Question:

    It is now the a.m. where in I can actually recognize the keyboard as a keyboard, not a checkers board.  The FBI has left my door and life is getting back to normal (who knew that using a keyboard as a checker board would hit the right url and password to deploy the black helicopters to Stewart, Iowa?).     I want to wish you all a happy New Year.  This has been a tremendous year of growth in my fly fishing skill, due in no small part to ROFFians. The Pirate’s School of Fishing With Floaty Pieces of Yarn, followed by Mike Makela’s School of Stare at the Water and Will the Fish onto your Hook (Zen subdivision) taught me nymphing.  Petah and the Pirate, after watching me go fishless all day, telling me I’ve got too much bow in my line (‘cudda said something earlier).  Wayno threatening to beat me silly if I flexed my wrist on my back cast.  Tony Norton getting me out on skinny water so I could learn stealth.     Did I fish as much as I wanted to this year? No.  Did I more than make up for it with new friends that accept me as me? Yes.   Folks who open their homes like Dave and Jo, Wayne and Dianna.  Guys who haul me from spot to spot like Stan, and the whole Boston Massacre II Clave crew.  Not one had ever met me, but you all came out to fish with me.  To Penns and Rappahannock crew and to all of you I’ve yet to fish with, to those who put in the wonderful TR’s and advice, even to those who’ve added a bit of controversy the group, I wish you all the best in the coming year. — Frank Reid Reverse email to reply.

Response:

Frank, the pleasure was all mine.  I enjoyed your company and fishing with you.  I have named that pool on the Penns "The Frank Pool".    And, Jo and I are enjoying the quilt.   Best Wishes for a safe and wonderful New Year to you and yours, Frank.  Hope to see you at Penns. Dave

Response:

Frank, the pleasure was all mine.  I enjoyed your company and fishing with you. I have named that pool on the Penns "The Frank Pool".    And, Jo and I are enjoying the quilt.   Best Wishes for a safe and wonderful New Year to you and yours, Frank.  Hope to see you at Penns. Dave

I’ll echo those comments – see you at Penns, beside the Frank Pool. Peter Visit The Streamer Page at http://home.cogeco.ca/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

Response:

Question:

Actually they are not. Change in angle of attack (not pitch)  changes the airspeed. Pitch change and angle of attack change are not always coincident, as we both well know. And of course, increased  pitch can indeed make the aircraft go up, since it can change the airspeed and therefore the power requirement, and the excess power causes the aircraft to climb.

As we say in my field, "Everything is deeply intertwingled."  Most control inputs on aircraft are NOT isolated in their effects.

Response:

Check out the latest instrument flying handbook (page 5-17). Entering a constant rate climb is different to managing a constant rate climb once you’re established – if you’re not entering it right and hence not getting established right then it probably is difficult to get it all sorted out. If you’re trying to do this in 500 foot chunks (pattern A, pattern B etc.) try a 3000 foot climb, that will give you plenty of time to work out all the relationships. Performance = power + attitude So know what power setting and what pitch angle gets the result you want, set those values and the plane will do what you want. Mat

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m about 8 hours into my instrument training and am having triouble with constant rate climbs and descents. I Just can’t seem to nail the climb or descent rate. I know that I am supposed to pitch for vertical speed and adjust power for airspeed, but I’m still all over the place. The 5-6 second lag on the VSI is throwing me off. Any suggestions? -Dennis

Response:

Learn the pitch attitude on the AI and the power that give you specific performance. Maintain attitude/power setting to see if that gives you what you want and adjust accordingly. Just don’t chase the airspeed and VSI needles. Bracket it in with small pitch or power changes. Kind of like tracking a course .. track a heading .. evaluate it’s effect .. then change heading if needed. It might help to go out VFR and make a list of the attitude and power combos that give specific descent/climb/airspeed. Write these down and memorize them as starting points in the future. I think you’re on the right track with pitching to vertical speed and adjust airspeed with power.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m about 8 hours into my instrument training and am having triouble with constant rate climbs and descents. I Just can’t seem to nail the climb or descent rate. I know that I am supposed to pitch for vertical speed and adjust power for airspeed, but I’m still all over the place. The 5-6 second lag on the VSI is throwing me off. Any suggestions? -Dennis

Response:

Well, I looked up "intertwingled", and I couldn’t find it. The nearest I  could find  is "intertwined" and "intermingled", so I will assume your word "intertwingled" is a coinage of a word to mean something between the two, or perhaps a combination thereof. The thing I fail to see is your point, unless you mean, for example, that there is an intertwingling when a  change of pitch results in a change of angle of attack which results in a change in airspeed which results in a change of the power required to maintain altitude, thus the aircraft cl;imbs. Which is what I said in the first place, so I agree.  It’s intertwingled.  So one could maintain that a pitch change is what makes the aircraft climb.   But it would indicate a lack of understanding, don’t you agree? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Actually they are not. Change in angle of attack (not pitch)  changes the airspeed. Pitch change and angle of attack change are not always coincident, as we both well know. And of course, increased  pitch can indeed make the aircraft go up, since it can change the airspeed and therefore the power requirement, and the excess power causes the aircraft to climb. As we say in my field, "Everything is deeply intertwingled."  Most control inputs on aircraft are NOT isolated in their effects.

Response:

Well, I looked up "intertwingled", and I couldn’t find it. The nearest I  could find  is "intertwined" and "intermingled", so I will assume your word "intertwingled" is a coinage of a word to mean something between the two, or perhaps a combination thereof.

You’re right, it’s a made up word, but it was coined by one of the key people in the field so it shows up from time to time. The thing I fail to see is your point, unless you mean, for example, that there is an intertwingling when a  change of pitch results in a change of angle of attack which results in a change in airspeed which results in a change of the power required to maintain altitude, thus the aircraft climbs.

Changing the pitch, changes the angle of attack, which increases lift and causes the plane to climb.  It also slows the plane down, which decreases lift.  Of course drag also plays into this, which all means that you just can’t change one control in isolation to the others no matter what you are trying to accomplish. Back when I was working for the Army, another Army lab nearby did some Human Engineering work with a fly-by-wire helicopter system.  They totally decoupled the controls as the pilot saw them:  The "collective" made you go up and down at a rate proportional to it’s displacment , the "cyclic" caused you to translate in the direction of it’s displacement, the pedals just rotated the aircraft at a speed proportional their displacment.  It evidentally drove anybody who really knew how to fly helicopters crazy as they wanted to put in the corrections that their training had conditioned them to know were required.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Well, I looked up "intertwingled", and I couldn’t find it. The nearest I  could find  is "intertwined" and "intermingled", so I will assume your word "intertwingled" is a coinage of a word to mean something between the two, or perhaps a combination thereof. You’re right, it’s a made up word, but it was coined by one of the key people in the field so it shows up from time to time. The thing I fail to see is your point, unless you mean, for example, that there is an intertwingling when a  change of pitch results in a change of angle of attack which results in a change in airspeed which results in a change of the power required to maintain altitude, thus the aircraft climbs. Changing the pitch, changes the angle of attack, which increases lift and causes the plane to climb.  It also slows the plane down, which decreases lift.  Of course drag also plays into this, which all means that you just can’t change one control in isolation to the others no matter what you are trying to accomplish.

There may be a momentary increase in lift, which causes an acceleration upwards, but I would not call it "causing the plane to climb".  I think it is more aptly called "swooping", which takes place until the aircraft returns to steady state. Steady state climbing has nothing to do with increasing lift.  It is due to excess of power.   Lift is equal to weight as it was in level flight. (Yes I know: sum of upward forces = sum of downward forces, for the purists). And one other thing.  It is quite possible to change one control in isolation to the others.  Whjat is variable is the aircraft’s resulting performance. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Back when I was working for the Army, another Army lab nearby did some Human Engineering work with a fly-by-wire helicopter system.  They totally decoupled the controls as the pilot saw them:  The "collective" made you go up and down at a rate proportional to it’s displacment , the "cyclic" caused you to translate in the direction of it’s displacement, the pedals just rotated the aircraft at a speed proportional their displacment.  It evidentally drove anybody who really knew how to fly helicopters crazy as they wanted to put in the corrections that their training had conditioned them to know were required.

Response:

Well, I looked up "intertwingled", and I couldn’t find it. The nearest I  could find  is "intertwined" and "intermingled", so I will assume your word "intertwingled" is a coinage of a word to mean something between the two, or perhaps a combination thereof. You’re right, it’s a made up word, but it was coined by one of the key people in the field so it shows up from time to time.

Which field is that?  And who? Just curious, John

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Well, I looked up "intertwingled", and I couldn’t find it. The nearest I  could find  is "intertwined" and "intermingled", so I will assume your word "intertwingled" is a coinage of a word to mean something between the two, or perhaps a combination thereof. You’re right, it’s a made up word, but it was coined by one of the key people in the field so it shows up from time to time. Which field is that?  And who?

Systems Analysis.  Tom DeMarco (principle guy at Yourdon).

Response:

Yes, I was taught to lead with a power setting. The instructor even had me make up a list of typical power settings and post them on the panel. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If you know the power setting and pitch that will give you the desired performance it should be easy.  Just set the power and pitch and the plane will climb at the desired rate.  Same thing for descents.  Don’t chase the VSI. Mike MU-2 I’m about 8 hours into my instrument training and am having triouble with constant rate climbs and descents. I Just can’t seem to nail the climb or descent rate. I know that I am supposed to pitch for vertical speed and adjust power for airspeed, but I’m still all over the place. The 5-6 second lag on the VSI is throwing me off. Any suggestions? -Dennis

– "ground zero" is clearing up, but the fallout from the towers still rains down around the world.

Response:

I struggled with this too until a seemingly obvious discovery was made; I wasn’t using the AI to set pitch.  After years of flying slippery gliders w/o AIs, and transitioning to  flying lightly loaded light aircraft, it never occurred to me to use the AI to set pitch in a climb or descent. Why?  Well, the slippery stuff is quite sensitive to pitch and not as stable as light planes, but since you fly it in turbulent conditions most of the time, and because they lack good visible references over the nose, and because power is constant (0), and because they are usually cranked over in a steep bank, I ended up using the airspeed most of time (the glider VSI is useless in determining pitch).  That is, look at the horizon then calibrate it by looking at the airspeed (esp airspeed trend).  Anyway, this works quite well in lightplanes, even under the hood when you combine it with the VSI…. at least up to a point… My instructors never really noticed except that my climbs and descents weren’t always as crisp as they should be.  I slowly discovered that I could use the AI to set a specific pitch attitude along with a specific rpm/mp to get a specific climb or descent.  One bar up, one bar down, etc.  I know the old pros here are probably snickering but I wonder if they specifically tell students how to use line widths on the AI to set up a specific pitch (?). No one told me that since my first instructional flights back in the 70s — and they probably should have covered up the AI then.  Otis, you were the first person in this post to specifically state what  one should do.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Learn the pitch attitude on the AI and the power that give you specific performance. Maintain attitude/power setting to see if that gives you what you want and adjust accordingly. Just don’t chase the airspeed and VSI needles. Bracket it in with small pitch or power changes. Kind of like tracking a course .. track a heading .. evaluate it’s effect .. then change heading if needed. It might help to go out VFR and make a list of the attitude and power combos that give specific descent/climb/airspeed. Write these down and memorize them as starting points in the future. I think you’re on the right track with pitching to vertical speed and adjust airspeed with power. I’m about 8 hours into my instrument training and am having triouble with constant rate climbs and descents. I Just can’t seem to nail the climb or descent rate. I know that I am supposed to pitch for vertical speed and adjust power for airspeed, but I’m still all over the place. The 5-6 second lag on the VSI is throwing me off. Any suggestions? -Dennis

Response:

Just fly the airplane. Get used to it. Add some power, pitch up if needed, trim, and maintain steady climb. Take power off, pitch down if needed, trim, and keep a steady descent. Just get a feel for it — there’s nothing mechanical about it. Getting a feel for the airplane you fly will tell you how much of each to do so that you can arrive at the desired point quickly and without too much fishing for the right settings. Go out on your own with the airplane, better without instructor on board, nobody to contaminate your thought process and play a couple of hours in changing its configuration to desired climbs and descents until you become smooth. Go slow flight, back and forth until you get a sense for the acceleration and deceleration while doing pitch and power changes and keeping level or exact VSI numbers. At one point I had memorized the setting on the Archer, until they rebuilt the engine and it felt like it got more power, then I had to get resettled so that I could fly my IFR routines smoothly.  Forget about the physics discussions, most folks love to talk about a subject they lack — you need solid differential calculus to truly claim to understand how exactly the forces interact but thankfully it is not needed. Just fly the damn thing.         D.         PP_ASEL IA – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m about 8 hours into my instrument training and am having triouble with constant rate climbs and descents. I Just can’t seem to nail the climb or descent rate. I know that I am supposed to pitch for vertical speed and adjust power for airspeed, but I’m still all over the place. The 5-6 second lag on the VSI is throwing me off. Any suggestions? -Dennis

Response:

Yeah, find a power and pitch combo that will give you the performance you want.  When you want a certain constant rate climb just set your power, set your pitch(and maintain it) wait till the aircraft stabilizes and then make final corrections.  Usually the aircraft will stabilize at the target airspeed if you are patient and you won’t find yourself chasing needles. Use the VSI only as a trend instrument unless you have a Vario or IVSI, even then (1) Power,for climb (2) Pitch, to airspeed (3) verify Rate when stabilized at target airspeed.  With a little practice this sequence becomes automatic , and very reliable.  Once the numbers are determined the only variant factors are mainly, load(gross wt.), altitude, configuration , and C.G. Happy Flying R.Wallace CFIAIM

Response:

That’s how I was taught early on .. and I learned back in the 70s too. One bar .. two bar .. up .. down .. xxxx rpm. I think most problems chasing the needles come from dwelling on certain instruments and not maintaining a good scan with the AI as "home base". Actually .. there’s an old book I have laying around somewhere .. I can’t recall the exact title .. I want to say "Performance Flying’"??? Anyway it explains a lot of this and actually gives examples of attitude and power for several different aircraft. I’ll try to find it and post exact title. Don’t know if it’s still available or not.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I struggled with this too until a seemingly obvious discovery was made; I wasn’t using the AI to set pitch.

Response:

Thanks for all of your suggestions. Sounds like I need to go out and do a little experimenting with the plane on my own to find the right combinations of pitch/power to get the right results.

Response:

I’m about 8 hours into my instrument training and am having triouble with constant rate climbs and descents. I Just can’t seem to nail the climb or descent rate. I know that I am supposed to pitch for vertical speed and adjust power for airspeed, but I’m still all over the place.

I don’t want to get into a pitch/power argument here, but… You already have your constant airspeed climb and descent, right? Set up the exact same way. Note your climb or descent rate. Assuming a fixed pitch propeller, add or reduce power by 100 rpm increments, maintaining the same airspeed (you’re already trimmed for it, aren’t you?) until you get the rate you want. Now you’ll know the pitch/power combination for that rate in your airplane. The 5-6 second lag on the VSI is throwing me off. Any suggestions?

You used the word "lag." So you already know the answer. WAIT the 5-6 seconds before you do anything else! – Mark Kolber APA, Denver, Colorado www.midlifeflight.com       email? replace "spamaway" with "mkolber

Response:

Okay Capt…..   when you are 100′ agl on final in your Boeing and your speed degrades, you push the nose down right…???     Read the Delta crash report at DFW many years ago and you will be enlightened…. John….. an almost 20,000 hour pilot who has is figured out

Response:

Excess power only means an airplane is capable of climbing……    increasing angle of attack makes it climb…. or changes the rate of climb

Response:

I’m about 8 hours into my instrument training and am having triouble with constant rate climbs and descents. I Just can’t seem to nail the climb or descent rate. I know that I am supposed to pitch for vertical speed and adjust power for airspeed, but I’m still all over the place. The 5-6 second lag on the VSI is throwing me off. Any suggestions? -Dennis

Many long years ago when I was in learning to fly instruments, I had the same problem. The trouble was that I found it very difficult to hold a constant pressure fore-and-aft on the yoke.  I solved the problem by locking my arm into position against the side wall of the aircraft and the arm rest.  If I needed to adjust elevators, I would move my whole arm slightly.  I could still adjust aileron with finger pressure.  Later, I learned what the trim tab was for. I still use the locked arm trick when it is bumpy.  It keeps the bumps from causing elevator inputs. The Comanche can be quite sensitive in pitch.  It works for me.  YMMV. Hank Henry A. Spellman Comanche N5903P

Response:

I know that I am supposed to pitch for vertical speed and adjust power for airspeed,

Wow!!!  20,000+ hours and never knew that this was the way that I should be doing it.  Maybe I needed a different flight instructor.  :-)  :-) Power make the airplane go up and down….. Pitch  makes the airplane go fast or slow……. These are basic aerodynamic principles. Bob Moore ATP ASMEL  B-707, B-727, L-188 CFI  ASE-IA USN  S-2F, P-2V, P-3B PanAm (retired)

Response:

Power make the airplane go up and down….. Pitch  makes the airplane go fast or slow…….

        Not according to the FAA which recommends power to establish speed and pitch to stay on the glide slope.

Response:

"Pitch to the glideslope, power to the airspeed." That’s the way I was taught to fly jets, and that’s the way the autopilot does it. Bob Gardner

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I know that I am supposed to pitch for vertical speed and adjust power for airspeed, Wow!!!  20,000+ hours and never knew that this was the way that I should be doing it.  Maybe I needed a different flight instructor.  :-)  :-) Power make the airplane go up and down….. Pitch  makes the airplane go fast or slow……. These are basic aerodynamic principles. Bob Moore ATP ASMEL  B-707, B-727, L-188 CFI  ASE-IA USN  S-2F, P-2V, P-3B PanAm (retired)

Response:

Actually they are not. Change in angle of attack (not pitch)  changes the airspeed. Pitch change and angle of attack change are not always coincident, as we both well know. And of course, increased  pitch can indeed make the aircraft go up, since it can change the airspeed and therefore the power requirement, and the excess power causes the aircraft to climb. Unless, fo course, you are on the back side of the power curve, in which case… But I know you know all that. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I know that I am supposed to pitch for vertical speed and adjust power for airspeed, Wow!!!  20,000+ hours and never knew that this was the way that I should be doing it.  Maybe I needed a different flight instructor.  :-)  :-) Power make the airplane go up and down….. Pitch  makes the airplane go fast or slow……. These are basic aerodynamic principles. Bob Moore ATP ASMEL  B-707, B-727, L-188 CFI  ASE-IA USN  S-2F, P-2V, P-3B PanAm (retired)

Response:

Power make the airplane go up and down….. Pitch  makes the airplane go fast or slow……. These are basic aerodynamic principles.

This always reminds me of the joke where the student goes out on the runway and jams the control wheel forward and the instructor asks what he’s doing and he says "when this thing hits 60, you push the throttle in and we’ll climb."  :-)

Response:

I’m about 8 hours into my instrument training and am having triouble with constant rate climbs and descents. I Just can’t seem to nail the climb or descent rate. I know that I am supposed to pitch for vertical speed and adjust power for airspeed, but I’m still all over the place. The 5-6 second lag on the VSI is throwing me off. Any suggestions? -Dennis

Response:

If you know the power setting and pitch that will give you the desired performance it should be easy.  Just set the power and pitch and the plane will climb at the desired rate.  Same thing for descents.  Don’t chase the VSI. Mike MU-2

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m about 8 hours into my instrument training and am having triouble with constant rate climbs and descents. I Just can’t seem to nail the climb or descent rate. I know that I am supposed to pitch for vertical speed and adjust power for airspeed, but I’m still all over the place. The 5-6 second lag on the VSI is throwing me off. Any suggestions? -Dennis

Response:

Question:

I wouldn’t think of hassling Dave!  He’s quite the fine gentleman.  I was just interested in his thoughts on the subject.  I didn’t get into the URL, but from the gist of the statement posted I gathered that out-of-staters were less than welcome under the bill. Could pose serious difficulties for ‘clavers, if all states pursue such a practice.  Like Ken said, kind of hard to discuss a subject–intelligently– with so little info.  Not that I could do so with all the facts. — Opie  –Planning for the Past–

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The man’s angry, Mark. It’s all right. He has a right to his feelings. He’s usually a reasonable fellow. He’ll calm down. Let him be. Maybe it’s my glasses. Some people just get pissed of about my glasses… Just curious Dave, but what outraged you about this post.  Seriously. — Opie  –Planning for the Past–

Response:

damn. you were one of the ’some’. Lennie writes: Warmest regards to some of you, To "some" of us?  How about bitin’ me, Lennie. Dave LaCourse Pirate and Bottom Dweller

O.K., then BLOW ME. Wolfgang

Response:

To "some" of us?  How about bitin’ me, Lennie. O.K., then BLOW ME.

Man am I embarrassed!! To think that I’ve forgotten the obvious history behind these responses. I feel so stupid! Or, perhaps it was before my time. Hmmm… Anyone wanna fill me in or am I going to have to do a Deja search to find the source of this latent hostility? –Steve

Response:

To "some" of us?  How about bitin’ me, Lennie. O.K., then BLOW ME. Man am I embarrassed!! To think that I’ve forgotten the obvious history behind these responses. I feel so stupid! Or, perhaps it was before my time. Hmmm… Anyone wanna fill me in or am I going to have to do a Deja search to find the source of this latent hostility?

I don’t think there’s any latent hostility. Lennie had a bit of a troll going on in his closing remark, Dave gave him a short but sweet swat for his troubles, and Wolfgang – well, that’s just Wolfgang doing his part to keep the rest of the group from sleeping… /daytripper (ie: same shite/different day

Response:

Some people are unable to distinguish between an event happening NEAR them and happening TO them. If they saw the movie "Back to School" they probably got pissed off when Rodney Dangerfield told his secretary to hold *some* of his calls. I didn’t wake up yesterday with an agenda to piss anybody off and if I had known that what I was going to write would have that effect I wouldn’t have done it. But some folks see perceive everything as a slight. They act like a few words on a computer display is the equivalent of trying to set their fucking house on fire. I find the prevailing mindset of this group to be so contentious and adversarial that it’s not worth my time. Wolfgang and Dave, LIGHTEN UP, for Pete’s sake.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – To "some" of us?  How about bitin’ me, Lennie. O.K., then BLOW ME. Man am I embarrassed!! To think that I’ve forgotten the obvious history behind these responses. I feel so stupid! Or, perhaps it was before my time. Hmmm… Anyone wanna fill me in or am I going to have to do a Deja search to find the source of this latent hostility? I don’t think there’s any latent hostility. Lennie had a bit of a troll going on in his closing remark, Dave gave him a short but sweet swat for his troubles, and Wolfgang – well, that’s just Wolfgang doing his part to keep the rest of the group from sleeping… /daytripper (ie: same shite/different day

Response:

Wolfgang and Dave, LIGHTEN UP, for Pete’s sake.

Who the hell is this Pete guy? What makes him think he’s better than anyone else? <g — Charlie…

Response:

than anyone else? <g — Charlie…

I don’t know why anyone is getting their panties iin a tightwad. Telling someone to blow me is the way I have talked since I was about six years old. I think this kind of talk is why South Park is so popular; the kids talk the same way we all have for all of our lives. There ain’t no reason to lighten up. We are just having a good time. Don’t take all this shit so serious, just enjoy it. Big Dale

Response:

Don’t take all this shit so serious, just enjoy it.

Me? Serious? <g — Charlie…

Response:

— Charlie…

Not you Charlie weknow you better than that. I meant the jerk that had his panties in a tightwad. Big Dale

Response:

Some people are unable to distinguish between an event happening NEAR them and happening TO them. If they saw the movie "Back to School" they probably got pissed off when Rodney Dangerfield told his secretary to hold *some* of his calls. I didn’t wake up yesterday with an agenda to piss anybody off and if I had known that what I was going to write would have that effect I wouldn’t have done it. But some folks see perceive everything as a slight. They act like a few words on a computer display is the equivalent of trying to set their fucking house on fire.

Look, asshole – are you threatening to burn my house down?  Sheesh, some people….  And just why are calling some school secretary and telling her to hold my calls?  And don’t pull any of that coy, "Oh, I didn’t mean you" bullshit.  I may be paranoid, but I can read between the lines (well, I can when I have on my thick glasses and can see my monitor)….. I find the prevailing mindset of this group to be so contentious and adversarial that it’s not worth my time.

Well, yeah, there’s that, of course.  This contentiously adversarial attitude is slyly hidden from those who read ROFF before posting, therefore insuring a fresh supply of concerned citizens for Wolfgang and Dave to eat for lunch…. Wolfgang and Dave, LIGHTEN UP, for Pete’s sake.

It’s the rich diet and winter inactivity – typing, apparently, ain’t exercise… R

Response:

Big Guy writes: Not you Charlie weknow you better than that. I meant the jerk that had his panties in a tightwad.

I didn’t know Peter wore panties!   Dave LaCourse Pirate and Bottom Dweller

Response:

Not you Charlie weknow you better than that. I meant the jerk that had his panties in a tightwad.

Oh, you mean LaPlac… <G — Charlie…

Response:

Uh Dave, can you move me out of *that* cabin? Frank (no crossdresser here) Church

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Big Guy writes: Not you Charlie weknow you better than that. I meant the jerk that had his panties in a tightwad. I didn’t know Peter wore panties! Dave LaCourse Pirate and Bottom Dweller

Response:

Some people are unable to distinguish between an event happening NEAR them and happening TO them. If they saw the movie "Back to School" they probably got pissed off when Rodney Dangerfield told his secretary to hold *some* of his calls.

Actually, I liked the hot tub scene better: RD:"So, what’s your major?" Girl: "Literature" RD: "Great.   Maybe you can help me straighten out my Longfellow." Joe F.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Some people are unable to distinguish between an event happening NEAR them and happening TO them. If they saw the movie "Back to School" they probably got pissed off when Rodney Dangerfield told his secretary to hold *some* of his calls. I didn’t wake up yesterday with an agenda to piss anybody off and if I had known that what I was going to write would have that effect I wouldn’t have done it. But some folks see perceive everything as a slight. They act like a few words on a computer display is the equivalent of trying to set their fucking house on fire. I find the prevailing mindset of this group to be so contentious and adversarial that it’s not worth my time. Wolfgang and Dave, LIGHTEN UP, for Pete’s sake.

Some people are unable to distinguish between an event happening NEAR them and happening TO them. If they saw the movie "Back to School" they probably got pissed off when Rodney Dangerfield told his secretary to hold *some* of his calls. I didn’t wake up yesterday with an agenda to piss anybody off but if I had known that what I was going to write would have that effect I probably would have done it anyway. But some folks perceive everything as a slight. They act like a few words on a computer display is the equivalent of trying to set their fucking house on fire.  Life is a two way street Lennie.  Lighten up, for your own sake. Wolfgang back at ya

Response:

Big Guy writes: Not you Charlie weknow you better than that. I meant the jerk that had his panties in a tightwad. I didn’t know Peter wore panties!   Dave LaCourse Pirate and Bottom Dweller

Don’t worry sweetiekins, I’m not bringing any of the ones with knots in them. Peter (who is really touched by all of the concern over his feelings.)

Response:

I wouldn’t want to side with the flyshops and the outfitters on this one without being much more informed on the issues.

I asked my Dad, who is the outdoors columnist for the Montana Standard in Butte, MT, about this, and this is part of his response: <begin quote The FOAM people have also been among the most difficult people to deal with every time someone tries to put a lid on outfitting.  They’ll be invited to work on committees, and they’ll be disruptive on the committee, and after the committees try to come up with something all can agree on, they’ll renege on the deal.  Their total goal is growth of the outfitting industry and to hell with the ordinary guy from Butte–or anywhere else. My recommendation is to send Judy Martz an email to do the opposite of what Robin Cunningham says. <end quote

Response:

The man’s angry, Mark. It’s all right. He has a right to his feelings. He’s usually a reasonable fellow. He’ll calm down. Let him be. Maybe it’s my glasses. Some people just get pissed of about my glasses… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Just curious Dave, but what outraged you about this post.  Seriously. — Opie  –Planning for the Past–

Response:

Sorry about that URL. I tried the damned thing again and they’ve put some password protection on it. Hm. Interesting what you said about Robin Cunningham and his constituency. Makes good sense.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – … If you would like to help defeat this bill … Robin Cunningham represents the interests of the Fishing Outfitters Association of Montana, FOAM. The interests of the fishing outfitters do not necessarily coincide with the interests of the fishery or even with the interests of out-of-state fishermen. I discussed this issue at length with Robin this past summer and I can see where he’s coming from in representing his constituency but the URL http://laws.leg.state.mt.us:8000/laws01_pref/plsql/law0203w$.startup doesn’t work for me so I can’t see what form this most contentious legislation has finally taken. I wouldn’t want to side with the flyshops and the outfitters on this one without being much more informed on the issues. — Ken Fortenberry

Response:

… If you would like to help defeat this bill …

Robin Cunningham represents the interests of the Fishing Outfitters Association of Montana, FOAM. The interests of the fishing outfitters do not necessarily coincide with the interests of the fishery or even with the interests of out-of-state fishermen. I discussed this issue at length with Robin this past summer and I can see where he’s coming from in representing his constituency but the URL http://laws.leg.state.mt.us:8000/laws01_pref/plsql/law0203w$.startup doesn’t work for me so I can’t see what form this most contentious legislation has finally taken. I wouldn’t want to side with the flyshops and the outfitters on this one without being much more informed on the issues. — Ken Fortenberry

Response:

Sorry. Did I write "some"? I meant "several".

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Lennie writes: Warmest regards to some of you, To "some" of us?  How about bitin’ me, Lennie. Dave LaCourse Pirate and Bottom Dweller

Response:

Lennie writes: Warmest regards to some of you,

To "some" of us?  How about bitin’ me, Lennie. Dave LaCourse Pirate and Bottom Dweller

Response:

Just curious Dave, but what outraged you about this post.  Seriously. — Opie  –Planning for the Past–

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Lennie writes: Warmest regards to some of you, To "some" of us?  How about bitin’ me, Lennie. Dave LaCourse Pirate and Bottom Dweller

Response:

damn. you were one of the ’some’.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Lennie writes: Warmest regards to some of you, To "some" of us?  How about bitin’ me, Lennie. Dave LaCourse Pirate and Bottom Dweller

Response:

This was forwarded to me by the owner of a fly shop in Missoula: If you would like to help defeat this bill there is a phone number below you can call and leave a message. To email Governor Martz, go to http://www.discoveringmontana.com:88/gov/mailform3.htm. Warmest regards to some of you, LR below is a msg I received from the fishing outfitters association of Montana regarding a move to limit non-resident fishing license — make no mistake – the fish and game commision of Montana doesn’t give a damn about what is best for the resource; they are only concerned that someone from Butte can go to the river without seeing someone not from Montana, and they have no business deciding this huge economic question for the state…. what can you do? read the memo below – if you are from Montana, please contact the proper legislators and let them know that if MT is ever to move from an extractive economy this is no way to go about it, and let the new governor, Judy Martz, know the same (at the same #)– if you live out of state please let the Governor know the amount of $ you pour into the local economy every year and also mention the amount of donations you’ve made toward conservation efforts in MT, because of folks just like you the fishing here is as good as it is!! Thank you for your time John – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text - —–Original Message—– To: FOAM outfitter : ; <FOAM outfitter : ; Folks: On Tuesday, Jan. 16, in room 152 of the Capitol building in Helena, Rep. Dan Fuchs (R), Billings, will introduce his HB 228 intended to authorize the FWP Commission to make rules to control the number of nonresident anglers who may fish on a river subject to an FWP management plan.  The nonresidents may be required to purchase one of a limited number of annual "trophy water permits" via a drawing.  The commission will be authorized to determine the number of permits, the cost, and must "document" the need for limits on angling use on "designated waters" during "some part of a license year."  You can get a copy of the bill at: http://laws.leg.state.mt.us:8000/laws01_pref/plsql/law0203w$.startup Communities around the state that depend on nonresident angler dollars are upset about this idea.  And, for outfitters, a drawing would spell slow death to our regular customers.  Please contact your legislator on TUESDAY (Monday’s a state and fed. holiday) by calling 406-444-4800 and leaving a message.  Key legislators are those on the House Fish & Game Committee: Dan Fuchs (Billings) Joe Balyeat (Bozeman) George Golie (Great Falls) Keith Bales (Otter) Debby Barrett (Dillon) Paul Clark (Trout Creek) Ron Devlin (Terry) Tom Facey (Missoula) Steve Gallus (Butte) Gail Gutsche (Missoula) Larry Jent (Bozeman) Jeff Laszloffy (Laurel) Diane Rice (Harrison) Nancy Rice Fritz (Missoula) Rick Ripley (Wolf Creek) Allen Rome (Garrison) Jim Shockley (Victor) Don Steinbesser (Sidney) Bill Thomas (Hobson) Brett Tramelli (Great Falls) Let these people hear from you!  Start leaving messages after 7:30 a.m. at 406-444-4800.  Just tell the operator which legislator you want the message to go to and keep it brief. Thanks. Robin

Response:

Question:

The fall is a great time for fishing the West. My wife and I do our annual regular 2 week car bum in Sept/Oct. Best time for avoiding crowds and in the NW in particular is argueably the best season. Suggest you read Ted Leason’s book for a rundown on the basics of year rounded fishing in the NW. Dave

Hey George, I don’t think David is any sort of traitor. Hell, I’ve bummed around a good part of Idaho for the last 15 years, kayaking and fishing in the summer. I’ve also been on this newsgroup since quite a while before you started posting here. I don’t post much now because I’m making my own bamboo rods and don’t intend to go the Bastard route, I’ve had my fill of the C&R debate so mainly I lurk now with an occasional comment. Hell man, I even have a bottle of Gink on my vest!! Watch out, I may even drop in on your facility unannounced one day! Cheers. Jon

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Thought I’d probe you guys for a few suggestions. My wife and I are going out west in early fall to scope out some property. As part of this trip, we want to take a week for flyfishing (both are avid ff). I am looking for some suggestions as to good places to try. We have fished Montana extensively in the summer but never in the fall. We figured we could go to the Red Lodge or Bozeman area and bum around or perhaps get a guide to float the Yellowstone. Is this a good time (or even worthwhile) to float the Yellowstone (I figure around the big bend area might be best; this is one river we have never fished)? Suggestions? Our other thought is to go to Oregon. We have friends there and could combine the goals of the trip. Again, is this a decent time to go and where would you suggest? We have some free airline tickets coming up and are pretty flexible. The main thing we want to avoid is being shoulder to shoulder with a bunch of people (its OK for us to be around people, I just would prefer to avoid being in a crowd of urban maniacs going after some standard steelhead run near a metropolitan area, if you know what I mean). Anyway, all suggestions are appreciated. We are both pretty comfortable with doing exploratories and the general wilderness adventure scene. I know this request is pretty general. Its the fall season fishing that we are relatively unfamiliar with out there. Thanks for any input. Jon McAnulty

–Jon, If you have never fished the Deschutes river (Oregon) in the fall your missing one of the best rivers in the world to catch steelhead on a fly on the surface.   There will be plenty of room without many fishermen if you go in Oct.   October is when the big "B" class Idaho fish enter the river (15-25lb).   A 20lb steelhead in a fast moving river on a fly rod is a fish of a life time.   Drop me a line if you want more info. Sharp Hooks, Pat Holdzit Fishing Products Inc. http://www.holdzit.com Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.

Response:

The full title is "The Habit of Rivers," (Reflections on Trout Streams and Fly Fishing), by Ted Leeson. Its literate and then some, and a useful perspective on NW fishing. Dave

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Thanks for the reply. Any title on that book? I suspect it is obvious but an exact title would help as I will probably have to order it. Thanks again. Jon

Response:

The fall is a great time for fishing the West. My wife and I do our annual regular 2 week car bum in Sept/Oct. Best time for avoiding crowds and in the NW in particular is argueably the best season. Suggest you read Ted Leason’s book for a rundown on the basics of year rounded fishing in the NW. Dave

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Thought I’d probe you guys for a few suggestions. My wife and I are going out west in early fall to scope out some property. As part of this trip, we want to take a week for flyfishing (both are avid ff). I am looking for some suggestions as to good places to try. We have fished Montana extensively in the summer but never in the fall. We figured we could go to the Red Lodge or Bozeman area and bum around or perhaps get a guide to float the Yellowstone. Is this a good time (or even worthwhile) to float the Yellowstone (I figure around the big bend area might be best; this is one river we have never fished)? Suggestions? Our other thought is to go to Oregon. We have friends there and could combine the goals of the trip. Again, is this a decent time to go and where would you suggest? We have some free airline tickets coming up and are pretty flexible. The main thing we want to avoid is being shoulder to shoulder with a bunch of people (its OK for us to be around people, I just would prefer to avoid being in a crowd of urban maniacs going after some standard steelhead run near a metropolitan area, if you know what I mean). Anyway, all suggestions are appreciated. We are both pretty comfortable with doing exploratories and the general wilderness adventure scene. I know this request is pretty general. Its the fall season fishing that we are relatively unfamiliar with out there. Thanks for any input. Jon McAnulty

– Mr. G. ‘all’s fair with fur or feather’ http://www.gink.com http://www.rodbuilding.com http://www.xink.com 509-243-4100 or 5500

Question:

I was just wondering if there is anyone here that fishes on the Bow river in calgary.  Thanx.

Not yet but will do so this June. It isn’t a great time to go due to spring run-off but the company’s sales conference is there and they are paying. You might check out the Western Canada regional board on Virtual Flyshop (http://www.flyshop.com) which has a number of Alberta guides as active members including Jim McLennan who is one of the better known guides. I have gotten some really good recommendations as to flies, guides, and other rivers in the region to try. -John

Response:

I was just wondering if there is anyone here that fishes on the Bow river in calgary.  Thanx.

Response:

I have done (7) nine day trips on the Bow. Three floats from Calgary to Carseland dam per trip. Ask away. Ted Bobetsky (http://www.flyfishing-the-salt.com)

Response:

I’d recommend Jim Powlesland, except that you’d have to put up with him ‘air’ shooting every living animal on the truck ride to the river. — TimW, Halfordian Golfer "A Cash Flow Runs Through It…" "Guilt replaced the creel…"

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:

Question:

I’ve got the good luck to have 4-days near Evergreen CO in early August and am looking for suggestions on streams to stalk, catch and release. Don’t mind walking in a bit and I don’t need big name water or 18" fish to have fun – although 18" fish are… Anything within a reasonable 2-hour drive?  Thanks and let me know how to reciprocate for Wisconsin, if I can.

Response:

The local fly shop in Evergreen is the Blue Quill Angler.  Same folks that run the Orvis Colorado Fly Fishing school, Rick Rishell runs it and his number 800-235-9763.  They would give you a very good idea as to what is going on there.  Bear Creek right in town was aggressively cleaned up and improved by the local TU chapter.  Behind the Amoco gas station a few years ago I caught a 18" rainbow.  Clear Creek along I-70 is pretty good too at Georgetown, that’s just up the road a few miles.  Those are great after work areas.  The South Platte river at Deckers is close to for a serious session of lots of fish.  Stop in at the fly shop in Deckers (Motel, gas pump, cafe/bar and fly shop setup, it is the town) and get the info on the current flies.  You can go North to Hot Sulphur Springs and hit the Colorado, great time of year for the Colorado.  Evergreen is a great place to get to lots of the famous gold medal water but the little streams right around town are really fun.  LOTS of water this year. — Ken Rupkalvis, THE Republic of Texas

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’ve got the good luck to have 4-days near Evergreen CO in early August and am looking for suggestions on streams to stalk, catch and release. Don’t mind walking in a bit and I don’t need big name water or 18" fish to have fun – although 18" fish are… Anything within a reasonable 2-hour drive?  Thanks and let me know how to reciprocate for Wisconsin, if I can.

Response:

Question:

#Hello backpackers, #Does anyone know of a 35mm SLR camera that has interchangeable lens and is #designed to be light weight for backpacking?   # #Thanks…Stever # Well, I have used my Canon AE-1 and F-1, one or the other or both.  Any 35mm SLR is light enough to backpack, in my opinion.  It just depends on how far you want to go.  I also carried my Bogen tripod and several lenses from 20mm to 200mm, extension tubes, filters, etc. It just depends on how much photography you want to do.  On the last trip I went on I went by myself so the fact that I was loaded down and couldn’t go very far didn’t matter as much. —

Response:

Hello backpackers, Does anyone know of a 35mm SLR camera that has interchangeable lens and is designed to be light weight for backpacking?   Thanks…Stever

Response:

Hello backpackers, Does anyone know of a 35mm SLR camera that has interchangeable lens and is designed to be light weight for backpacking?  

Well, there is light weight and there is compact.  I know of examples of various combinations of these. Some of the new cameras are made of plastic and are quite light.  The Canon EOS Rebel springs to mind.  Very light but not too compact. (~$390 with 35-70 zoom) Most camera manufacturers have made compact cameras at one time or another: Nikon FM, Pentax ME super, Olympus OM series, etc.  But these are (mostly) metal cameras and aren’t as light as the Rebel mentioned above. (you have to buy some of these used ~$250) If you want SLR quality but can do with a fixed lens rangefinder, I find the Olympus XA to be an excellent, tiny, light camera, perfect for carrying in a backpack (used, ~$130).  Old Leica screwmount rangefinders (body ~$150, 5cm lens ~$100) are compact and have interchangeable excellent lenses but don’t have meters and may be unreliable because of their age (I like my IIIc). Some of the new point-and-shoot cameras have gotten good reviews. The Olympus Infinity Stylus is small, light, and has auto focus. (~$130) Personally, I carry an old Rollieflex medium format camera, a light meter, and a fairly light tripod (Velbon).  This doesn’t give me the flexability of interchangeable lenses but it is fairly lightweight and the Zeiss lens gives me 16×20 prints to die for.  -Dyer Lytle Dyer Lytle, National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, 602-323-4136 – "The goal of civilization is settled life and the achievement of luxury. But there is a limit which cannot be overstepped. When prosperity and luxury come to a people, they are followed by excessive consumption and extravagance. With that the human soul itself is undermined both in its worldly well-being and in its spiritual life." – –                       the Arab, Ibn Khaldun, greatest of all historians — Dyer Lytle, National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, 602-323-4136 – "The goal of civilization is settled life and the achievement of luxury.

Response:

Does anyone know of a 35mm SLR camera that has interchangeable lens and is designed to be light weight for backpacking? I believe that Backpacker magazine had a review of lightweight cameras several issues ago (maybe last summer).  I think it was definitely within the last year or so.  Try your local library.

The article on lightweight cameras is in the August, 1990 issue of Backpacker magazine, pages 54 to 55. It reviews about 8 different cameras.         Steve Snyder            | This space for rent, inquire within. US Geological Survey Reston, VA | I only speak for myself. me.

Response:

There are the inevitable comprimises to be made when ruggedness, seals against water or dirt and image quality vs. expense and weight are applied to cameras.         Nikon has a Nikonos V which weighs roughly 4 pounds (1 3/4 kg.) with a lens.  It carved out of solid aluminium, takes several lenses all but one of which is designed solely for underwater use, and can be used at depths of 100 m.  Great for white water rafting, not so great as a backpacking camera. Focus is set manually be guessing the distance (Galelian finder, not an SLR), shutter speed can be set automatically or manually in conjunction with the aperature. About $550.  Nikon also is about to introduce a much more elaborate autofucus SLR underwater camera that is not really well suited to land use (very heavy, very large) and will cost in excess of $3500 with a lens.         There are quality point and shoot cameras with reasonably fast and higher quality lenses.  A couple can even tolerate getting wet, though not at depth.  There are expensive models from Contax (~$400) Leica (made by Minolta), the equivalent Minolta, and Nikon. If you want memories, but not magazine quality reproductions, and are content leave the moose and flowers in the background, choose a point and shoot.  I find the common sense argument is only take a camera backpacking if you can afford emotionally and financially to sacrifice it.  The original poster wanted light weight first, then compact.  The point and shoots are the only choice that meet this constraint.         This is all from one who has dragged some very heavy packs of pro gear around, sometimes beyond discomfort.  I don’t shoot just for the memories.                                                         Paul

Response:

The article on lightweight cameras is in the August, 1990 issue of Backpacker magazine, pages 54 to 55. It reviews about 8 different cameras.        Steve Snyder            | This space for rent, inquire within.

Could you possibly give us a run-down of the results? At least mention the cameras reviewed, and the overall winners? Thanks…

Response:

FYI, for Christmas I bought my wife a Nikon Tele-Touch 300.  It is NOT an SLR but it DOES take full-frame 35mm film.  It is lightweight, and as the name suggests does have a limited zoom capability.  It includes a built-in flash, DL223 lithium battery, and has DX coding to set ASA/ISO film speed automatically when you use 35mm film cartidges that are so marked. It is NOT waterproof.  It will probably crash big time if you drop it. It was also only a hair over $100 and it takes dynamite pictures.  It has a self winder and can be made ready to use in seconds, which, when combined with the leight weight and physically small size would probably be considered desireable for most backpacking. Overall, she likes it and is happy with it. HINT: next time you are going to hike/backpack in the mountains someplace and want a lightweight, cheap quick and dirty camera to take decent panoramic wide-view shots with, try the Kodak Panoramic 35 box.  And I do mean BOX.  If you’ve never seen one of these, it is essentially a disposable camera with film already in it.  This particular one uses a regular 35mm film and shoots a narrow strip through the middle of the frame.  Kodak processing equipment now counts this as a standardized print size, and returns a respectable panoramic print that is about 10" long and 3 1/2 or 4 inches high. We took one along last November when we hiked up to the Le Conte Lodge in the Smokies.  Got some very nice landscape shots with it.  You won’t get the image quality you might from the aforementioned Nikon, but then you also aren’t out bunches of bucks if it goes down the side of a mountain, either.  :-) Duane

Response:

Hello backpackers, Does anyone know of a 35mm SLR camera that has interchangeable lens and is designed to be light weight for backpacking?   Thanks…Stever

Well…. Olympus is known for making pretty light gear, as is Minolta. If you want to stay as light as possible, stay away from auto-focus SLRs. One issue you might want to think about, depending on how much shooting you are going to be doing and how long you will be in the backcountry, would be the reliability of the camera. A really light-weight alternative might be a point-and-shoot camera with a built-in zoom lens. [Cross-posted to rec.photo] —– To sit in solitude, to think in solitude with only the music of the stream and the cedar to break the flow of silence, here lies the value of wilderness.                                                 — John Muir

Response:

Hello backpackers, Does anyone know of a 35mm SLR camera that has interchangeable lens and is designed to be light weight for backpacking?   Thanks…Stever

I use a Nikon FG for this sort of thing.  It’s not really designed for backpacking, probably other folks would say a Nikon FE2 is better since it’s more rugged.  Note that rugged implies heavier in general… As I’ve said on this net before, I like the FG because it’s light and it has TTL flash metering.  New enough to have TTL flash, old enough to have no heavy features like autofocus.  The FG is no longer made, you have to get a used one (same as the FE2…) I can weigh my FG and FE2 and get back to you if you want. Note that all these older Nikons can use the new autofocus lenses if you also have an AF body at home.       Phil White   Tektronix, Beaverton, OR  US Mail: Mail Stop 59-432, P.O. Box 500, Beaverton OR 97077-0001

Response:

The article on lightweight cameras is in the August, 1990 issue of Backpacker magazine, pages 54 to 55. It reviews about 8 different cameras.        Steve Snyder            | This space for rent, inquire within. Could you possibly give us a run-down of the results? At least mention the cameras reviewed, and the overall winners? Thanks…

Here goes… From August 1990 Backpacker magazine, pages 54-55. Article titled "Small Wonders… Compact Cameras for the Trail" by J. Michael Wyatt Reprinted without permission (sorry!)    How many times have you hesitated to dig your camera out of your pack for a single quick landscape shot? How often have you passed on grabbing a trailside candid of a companion? Ever leave your camera safely stowed because of dust, rain, or snow? Ever want to travel lighter and leave that expensive, full-sized, weighty 35mm SLR and lenses home, but bring back great photos of your trip?    It’s time you took a hard look at the world of point-and-shoot compacts. These plastic-bodied, fixed-lens wonders have taken the photo mass-market by storm by cramming more and more into smaller and smaller packages.    They offer such features as: -Sophisticated programmed autoexposure systems. -Automated built-in flash. Some models even offer intellegent flash systems that automatically compensate for backlighting. -Compatibility with DX-coded films so you don’t have to remember to set the film speed. -Weatherproof (and sometimes even waterproof) bodies. -Tele-wide dual lenses or zoom lenses. More and more point-and-shoot models are offering a combination of autofocus telephoto and wide-angle lenses. -Autowind and autorewind. -Autoloading film. Just open the back and drop in the film casette– a real boon to fumble-fingers.    But do these high-tech handfuls have anything to offer those of us who put image quality before convenience? They do, indeed. From the user’s end, these compact, lightweight cameras are simple but sophisticated and produce images of a suprisingly high quality. Granted the lenses probably won’t beat your SLR’s 50mm lens in a head-to-head test, but they will produce prints and transparencies suitable for all but the most critical uses. And the spontaneity these convenient pocket cameras bring to your on-the-trail picture taking will help ensure memorable images. After all, the real test of a camera is how often you return with pictures, right?     TIPS FOR THE BACKCOUNTRY    All of these microelectronic wonders have one thing in common: a total dependence on batteries. To avoid cold-weather battery lockups, use fresh batteries and keep an extra set in a warm place like an accessible interior pocket. If you plan to do a lot of cold-weather shooting, make sure the camera accepts lithium batteries; they offer considerably improved cold-weather performance over alkaline batteries.    Dual, telephoto, and wide-angle autofocus lens cameras offer the greatest versatility for backcountry use.    If you canoe, kayak, or hike in wet or dusty conditions, consider a weatherproof model; it will resist the entry of dust, grit, condensa- tion, fog, and light rain. If you’re particularly fond of bad weather, take a hard look at the more water- and weather-resistant waterproof cameras.    If you plan to take self-portraits or long exposures, be sure the camera has a self-timer and tripod socket. [DESCRIPTION OF CAMERAS FOLLOWS]: [All are autofocus, with programmed auto metering, autowind, autoload, and autorewind. All weights are without batteries.] [Prices not given]                                                            A-Self timer                                                            B-Tripod socket                                                            C-Weatherproof                                                            D-Waterproof Model     Lens     DX     Flash      Size      Weight   Battery   A  B  C  D Canon   |Zoom XL  |50- | Auto with   6"x3.6"   20.8 oz  two 3v    Y  Y  N  N Sureshot|39mm f3.6|3200| backlight    x2.6"    (590 g)  lithium         |  to     |    | correction         |85mm f7.3|    | Minolta |Dual 35mm|100-| Yes (can    5.8"x3"   14.1 oz  one 6v    N  N  Y  1 Weather-| f3.5 &  |1000| be dis-      x2.6"    (400 g)  lithium matic   |50mm f5.6|    | abled) Dual    |         |    | Nikon   |35mm f2.8|50- | Auto        5.2"x3.2" 17.0 oz  two 1.5v  Y  Y  Y  2 Action  |         |1600|              x2.2"    (482 g)  alkaline* Touch   |         |    | Olympus |Dual 35mm|50- | Auto with   5"x2.5"x  7.9 oz   one 6v    Y  Y  Y  N Infinity|f3.5 &   |3200| backlight     1.8"    (224 g)  lithium Twin    |70mm f6.3|    | correction Pentax  |Super    |25- | Auto with   5.7"x3.3" 24 oz    two 3v    Y  Y  N  N IQZoom  |38mm f4  |3200| backlight     2.6"    (680 g)  lithium 105     |to 105mm |    | correction         | f7.8    |    | Ricoh   |Zoom     |64- | Auto with   5.5"x2.9" 12.7 oz  one 6v    Y  Y  N  N Shot-   |38mm f3.5|3200| backlight    x2.1"    (360 g)  lithium master  | to      |    | correction Zoom    |76mm f6.7|    | Vivitar |35mm f5.6|100-| Auto        4.2"x2"   7 oz     one 3v    Y  Y  N  N AF 1000 |         |1000|              x2.5"    (198 g)  lithium Yashica | Built-in|64- | Auto with   5.1"x2.7" 9.7 oz   one 6v    Y  Y  Y  N   T-3   |CarlZeiss|1600| backlight    x2"      (275 g)  lithium         | 35mm    |    | footnotes: 1- Submersible to 15 feet            2- Submersible to 10 feet            *- No lithium batteries    CARDBOARD AND DISPOSABLE: SINGLE-USE CAMERAS    Have you ever wanted to haul your SLR out in a downpour or expose your point-and-shoot to a 40 mph sandblasting, just to get a few exposures of how well your tent was holding up (and your tentmate wasn’t)? "No way!" you say. "Water, sand, and cameras just don’t mix!" How about letting the kids loose with a lens for a while? "Even worse!" you say. "They’d be back with a bag of broken glass and a few mangled gears."    Now there’s an answer: the new single-use cameras.    These lightweight and inexpensive one-way cameras are constructed of a cardboard box with a plastic interior. They come already loaded with film and produce suprisingly good-quality images with a plastic fixed-focal- length lens and fixed-speed shutter.    Two members of Kodak’s family of single-use cameras are of particular interest to backpackers. They’re each priced under $14.00 [U.S.], weigh around three ounces, and offer features previously available only in expensive specialty cameras.    My favorite is the panoramic Stretch 35. The camera comes with 12 exposures of Kodak Gold 200 and uses a 25mm f12 lens to produce 3.5"-by-10" pictures – twice the width of standard negative.    A great backup for stormy weather is the Weekend 35. This waterproof camera comes with 24 exposures of Kodak Gold 400 and is wrapped in a durable plastic cover that will keep things dry to a depth of 10 feet.    The obvious question in this time of overflowing landfills is why would BACKPACKER plug a throwaway product? "These aren’t throwaways," says Kodak spokesman Mike Sullivan. "It’s a closed loop – the cameras come back for processing." Early this year, Kodak established a program to help photo- finishers recycle 35mm casettes and plastic film canisters, and as we went to press, they were finalizing plans to recycle the plastic interiors of their single-use cameras. "At first, it’s going to cost us more money," admits Sullivan, "but it’s obviously the right thing to do." End of article.

Response:

    With the number of threads recurring on this matter, wouldn’t it have been easier had we had a backpacking cameras FAQ? =20

=09I would like one too! If there is r.b FAQ, I’m ready to give my 2cents for it. =09Tapio V=E4ist=F6

Response:

    With the number of threads recurring on this matter, wouldn’t it have been easier had we had a backpacking cameras FAQ?                                                   Matt Delevoryas

Response:

I am out in the elements a lot and the Pentax IQ-Zoom WR is the best thing out there.  It has all of the features of any other camera and is more or less waterproof (but won’t ‘take’ pictures underwater).  I use it WW kayaking and have had no trouble with it. True, it only goes down to 32mm, but zooms to 90mm and has a remote for doing those still shots where you need a cable. Happy shooting (pictures)! Robb

Response:

I am out in the elements a lot and the Pentax IQ-Zoom WR is the best thing out there.  It has all of the features of any other camera and is more or less waterproof (but won’t ‘take’ pictures underwater).  I use it WW kayaking and have had no trouble with it.

I have this camera as well. It has been submerged both with the power off and with the power on and lens out (a no-no according to the manual and the guy who sold it to me) and is still OK.  Mine has been pretty well abused, and has held up well and takes really good shots for a compact "point and shoot".  I’ve recommended it to a few of my friends and would not hesitate do do so again.

Response:

I own the Olympus IS-100 (European version of the IS-10). It is an perfect camera with a fine lense. I bought an convertor so the zoom range is 28-180mm. You are right it is relatively bulky, but the weight is low. In Europe they now sell a newer version of the IS-100, it has a longer range in time (till 60 sec)

Response:

I am looking for a point-and-shoot camera to take backpacking and trekking.  I

I just purchased one for mountaineering, backpacking and rock climbing.   At that time (last summer) there wasn’t a good waterproof or water resistant camera with the important features all there so don’t be surprised if you can’t get that feature. Look for a zoom that covers pretty wide (say 35 or less) to get those landscapes and greater than 80 (say 100) for zooming in on more distant subjects.  That will narrow selections down quite a bit.  I also required some feature that allows me to bracket or over/underexpose in steps so I can correct for bright backgrounds, etc.  You can’t take decent pictures without that or some monkeying around (sometimes you can fake out the exposure by locking on another scene–yuck what fun).  There are only about two cameras with that capability.  Similarly, the ability to use a fill flash is quite useful. You need a timer so you can jump into the photo.  A camera that beeps or flashes (beep is better) as the timer countsdown helps prevent those shots of you coming back to see if it took the picture yet. The one I got is expensive–Nikon ZoomTouch 800 but it works great. Now, if you asked me what I’d like if I could design my own camera for backpacking… Brian C. Wadell Guided Wave Solutions RF, uW, and Test Hardware and Software (617)-942-WAVE

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I am looking for a point-and-shoot camera to take backpacking and trekking.  I have read a lot and looked at several different cameras, but I am still uncertain how to handle the trade-offs among size, weight, weatherproofing, features (such as zoom lenses), and lens quality.  At one end is the minimalist Yashica Super T4 (weatherproof, compact light, excellent lens quality, fixed 35 mm focal length); in the middle is the Minolta Freedom Zoom Explorer (not weatherproof, good lens quality, 28-70 mm zoom, relatively compact); at the other end is the Olympus iS-10 (relatively bulky, 28-110 mm zoom, not weatherproof, LOTS of features).  (I like the idea of having a 28 mm wide-angle focal length available for scenery shots.)  And there are other cameras scattered along this continuum as well, and probably lots that I haven’t even thought of. So… What camera do you use?  What would you recommend?  What have been your experiences?  Any thoughts would be appreciated.  TIA. I’ve used the Yashica  T4 (including Date Stamp feature) for about 3 years on my backpacking trips (about 120 days).  Have found it to be more than adequate for my basic "point-and-shoot" interest.  Would not hesitate to recommend it to any non-hobbyist/professional whose interest is also in a basic "point-and-shoot" camera.

I just bought the new Super Yashica T4 and got my first prints back from an ice climbing trip.  The pictures were equal to the quality from my larger olympus IS3 that also takes great phots.  I was really impressed wither  small size the the T-4; fits in a shirt pocket while climbing. Bob —        Bob Broeking in Montgomery,AL (I am only here 8 months)      " I’ll get the rope…" Anderl Hinterstoisser, North Face of the

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I am looking for a point-and-shoot camera to take backpacking and trekking.  I have read a lot and looked at several different cameras, but I am still uncertain how to handle the trade-offs among size, weight, weatherproofing, features (such as zoom lenses), and lens quality.  At one end is the minimalist Yashica Super T4 (weatherproof, compact light, excellent lens quality, fixed 35 mm focal length); in the middle is the Minolta Freedom Zoom Explorer (not weatherproof, good lens quality, 28-70 mm zoom, relatively compact); at the other end is the Olympus iS-10 (relatively bulky, 28-110 mm zoom, not weatherproof, LOTS of features).  (I like the idea of having a 28 mm wide-angle focal length available for scenery shots.)  And there are other cameras scattered along this continuum as well, and probably lots that I haven’t even thought of. So… What camera do you use?  What would you recommend?  What have been your experiences?  Any thoughts would be appreciated.  TIA.

I’ve used the Yashica  T4 (including Date Stamp feature) for about 3 years on my backpacking trips (about 120 days).  Have found it to be more than adequate for my basic "point-and-shoot" interest.  Would not hesitate to recommend it to any non-hobbyist/professional whose interest is also in a basic "point-and-shoot" camera. Previously used a slightly larger/heavier camera with a zoom option. Found that I seldom benefited from use of the zoom and have concluded that it merely added to weight without corresponding benefit. bond  My opinion is neither copyrighted nor trademarked, and it’s  price competitive.  If you like, I’ll trade for one of yours.

Response:

I am looking for a point-and-shoot camera to take backpacking and trekking. So… What camera do you use?  What would you recommend?  What have been your experiences?  Any thoughts would be appreciated.  TIA.

I travelled for half a year through Indonesia and Australia, which are quite moist and hot countries. In Indonesia we have been into the jungle on Sumatra and Irian Jaya. Before we went I asked the same question. Should I bring a very light camera or an waterproof one, etc. I had very good experience with my Canon equipment (AE-1), but I wanted something lighter and auto-focus. I want good quality shots but the journey is more important. I got the newest Canon EOS camera, the EOS-5, together with two lenses from Canon: 28-80 zoom and 75-300 zoom. I also took the flash-light 430EZ, because of the low capacity of the build in one. I also took some filters, of which I used the polarisation-filter most. My camera never failed one moment! It’s now 3 years old and still operating perfectly. The lenses however are a bit of a compromise between weight and functionality. — With kindest regards, Edwin van Ree. Just being happy with my NT powered machine, if not in my Lycoming powered one

Response:

I am looking for a point-and-shoot camera to take backpacking and trekking. snip- So… What camera do you use?  What would you recommend?  What have been your experiences?  Any thoughts would be appreciated.  TIA.

I bought a Pentax 928 (?), their top-of-the-line point-and-shoot.  I really wanted a waterproof/resistant camera, but found most of them limited.  The 928 has a 28-90 zoom; I agree with Steve that anything longer than a 28mm lens is inadequate for "scenery" shots. The 28mm lens requirement eliminates at least half of the point-and-shoots.   Another feature I find critical is over or under exposure capability.  It is a critical feature if you shoot lots of photos in snow (I’m in Idaho).  I bracket alot of shots (i.e., shoot the same shot normally and with an under and over exposure) to increase my odds of getting the shot just right.  The 928 is pretty small and is completely loaded.  As far as toughness; I’ve only had it 9 months, but it’s been fly fishing, skiing, backpacking, etc. and has exceeded my expectations (e.g., doing a face plant with it in my fanny pack while skiing).  My dealer will handle all warranty work, so even if I have a problem, they’ll deal with it and I avoid the hassle.  To fantastic photos….

Response:

I am looking for a point-and-shoot camera to take backpacking and trekking.  I have read a lot and looked at several different cameras, but I am still uncertain how to handle the trade-offs among size, weight, weatherproofing, features (such as zoom lenses), and lens quality.  At one end is the minimalist Yashica Super T4 (weatherproof, compact light, excellent lens quality, fixed 35 mm focal length); in the middle is the Minolta Freedom Zoom Explorer (not weatherproof, good lens quality, 28-70 mm zoom, relatively compact); at the other end is the Olympus iS-10 (relatively bulky, 28-110 mm zoom, not weatherproof, LOTS of features).  (I like the idea of having a 28 mm wide-angle focal length available for scenery shots.)  And there are other cameras scattered along this continuum as well, and probably lots that I haven’t even thought of. So… What camera do you use?  What would you recommend?  What have been your experiences?  Any thoughts would be appreciated.  TIA.

Response:

Question:

writes:    A lot of people are touting the blood knot.

For more interesting reading on knots, including blood knots, try the current issue of FLY FISHERMEN where their test indicate that only two knots retain 100% line strength, given current tippet materials: the Palomar and the Trilene knot. Very interesting…

Response:

I gave up on the clinch and trilene this year because they kept pulling out on big fish, despite very cautious tying. I quit using them because I decided

Without commenting on which knots are best, let me point out that most break-offs will occur at a knot, no matter which knot you use.  The UIAA routinely tests mountaineering ropes, and this is common knowlege to such testing agencies.  It makes intuitive sense when you think about it: stress is concentrated at the bends in a knot. — -Wayne Trzyna

Response:

  A lot of people are touting the blood knot. Blood knots are not as good as they used to be! The newer multi polymer monofilaments are so hard and slick, the blood knot (and the clinch, inproved clinch, and Trilene knots) does not bite. We have a very sophisticated (read expensive) motor driven strain guage device that tests lines and knots to .01 pounds. 7 turn blood knots on Orvis SSS, Dai Riki, and Umpqua pull themselves apart at somewhere around 60-70% of the material breaking strength.

Ralph, I’ve abandoned the blood-knot alltogether because I’ve noticed an alarming decrease in strength in that connection with the new leader materials in recent years. I was beginning to fear that my own ability to tie the knot effectively had diminished, but your breaking strength measurements tell the real story. I now use the double-surgeon’s knot to connect the tapering segments of my leader and the double-surgeon’s loop-to-loop connection to attach tippets. Have you had the opportunity to measure the breaking strength of double-surgeons knots? Does the triple-surgeon’s provide significant additional strength? Thanks, Fred

Response:

  A lot of people are touting the blood knot. Blood knots are not as good as they used to be! The newer multi polymer monofilaments are so hard and slick, the blood knot (and the clinch, inproved clinch, and Trilene knots) does not bite. We have a very sophisticated (read expensive) motor driven strain guage device that tests lines and knots to .01 pounds. 7 turn blood knots on Orvis SSS, Dai Riki, and Umpqua pull themselves apart at somewhere around 60-70% of the material breaking strength.

I gave up on the clinch and trilene this year because they kept pulling out on big fish, despite very cautious tying. I quit using them because I decided that after all these years of using them I must have lost the ability to tie them properly ! I never suspected the mono may be a contributing factor. Used the non-slip mono loop all year and it worked pretty well for me. I use double surgeon’s loops to join tippet to butt (when I use a butt).                                                 jc

Response:

7 turn blood knots on Orvis SSS, Dai Riki, and Umpqua pull themselves apart at somewhere around 60-70% of the material breaking strength. Ralph,

Thanks for telling me the names of leader material to avoid when constructing tapered leaders. Ernie Harrison

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –   A lot of people are touting the blood knot. Blood knots are not as good as they used to be! The newer multi polymer monofilaments are so hard and slick, the blood knot (and the clinch, inproved clinch, and Trilene knots) does not bite. We have a very sophisticated (read expensive) motor driven strain guage device that tests lines and knots to .01 pounds. 7 turn blood knots on Orvis SSS, Dai Riki, and Umpqua pull themselves apart at somewhere around 60-70% of the material breaking strength. I gave up on the clinch and trilene this year because they kept pulling out on big fish, despite very cautious tying. I quit using them because I decided that after all these years of using them I must have lost the ability to tie them properly ! I never suspected the mono may be a contributing factor. Used the non-slip mono loop all year and it worked pretty well for me. I use double surgeon’s loops to join tippet to butt (when I use a butt).                       jc

I’ve noticed the same thing with blood knots!  Thanks for the explanation.  I replaced the blood knot with the triple surgeons knot for any line/line connection.  According to a recent study, this line holds 100% of the weaker lines strength, wet or dry.  It’s simple to tie.  The only problem is that the any of the popular "double line through the eye" knots seem to be about the strongest, most durable knot I can find.  Anyone got a very strong, non-tightening loop knot as I fish for Stripers and like the free swing for the fly.  Most loops that I tie either slip or break and I’m looking for alternatives.  Most tippets I use are from 12-24lb Dai Rikki.  Thanks.     Tim —- "Just say no to bait"

Response:

Hi Dan! Thanks for the kind words regarding the slide show.         Re: blood knots. Your formula for X number of turns for X size tippet is rational.          We lubricate the line with KY jelly (it is water soluble unlike silicone) prior to drawing up the knots. Then we soak the line in water to a). remove the lubricant, and b) to test the wet strength of the line and knot. It defies common sense to depend on dry strength for fishing line; however, I’ve NEVER seen anyone else do it.          Wet testing demonstrates some pretty wierd changes in tippet diameter, static strength, dynamic strength, stretch, and abraision resistance. The fluorocarbon lines really shine when compared against standard nylon and multi polymer monofilaments.         You probably want to know what leaders I use?! Umpqua pre tapered leaders because I get them at cost. I replace the tippet section with Dai Rikki Velvet for normal (trout) conditions or with Dai Rikki Diver when I need abraision resistance (toothy critters or abraisive bottom structure).         Tight lines, Ralph —

Response:

   A lot of people are touting the blood knot. Blood knots are not as good as they used to be! The newer multi polymer monofilaments are so hard and slick, the blood knot (and the clinch, inproved clinch, and Trilene knots) does not bite. We have a very sophisticated (read expensive) motor driven strain guage device that tests lines and knots to .01 pounds. 7 turn blood knots on Orvis SSS, Dai Riki, and Umpqua pull themselves apart at somewhere around 60-70% of the material breaking strength.    Back to back uni- knots are excellent as are three turn surgeons knots. I still use blood knots on the heavier parts of my leader because the line is so strong there, someting up front is going to break even though the blood knots is not 100%. Blood knots look cool, sound neat as they click through the guides and don’t tend to catch as much gunk as other joining knots. In short I like ‘em alot but use them with with prejudice.    The strongest loop knot for attaching flies is the monofilamnet loop knot as seen in Kreh’s new knot book. Lefty claims the uni-knot is weak, but our machine says it consistently tests 90-100%. In practice it’s easy to tie and doesn’t take up as mucj material as the monofilament loop knot. Its big disadvantage is that the loop cinches up where the monofilament loop knot is permanent.    tight knots! Ralph —

Response:

Question:

I have just moved to England for a two-year stint courtesy of my wife’s job.   Sadly, I have had to leave behind my favorite stretches of "free" water in exchange for a country where I have been told you must "pay as you play." There must be some salvation for me somewhere.  The thought of not flyfishing for trout and/or salmon for two years (unless I take a second mortgage on the house) does not sit well.   Likewise, my supply of tying materials becomes more depleted by the day and unless I find the location of some fly shops (if there are any) I am likely to resort to catching local pigeons and plucking the occasional stray cat.  Help me.   Should there be an angel of mercy out there that can offer any advice in these matters I would be most indebted.  I am residing approximately 30 miles west of London but am willing to travel if it means being able to wet a line without draining my pocketbook. Cheers! Rhett

Response:

Newsgroups: rec.outdoors.fishing.fly Newsgroups: rec.outdoors.fishing.fly I have just moved to England for a two-year stint courtesy of my wife’s job.

All is not lost, there is plenty of fishing well within most peoples budget, ie