidable side affect of nymphing.   Barbless flies or not, this can cause considerable harm to a fish…have you ever reeled one in by the eyeball…really, let’s face it folkes…nymphing is very, very similar to drifting bait… Tim Walker

Most of my nymphing is done by upstream casting to individual feeding trout. This technique is effective and foul hooks very few fish. Ian Walker

Response:

What you need are some brothers to go fishing with you. Me and my brothers call it "Ass-ing" (refering to foul hooking, sometimes literally in the anus).  When one of us "Asses" a fish the other two jump in with verbal taunting and abuse (ie.. we make yipe-ing sounds like would a puppy if you stepped on its paw- Yipe, Yipe, Yipe!).   Anyway the verbal abuse is so bad that you seem to fish more carefull and "Ass" less fish.  Not sure why, but is seems to work! *note* If you don’t have brothers, drinking buddies seem to do.

Response:

[deleted] : Me and my brothers call it "Ass-ing" (refering to foul hooking, sometimes : literally in the anus).  When one of us "Asses" a fish the other two jump : in with verbal taunting and abuse (ie.. we make yipe-ing sounds like would : a puppy if you stepped on its paw- Yipe, Yipe, Yipe!).   Ahh yes…the gentle sport…..

Response:

This foul hooking thread is interesting. I am not a biologist, but I suspect that if everyone fished barbless flies, it wouldn’t be such a big deal. Not sure, but thats what I suspect. Dale Owens

You may not be a biologist, but you’re right on the money.  A recent review of many scientific studies, published in peer reviewed journals compiled data on thousands of fish.  They showed a lower mortality of fish caught on barbles hooks.  The reference has been posted to the group several times, and I have it at my home office if you email me.  Bottom line is, we can’t help the occasional foul hookup, nor the hookup with a fish outside the legal size limit, but we can assure that such fish have a better chance of survival after we release them.  One of the best ways to improve fish survival is to use barbles hooks.  Other good practices are to use single point hooks, use artificial lures only (eg flies), keep the fish in the water, and land your fish quickly.  Good luck. . Lenny Bloksberg . .

Response:

This foul hooking thread is interesting. I am not a biologist, but I suspect that if everyone fished barbless flies, it wouldn’t be such a big deal. Not sure, but thats what I suspect. Dale Owens You may not be a biologist, but you’re right on the money.  A recent review of many scientific studies, published in peer

Foulhooking mainly occurs on bright sunny days when a trout’s eyesight is diminished, they simply miss the fly, you strike … and you see the results of the contortions of a fish when in the act of taking a live insect of various phase…although I doubt that the barb has anything to do with the subject, they are terrific to use!!! they result in a pretty *clean* release without handling the fish at all, just a twist, and they’re off. Consultant_of_the_LDR steve d.

Response:

This past weekend, while flyfishing (#14 caddis) my friend and I each foul hooked a trout. I was using a dropper, tied with a 12" tippet to the shank of the dry, but I saw the ‘bow go for the dry and that’s the hook that caught him, on the anal fin. It happens.

Response:

This past weekend, while flyfishing (#14 caddis) my friend and I each foul hooked a trout. I was using a dropper, tied with a 12" tippet to the shank of the dry, but I saw the ‘bow go for the dry and that’s the hook that caught him, on the anal fin. It happens.

Yes, it happens.  But it shouldn’t!   Using adropper setup is just inviting foul hooking and abusing the trout.  If you are planning on releasing the fish you catch, don’t use a dropper setup.                                                 Dallas, TX                                               Ennis, MT

Response:

Does anybody else have persistent problems foulhooking trout while nymphing? I’ve never heard this discussed, but I seem to hook more than my share. I’ve been nymph fishing for about 15 years, and the problem is not getting any better! Lyndon Lampert

Response:

I don’t have any problems with it because I have no idea what it is. Excuse the question of a beginner, but what is foulhooking? Brew on! Bill Rucker Email- Work                                            Home

Response:

I don’t have any problems with it because I have no idea what it is. Excuse the question of a beginner, but what is foulhooking?

Snagging.  Hooking a fish anywhere other than in the mouth, and/or for a reason other than that the fish attempted to eat the lure/fly. -tgades

Response:

: Does anybody else have persistent problems foulhooking trout while : nymphing? I’ve never heard this discussed, but I seem to hook more than : my share. I’ve been nymph fishing for about 15 years, and the problem is : not getting any better! It does happen quite a bit while nymphing, even in streams that aren’t literally packed with trout.  It happens to me just as often dry fly fishing though, perhaps even more often.  Using barbless hooks can minimize the damage and you can LDR the fish once you see he’s foul hooked.

Response:

Does anybody else have persistent problems foulhooking trout while nymphing? I’ve never heard this discussed, but I seem to hook more than my share. I’ve been nymph fishing for about 15 years, and the problem is not getting any better! Lyndon Lampert

I haven’t be fishing as long as you, but I have also has that problem (only once but for me that is enough to be a problem) I would like to known what can be done to prevent this from happening.                                                 Brian —

Response:

Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Does anybody else have persistent problems foulhooking trout while nymphing? I’ve never heard this discussed, but I seem to hook more than my share. I’ve been nymph fishing for about 15 years, and the problem is not getting any better! I have had the same problem,  What I think happens, although I have not proven it, is that a fish rubs agains the leader.  Enthusiastic "setting" of the hook snags either that fish or one near by.  After all, except for scale, this exactly the way you would snag fish on purpose.

Response:

This foul hooking thread is interesting. I am not a biologist, but I suspect that if everyone fished barbless flies, it wouldn’t be such a big deal. Not sure, but thats what I suspect. Dale Owens

Response:

Every once in awhile I foul hook a trout. I think it is becasue they are "bumping" the nymph so when I strike I’m likely to foul hook it. Michael

Response:

: Every once in awhile I foul hook a trout. I think it is becasue : they are "bumping" the nymph so when I strike I’m likely to foul : hook it. Exactly.  And it seems an unavoidable side affect of nymphing.   Barbless flies or not, this can cause considerable harm to a fish…have you ever reeled one in by the eyeball…really, let’s face it folkes…nymphing is very, very similar to drifting bait… Tim Walker

Response:

let’s face it folkes…nymphing is very, very similar to drifting bait…

I don’t buy that.  Having done both types of fishing, I find them quite different.  Fish swallow bait.  It is almost impossible to remove the hook from such a fish and have it live. Also, fish will strike a bait numerous times even after it has been yanked from their mouth in an unsuccessful hook set attempt.  Not so with nymphs. In fact, this is why the nymph fisherman, and not the bait fisherman, suffers foul hooking: because he is more sensitive to any movement on the end of his line. The only similarity I see between nymphing and drifting bait, is the drag-free presentation. — -Wayne Trzyna

Response:

Does anybody else have persistent problems foulhooking trout while nymphing? I’ve never heard this discussed, but I seem to hook more than my share. I’ve been nymph fishing for about 15 years, and the problem is not getting any better!

Often, lots of foul hooks when nymphing means you’re setting the hook too slowly, i.e. you strike too late. Here’s the sequence of events.  The fish sucks in the nymph, decides it’s not food, and spits it out (this happens *very* quickly; that’s why you have to be quick on the trigger when nymphing).  You detect the strike a bit late, and set the hook after the nymph is already out of the fish’s mouth.  The fly, though, is still near the fish, and the set whips the fly and the line up past the fish, and the hook snags the fish in the belly, a fin, etc. If you don’t already use strike indicators, try them.  They can help alert you to the take that fraction of a second sooner you need to get a fair hook. Don’t wait for only the obvious takes.  Any change in your indicator or leader — a slight hesitation, a ring, a bit of drag — is possibly a take; strike early and often. Another possibility is you’re fishing at the wrong depth:  your flies are right on the bottom, but the fish are higher up; your line brushes a fish and you think it’s a strike, and again the line whips past the fish and the fly snags it.  This seems much less likely to me, though, since fish usually hold close to the bottom of the stream, because that’s where the current is least and because that’s where most of the aquatic insects live.  This may be more of an issue when nymphing in lakes or large, quiet pools. — Hewlett Packard Co.         Fort Collins, Colorado       "Think!  It ain’t illegal yet."  – George Clinton

Response:

: let’s face it folkes…nymphing is very, very similar to : drifting bait… : I don’t buy that.  Having done both types of fishing, I find them quite : different.  Fish swallow bait.  It is almost impossible to remove : the hook from such a fish and have it live. I refer only to the mechanics of the drift… Tim Walker

Response:

: let’s face it folkes…nymphing is very, very similar to : drifting bait… : I don’t buy that.  Having done both types of fishing, I find them quite : different.  Fish swallow bait.  It is almost impossible to remove : the hook from such a fish and have it live. I refer only to the mechanics of the drift…

But we were discussing snagging of fish.  This happens routinely when nymphing.  This happens damn-neared never when drifting bait, since hook is mostly shrouded.  I have never seen a bait fisher snag a fish on a river, and I’d suspect it’s fairly rare.  I have seen a drift-rig person snag many fish – but they were using heavy weight and a yarn fly, and no bait. The drift is similar, but the snagging rate is not.  That is what we are discussing. -tgades -tgades

Response:

let’s face it folkes…nymphing is very, very similar to drifting bait… I don’t buy that.  Having done both types of fishing, I find them quite different.  Fish swallow bait.  It is almost impossible to remove the hook from such a fish and have it live.

Jeez… don’t you recognize a *troll* when you see one? (Tim, don’t bother to tell me if you’re not kidding.) — Hewlett Packard Co.         Fort Collins, Colorado       "Think!  It ain’t illegal yet."  – George Clinton

Response: