Question:

I did it! I went all the way around Manhattan in a kayak.

A well written and interesting trip report too! Thanks for sharing it with everyoneRich Before you buy.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I did it! I went all the way around Manhattan in a kayak. <… Thanks for posting this. Always nice to hear of people making use of urban and rural waterways. The "in" thing to do in these parts is to drive for hours to a crowded government recreational area, queue at portages, and scramble for campsites stopping midafternoon, for a "wilderness" paddling experience. OTOH I can paddle all day on water in or close to the city and not see another paddler. Odd, isn’t it, when most cities are sited on major waterways and 80% of the population are city dwellers? Ditto.  I think that’s NEAT!  Let’s reclaim the waterways!

"Reclaiming" implies that paddlers owned the waterways to begin with. Paddle EVERYWHERE!

I vehemently disagree with this.  I’ve been flyfishing for about 30 years and have seen a lot of good fishing rivers become poor fishing rivers.  The Battenkill river *used* to be about the most famous flyfishing river in the country.  Now there are a couple of canoe outfitters that send down so many boats that’s it’s virtually unfishable most of the day.   Just as a jetskier can spoil the day of a paddler, a paddler can spoil the day of flyfisherman trying to enjoy the river partaking in his/her obsession. John Fereira Ithaca, NY

Response:

OK, Rich. I’m going to have to drive to Manhattan from Chicago to do this with you next year!!! Seriously. Dave

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I did it! I went all the way around Manhattan in a kayak. A well written and interesting trip report too! Thanks for sharing it with everyoneRich Before you buy.

Response:

I did it! I went all the way around Manhattan in a kayak. <… Thanks for posting this. Always nice to hear of people making use of urban and rural waterways. The "in" thing to do in these parts is to drive for hours to a crowded government recreational area, queue at portages, and scramble for campsites stopping midafternoon, for a "wilderness" paddling experience. OTOH I can paddle all day on water in or close to the city and not see another paddler. Odd, isn’t it, when most cities are sited on major waterways and 80% of the population are city dwellers?

Ditto.  I think that’s NEAT!  Let’s reclaim the waterways!  Paddle EVERYWHERE!  Paddle craft are just the way to do it, too: relatively portable, don’t need a big ol’ ramp to put ‘em in, don’t need lots of depth, suited for just about any type of waters.  In Boston, we have more and more people paddling on the Charles, and the water quality is improving every year.  In Lowell MA, Zoar Outdoor teamed up with the conservation d00ds to offer rafting trips on the Concord River during the spring flows — ending the trip in a lock!  The Boston Harbor islands, now a park, get visited constantly by seayakkers.   Even the little, overbuilt Muddy River at the end of my (soon to be former) block has an impressive array of wildlife (saw a great blue heron the other day).  The more we get people using the waterways, ALL the waterways and not just the obvious recreation destinations, the more people will care about them — and care for them.   — ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::         "I would not exchange the sorrows of my heart                 for the joys of the multitude"

Response:

I did it! I went all the way around Manhattan in a kayak.

<… Thanks for posting this. Always nice to hear of people making use of urban and rural waterways. The "in" thing to do in these parts is to drive for hours to a crowded government recreational area, queue at portages, and scramble for campsites stopping midafternoon, for a "wilderness" paddling experience. OTOH I can paddle all day on water in or close to the city and not see another paddler. Odd, isn’t it, when most cities are sited on major waterways and 80% of the population are city dwellers? — National Capital FreeNet      www.ncf.ca     Ottawa’s free community network

Response:

I did it! I went all the way around Manhattan in a kayak. It was the most physically difficult feat I have accomplished. I started kayaking on June 4th and have probably kayaked 50 hours on the Hudson since then (along with another 20 in Maine) and this trip was harder than all of it put together! When I did my first "long" tour it was a 10 mile, three hour round trip to the Statue of Liberty during which I really felt challenged and afterwards felt like I had a wallet-sized knot in my right buttock for a week! At the time that may have been the most physically challenging thing I’d done. The trip around Manhattan is a 28 mile trip that should take 6-9 hours. I was assured by the guides at Manhattan Kayak Company, who have come to know me, and I them, that I was ready for the trip and it should not be that difficult. You start off going south on the Hudson, against the current from 23rd street to the lower tip of Manhattan – the Battery. After you turn the bend and head north on the East river you have a very strong current with you and can travel faster than I have ever been on a kayak. Sometimes they outrun joggers on this stretch. After going about 10 miles with this current, you stop for lunch just before turning northwest to the Harlem river. This was supposed to be the hardest stretch, not because of currents or other water conditions, but because it was supposed to be "boring". After 5 miles of Harlem you stop again at the Columbia University Boathouse for lunch. After lunch, you scoot around the northern tip of the island and turn south on the Hudson, under the George Washington Bridge and 160 blocks to home with the current at your back. Difficult, tiring and surely a challenge, but timed correctly it is a most enjoyable ride and quite an accomplishment. Then there was my trip… Take-off was scheduled for 11:00AM. I got there my traditional 1 hour early to mull around, chat a bit and fit my boat. Our guides were Bob and Bonnie. Bob is a fun guy who is really fun to paddle with. Bonnie is exceedingly nice, complimentary and also a joy to be on the water with. Around 10:45 Bob seems a bit stressed. He tells me we’d better hurry up and get going because it turns out we’d be cutting it very close if we wanted to make it to Hellgate before the tide turns. You might guess by the name, Hellgate can be somewhat difficult to paddle. As I mentioned earlier, the East river has a very strong current. If the current is fully against you it is physically impossible to paddle up the river. Hellgate is a spot where the river gets very narrow, so water is funneled through and sped up greater than the speed one could paddle. Bob said we’d have to be at Hellgate by 1:06 or we’d be "Fu–ed". Now, Hellgate is approximately 40% of the way around the island, that’s around 12 miles in two hours starting off against a pretty strong current. It didn’t look good, but if we busted our buts and made it to the East river quickly we’d get that massive push up and possibly make it. We had a strong group. There was Gary, my paddling buddy who I had to canvas for about 3 weeks to sign up for this trip. There was Donna, a paddler of three years who hadn’t made this trip. Carol, a very nice woman from Seattle who was doing this for her 50th birthday as a challenge. John, another "regular" at MKC who made this trip a month ago in less than 7 hours. And finally there was a couple from Albuquerque New Mexico named Walter and Alison. Walter was obviously experienced and Alison was in a kayak for the fifth time. They were in a double and not at all to be worried about. And of course Bob and Bonnie, our guides. Bob spends a lot of time sideways on the water. He was never one to speed along, he is more of a meanderer. Bonnie grew up in Hawaii and has probably been paddling, rowing, or at least in the water her whole life. Both Bob and Bonnie have made this trip countless times. It looked OK. It would be tight, but we could pull it off according to Bob. As soon as we pulled out of the pier I noticed a stronger current that I was used to. Bob said it would be tough, and it was. We had to stay very close to the piers to avoid the stronger current in the main channel, as well as the many many boats in the water. The down-side of paddling so close to the piers was the danger of reflecting waves coming off the walls and potentially capsizing you. There were some challenging waves due to the strong wind and high traffic. It was a beautiful day. We were paddling hard, but not hard enough. Nobody really realized how slowly we were going for a few reasons. First, it took a good amount of concentration to stay upright and close to the piers. Aslo, the current pulled our boats toward the middle of the river, so as we were chatting and getting to know each other, we had to be constantly reminded by Bob to keep close to the shore where the current was weaker. However, the closer we were, the more we had to deal with the reflection waves. I am accustomed to dealing with the waves from the wind and passing boats. All it takes is loose hips, concentration and an occasional lean or slapping of the paddle to keep upright. With the waves coming from both sides, though, the leans were a bit more precarious and the concentration required a bit more intense. While we dealt with this strong current, larger than normal waves, reflecting waves, and oh yeah a very strong wind in our faces, the group split up a bit. Bonnie and Donna were a good quarter-mile behind us and out towards the middle of the channel. They were having too harrowing a time dealing with the multi-directional waves and decided to take on the current instead. This choice only widened the gap between them and us. Things were looking grim when we pulled into a small pier near Battery Park City to let Bonnie and Donna catch up and we realized it was 12:00. We still had to round the bend around the tip of Manhattan to make it to the East River Express. Bob could only laugh and reiterate how we were "Sooo Fu–ed" It looked like we would miss the tides in our favor and have to "eddy-hop" past Roosevelt Island, where the East River is split around 59th Street and the water funneled through two thinner channels. The hard part was almost over supposedly. Unfortunately, we were still pressed for time, so we decided to press on without Bonnie and Donna and meet up with them on the other side. We rounded the bend to southern Manhattan to be greeted by the choppiest water I have ever been in, as well as the most fun. Standing waves and an undulating sea that dumped gallons of water up my sleeves into my boat, into my face and all over. It took full concentration, many slapping braces and much time to get to a small protected area just before the ferry landing. Wow! was the collective sentiment. We thought this would be a good spot to hang out and wait for Bonnie and Donna. We waited for a while and again decided to press on because we still had the currents to worry about. Hellgate was missed, but if we didn’t hurry we’d be fighting the current up the East river and it might even turn too much against us before we made it to the Harlem river, in which case it would be too late and we’d have to… I don’t know what we’d have had to do. On we paddled. We crossed the ferries and dealt with the New York Harbor’s finest mish-mash of waves, chop and wind created by the confluence of the East and Hudson Rivers for another quarter to half mile until we were finally approaching the Brooklyn Bridge. Finally, the current at our backs! I made the mistake of asking Bob how that stretch we just passed compared to the other circumnavigation he’d done and he said it was definitely the hardest start, but we were only about a fifth of the way done and he went on to describe some horror stories about thunder storms and hail encountered in the next stretch. Each circumnavigation is its own story, and this one was still being written. We were now on the East River. It was my first time paddling over here. I was really looking forward to passing under all the East River bridges. The Brooklyn, Manhattan, Williamsburg, 59th street, Tri-borough. It was really an experience looking at them from that perspective. I noticed, at this time, the lack of assistance from the river. This was the stretch where I was told I’d be moving faster than I ever had before. We were with the current, but it was starting to change. Not only did we miss out on the joyous, easy East River surge, we had to fight it tooth and nail to make it to an unwelcoming Hellgate before the full strength of the tide and current were against us. We moved over to the east side of the river and began to "eddy-hop" like we were on the Hudson only a few hours earlier. By the time we got to the 59th street bridge we were fighting a serious current. As I was approaching the bridge, I came in directly behind the eastern support. The bridge was blocking the current for me, so I didn’t have to paddle that hard. Once I got to the bridge and had to leave the friendly eddy, as soon as I paddled into the current I was unpolitely turned south and had to paddle full strength to make any progress. There was a row of little floating balls on the side of the river right next to my boat. I was paddling 3 or 4 strokes for each ball I passed, which were about 2 feet apart. Wow! again. By around 3:00 or so we were approaching Randall and Ward’s Islands. This was Hellgate territory. It is at this spot where the waters of Long Island Sound come into the East river and the Harlem river begins. I just could not believe the current we were looking at. I was sure we were done. The water was pouring into and down the East River and I just couldn’t imagine being able to paddle against it. Once we got up close and surveyed the situation it turned out that we could go a little east of the Harlem river and ferry across. As soon as I entered the current I was promptly turned 45 degrees in the opposite … read more »

Response:

Question:

I think that for either Irish or, especially, Scotch whisky, you have to use Spey gear.

Response:

Realize how silly this is? It’s starting to sound like, "it’s OK to use too-light gear and kill the fish because a dead fish is just as good as a live one so long as it’s left in the environment." I think I’ll start thunking my "released" fish on the head so I can take a nice picture of them on the grass next to my Orvis bamboo and woven creel; then I’ll toss them back in the river dead. On second thought, I think I’ll follow what’s his-name’s advice in the Curtis Creek Manifesto: "fly fishing is the classiest chess game in town. It’s only good manners to leave the pieces on the board for the other players."

Response:

C&R exists to feed the bears ?

Not just the bears.  Otters, ospreys, eagles, pelicans, and other critters that eat fish. In Yellowstone, the needs of the indigenous species take precedence over humans when it comes to using fish as a food source.  Even dead fish (regardless of how they die) are a food source for the indigenous animals.  No surprise, really, as Yellowstone (and other NPs) is managed as a natural area. BTW…..the C&R regs for Yellowstone are not universal.  They apply to certain species and/or certain waters in the Park.  There are plenty of C&K opportunities in the Park as well.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – C&R exists to feed the bears ? Not just the bears.  Otters, ospreys, eagles, pelicans, and other critters that eat fish. In Yellowstone, the needs of the indigenous species take precedence over humans when it comes to using fish as a food source.  Even dead fish (regardless of how they die) are a food source for the indigenous animals.  No surprise, really, as Yellowstone (and other NPs) is managed as a natural area. BTW…..the C&R regs for Yellowstone are not universal.  They apply to certain species and/or certain waters in the Park.  There are plenty of C&K opportunities in the Park as well.

It doesn’t matter, it’s evil, EVIL I tell you.  Don’t you know, I said it’s EVIL!!!!!!    Why isn’t anybody listening to me?  It’s EVIL and you all are EVIL for even uttering that word.  How dare you talk about bears, it’s beers as far as Tim is concerned.  The more beer present in your bloodstream, the more coherent Tim’s theories become…that is his grand scheme to take over the world.  :-) Okay, I think I need to go eat now, too little blood sugar I suppose.      - Ken — "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the  initiative in creating the Internet."  - Al Gore

Response:

Rusty Hook: Even if a fish is dead or dying, it is to be released, where it will be found (and eaten) by park wildlife. TBone: I struggle with this justification for C&R in a big way. C&R exists to feed the bears ? Doesn’t fly with me any more than leaving the half eaten jiffy pop on a stump for the same reason.

I see your point, and can see some potential problems with the policy, such as attracting bears (& other animals) to places frequented by humans. OTOH, I think the reason they say this is to answer the question, "So what do I do if a fish is gill-hooked, but illegal to keep? Won’t it just go to waste if I leave it?" Also, as others have said, in a national park, wildlife always has top priority (or should, anyway). I agree with you that it doesn’t justify C&R; I see it more as a policy of absolutely no harvest (by humans) in certain areas of the park, no matter what. When I’m in Yellowstone, I take it a step further by not fishing these areas at all. There plenty of park waters that allow some harvest, and that’s where I go. — Rusty Hook Laramie, Wyo Before you buy.

Response:

It doesn’t matter, it’s evil, EVIL I tell you.  Don’t you know, I said it’s EVIL!!!!!!    Why isn’t anybody listening to me?  It’s EVIL and you all are EVIL for even uttering that word.  How dare you talk about bears, it’s beers as far as Tim is concerned.  The more beer present in your bloodstream, the more coherent Tim’s theories become…that is his grand scheme to take over the world.  :-) Okay, I think I need to go eat now, too little blood sugar I suppose.

GEEZ!!!!!!  SORRY!  How foolish of me……. Oh…..I have tried the beer bit.  At my normal consumption rate (not small), but I haven’t noticed an increase in coherency.  I guess I need to increase consumption. I hope you have now restored your blood sugar levels….

Response:

If you fish for stocked trout don’t worry about them dying, most do. Don’t touch a native fish unless you have to.

Drive Me There

EcardsEcards#2Expedia mapsJERRY F Bible MapblastF-KEYSPhoto pointMUSIC-100Music ShopClearCache

Response:

[deleted] Even if a fish is dead or dying, it is to be released, where it will be found (and eaten) by park wildlife.

I struggle with this justification for C&R in a big way. C&R exists to feed the bears ? Doesn’t fly with me any more than leaving the half eaten jiffy pop on a stump for the same reason. — TimW, Halfordian Golfer "A Cash Flow Runs Through It…" "Guilt replaced the creel…" B.M.P.I.A.

Response:

around the goal of harvesting or gathering food. I mean, what other goal can there possibly be for these skills we practice?  If it is not food, then it is just a game for our enjoyment, something akin to golf or tennis. Playing and landing a fish is just as important as getting it to strike in the first place, and even though you’ll never land all the fish you hook, you can improve (at least I can!).

You make a good argument, and if I am truly fishing for the table or the frig, I do "feel badly" about losing the fish.  But mostly I C&R and at the end of the fight I will give the fish some slack and hope it self-releases.  Actually bringing the fish to hand is unimportant to me, but I respect that others have a different perspective. Pat K

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – : :But the set of skills is still centered :around the goal of harvesting or gathering food. I mean, what other :goal can there possibly be for these skills we practice?  If it is not : People fish for very different, personal reasons.  Most can’t really : even put into words the exact reason why they fish.  How can you, : however subtly, tell someone that their reasons for fishing are : "wrong"? After I posted it, I imagined it might be taken that way given that when posted it enters a huge ROFFian context of previous discussions, and I want to say to Joe that I am not saying this has to be everybody’s "way". In regards to what you are saying, I am *not* saying anything about the reasons someone fishes, I am only saying something about the skills involved. I purposely directed it towards an explanation of the skillset, not the act of fishing itself. And since I said nothing about the reasons people fish, I certainly didn’t claim anyone’s reasons were "wrong".

I have a hard time buying that.  Since it was in response to someone being happy fishing without a hook and the statement that fishing for other reasons makes fishing a game or sport, but yes I’m probably going by the larger "ROFF context".  As long as you say here that other people’s reasons are not "wrong" then I’ll take your word for what you meant before.      - Ken — "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the  initiative in creating the Internet."  - Al Gore

Response:

I’d LDR most of ‘em if I could get my fly back.

If your flies are de-barbed, you can usually do this by putting a little slack in the line. — Rusty Hook Laramie, Wyo Before you buy.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – : Success to me is when you’ve done all : that right and persuade a fish to strike.   I don’t deny there’s some : pleasure and satisfaction in bringing a big one to the net, but its a very : small part of the challenge, and I do that as quickly as possible.    I’d : LDR most of ‘em if I could get my fly back. So, in my mind, if we are to be fishermen we should honor the complete set of skills that fishing is based on. Yes, we now can and often do go catch fish and release them, thus "practicing" the skills of fishing, and enjoying it. But the set of skills is still centered around the goal of harvesting or gathering food. I mean, what other goal can there possibly be for these skills we practice?  If it is not food, then it is just a game for our enjoyment, something akin to golf or tennis.

This seems very condescending to me.  We’ve had this discussion before. People fish for very different, personal reasons.  Most can’t really even put into words the exact reason why they fish.  How can you, however subtly, tell someone that their reasons for fishing are "wrong"?     – Ken — "Many go fishing all their lives without knowing that it is not fish  they are after."    - Henry David Thoreau

Response:

Yup, most definately. Provided you kill and eat what you catch. — TimW, Halfordian Golfer "A Cash Flow Runs Through It…" "Guilt replaced the creel…" B.M.P.I.A.

Response:

As I understand it, where C&R is mandatory, you have no choice but to release the fish. Keeping it would be illegal, for whatever reason.

This is brought up in the Yellowstone fishing regs. In the park, the main reason for c&r is to leave the trout in place as a food source for other animals. (This is also a major reason why the lake trout infestation of Yellowstone Lake is taken so seriously.) Even if a fish is dead or dying, it is to be released, where it will be found (and eaten) by park wildlife. — Rusty Hook Laramie, Wyo Before you buy.

Response:

<snip I’d LDR most of ‘em if I could get my fly back.

Easy fix – just clip off the hook.  I’ve done that by accident many times (now I know to check my fly more often) and the fishing was just as enjoyable as with a hook as long as I didn’t know<G.  Now I mostly fish barbless or with a pinched down barb so remote release is pretty easy. Maybe too easy… –Stan

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – : Success to me is when you’ve done all : that right and persuade a fish to strike.   I don’t deny there’s some : pleasure and satisfaction in bringing a big one to the net, but its a very : small part of the challenge, and I do that as quickly as possible. I’d : LDR most of ‘em if I could get my fly back. Interesting…below is a piece I wrote for this month’s local FF club newsletter: Well, not me. Nope, nosiree. I feel bad when I lose a fish. After all, I failed to bring it to hand. And I don’t want to get comfortable with failure. OK, maybe you’re thinking that I take fishing way too seriously. It’s not that I get angry or anything like that—I enjoy fishing whether I catch something or not—but it’s just that I don’t want to get comfortable with a job half done, so to speak.

<snip I don’t disagree with you or at all preach that my way should be everybody’s way.   It’s just that I grew up as a bait fisherman, spending many a day enjoyably pulling fish out of the Chesapeake Bay for fun and for dinner.   I just don’t find that challenging anymore.   I KNOW I can catch fish.   I know I can retrieve a hooked fish more often than not.   Playing a fish is still fun and I still like it; it’s just not necessary to my happiness. Relatively, I am a neophyte in the fly fishing arena.   I have a lot to learn and a lot of skills to hone.   At this stage of my ffing life, it is in conquering these challenges that I find enjoyment.   Reeling in fish just isn’t one of them for me.   Been there, done that.   YMMV. Joe F.

Response:

Amongst my fishing aquaintances, bragging rights go to the people who catch the biggest fish in relation to the lightest tackle. IME, after a 20 minute fight, the fish dies shortly thereafter. So how does one resolve the paradox of quickly and safely bringing in a fish vs. using light enough line to make it a bit of a challenge?

To me, that’s one of the biggest differences between fly & bait fishing. In fly fishing, the bigger challenges are in stalking the fish; selecting the correct stream position; selecting the right fly, tippet, etc.; and making a good cast and presentation.   Success to me is when you’ve done all that right and persuade a fish to strike.   I don’t deny there’s some pleasure and satisfaction in bringing a big one to the net, but its a very small part of the challenge, and I do that as quickly as possible.    I’d LDR most of ‘em if I could get my fly back. Joe F.

Response:

You’re fishing friends need to grow some more brain cells.  I suggest using a tippet size that is sufficient to land the fish well short of exhausting it, yet fine enough that the tippet is not readily noticeable to the quarry.

Actually, that’s the much more interesting question.  IMO the tippet should be the right size to turn over the fly, yet not hinder the desired action or float.  I’ve read studies where fish pick off dead-drifting beetles, etc with huge pieces of mono stuck in them.  I could be wrong but I don’t think visibility of the tippet is always of big concern.  It could be in certain situations I guess. Regards, Jeff

Response:

So how does one resolve the paradox of quickly and safely bringing in a fish vs. using light enough line to make it a bit of a challenge?

I resolve this "paradox" by not making the size of the line or tippet part of the "challenge".  I just don’t play that game.  The challenge is in getting the fish to take, and not letting it get off.  If a small tippet is required for presentation, so be it.  But I never would purposely use a small tippet or rod just to make a game out of landing the fish. Regards, Jeff

Response:

David writes: Amongst my fishing aquaintances, bragging rights go to the people who catch the biggest fish in relation to the lightest tackle. IME, after a 20 minute fight, the fish dies shortly thereafter.

You’re fishing friends need to grow some more brain cells.  I suggest using a tippet size that is sufficient to land the fish well short of exhausting it, yet fine enough that the tippet is not readily noticeable to the quarry. Pat K

Response:

I usually only go light enough to fool the fish.  Bragging about it is silly if they really are interested in letting them go. Mu

Response:

Some people need or want "bragging rights" for all sorts of things.  This is probably not the best basis for comtemplative fly-angling.

Amen! Peter G. Aitken

Response:

Amongst my fishing aquaintances, bragging rights go to the people who catch the biggest fish in relation to the lightest tackle. IME, after a 20 minute fight, the fish dies shortly thereafter. So how does one resolve the paradox of quickly and safely bringing in a fish vs. using light enough line to make it a bit of a challenge? Does one change tackle if C&R is the rule of the day? Can anything be done to help a fish survive after a hard fight? I personally C&R most of the time, but don’t want to release a fish that will probably not make it.

Response:

 I personally C&R most of the time, but don’t want to release a fish that will probably not make it.

Assuming that this isn’t a troll, this topic has been done to death here, not that it won’t be again, or can’t be done now.  Try doing a deja search on c&r or ethics, you may be surprised and incredibly bored with what you find. — Levi "There are no facts, only interpretations." -Friedrich Nietzsche

Response:

The size of your gear should be matched to the size of your target fish. Purposely fishing too light is not a good thing to do as far as the fish are concerned.  What is ethical is something you will have to decide for yourself.  If one fishes, one must accept that there will be casualties, if this is disturbing, then one should not fish, irrespective of whether one practises C&R or C&K. The best way to ensure fish survival is to bring them in fairly quickly, unhook them without touching them, or at least wet your hands thoroughly before touching them.  Holding the fish gently upright in the water for a moment may help to revive it. As I understand it, where C&R is mandatory, you have no choice but to release the fish. Keeping it would be illegal, for whatever reason. An exhausted fish is less of a problem if you are going to keep it anyway, you just knock it on the head. Some people need or want "bragging rights" for all sorts of things.  This is probably not the best basis for comtemplative fly-angling. TL MC — "In order to achieve what is possible, one must constantly attempt the impossible" http://www.mikeconnor.de

Response:

Question:

I have a friend who’s been breaking my balls about how he’s been hooking up consistently with winter largemouths.(He’s a spin fisherman)The winters haven’t been very cold in the northeast lately so many lakes and ponds have yet to freeze over.I’ve tried a few different things with my flytackle but I haven’t been able to hook up.I did get a bass once two years ago,while fishing for hatcheries,using a large dry with a hares ear dropper size 12.If anyone out there is having sucess in this area I’d appreciate the info.I want to shove a nice size bass right in that smug bastards face.

Response:

Even if the water hasn’t frozen, you need to go deep and slow for these northern winter largemouths. Not really what you would call typical fly-fishing.  You might want to try a slow sinking line.  It would take forever to get your fly down into the strike zone but unlike a fast sink line you’ll be able to fish slowly and still keep the fly in the fish zone once it gets down there. A Carolina rigged plastic worm or salamander would be my recommendation. Mu

Response:

I am in the south fishing in temps of the 40’s.Tp our bass thats the same as hanging out wit Ms. Pauls. I go to a pattern I tie called a Crystal Puff. It is White long cactus chanille head with X lg bead chain eyes, with a tail of whit bucktail and crystal flash with wide white hackle feathers (3 together on each side) or my favorite silver badger feathers. All of this on a mustad 2/0 – 3/0 hook #7766 Fish it slow with quick darts. On days that the temp does rise look for flats and shoals with dark bottoms with EZ access to deep drop offs. They will come up to warm up there. Good luck. It has been working for me.

Response:

Question:

 Sounds perfectly doable to me, and in fact ,easier than say kip or calf body. The bulk thing can be a problem with hair fibers and on small bugs the poly post is preferred. I use flats  only because of habit and the "natural" look.  I like the poly or  antron post because of the various colors one can use . Try a black post some time in  a white  foam line and you will literally_ see_ what I mean That’s what interesting about tying, not much is chiseled or even written in stone , you can do pretty much as you please. There are techniques that should be learned and practiced only because trial and error over time has shown them to be the "best" way.Once you master those, you can sub this for that and create things that work for _you_ …that’s the fun part.    Have at it ..;-)

Harry, that’s a great explanation on tying parachutes.  Your photographer should take a bow, too. BTW, I’ve always used an antron loop to form the post which I clip off the top when done, to form the wing.  Your method of tying off solved one of my problems; I’ll try it next time. Peter

Response:

There is a very interesting material called spiderweb.  Salmon and steelheaders who tie their own roe sacks from nylon netting use it to tie off their spawn bags.  Basically you just wrap it around and around and it somehow sticks to itself (so it says on the packaging).  It looks as thin as 8/0.  It would make a good tie off thread for parachute hackle where you finish the hackle on the post not on the hook shank.  I believe this is the product that Hans van Klinken was talking about in his article www.algonet.se/~sjostran/English/10035.htm Inspired by van Klinken’s method but not wanting to rely on this very specialized spiderweb material, lately I’ve been tying off the head and leaving the hackle (already secured to the post at a much earlier step) for the last step.  I anchor my thread onto the post near the bottom. Then wind the hackle down.  Then tie of with a series of half-hitches – each one I can manipulate as it tightens down (with the hooked end of my whip finisher) so that it doesn’t trap any hackle. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Also BTW, is it better to tie the body first, or the parachute? If you tie the parachute first how do you keep the hackle out of the way when tieing the body?

Response:

I use a slightly different technique, which results in a "flatter" hackle. I tie the post in as normal, tie the hackle in at the top of the thread on the post,  which is shorter than "normal", varnish the post with thin clear varnish, take three turns of hackle down the post, and then three turns back up through the hackle, I then wind the thread down through the hackle, binding the hackle down as I go, and just whip finish at the bottom of the post.  Using a needle from underneath, allow more thin varnish to soak into the windings. It also works with just four turns of hackle, two up, two down, and the hackle is then very flat with few stray fibres. ( I thought this might be what rw was referring to, when he said his hackles were too "bushy", meaning too spread out over the post length ). I have also done this around the base of normal split feather wings on dry flies without any problems.  I have not had one come undone while fishing yet. One must be careful here not to twist the wings too much when winding and finishing is all. I also often flatten the wings and hackle between my thumb and forefinger so that they are horizontal. This makes a great spinner pattern, with all the advantages of a parachute, and practically none of the disadvantages. This is especially good for larger flies where two turns of longish hackle are more than sufficient. The support given by a horizontal hackle is much greater than that given by a vertical hackle just sitting on its points. Works great. It is easier to do if you tilt the fly in the vice, as Hans suggests in his article about the Klinkhamer Special. But you can do it with the fly in the normal plane if you wish.  If your post is stiff enough, it is no trouble to wind through the hackle with ordinary 6/0 thread as you would on a normal fly. Makes a very robust fly, and there are more turns of hackle to support the fly where you need them, and not spread out over a longer length of the post. TL MC — "In order to achieve what is possible, one must constantly attempt the impossible" http://connor.via.t-online.de/

Response:

I’ve had a demonstration by Hans van Klinken at the last Flyfair, tying the Klinkhammer in the fashion as on the mentioned webpage. It looks a bit awkward when you first see it, but try it! It’s a lot easier than it looks, sure made my parachutes a lot better. The key feature of spiderweb is it’s elasticity. Tie on as tight as you dare (its really, really thin) and it it will pull snug on itself, locking the hackle in the process. I think you can try thin nylon as an alternative.  Herman – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – There is a very interesting material called spiderweb.  Salmon and steelheaders who tie their own roe sacks from nylon netting use it to tie off their spawn bags.  Basically you just wrap it around and around and it somehow sticks to itself (so it says on the packaging).  It looks as thin as 8/0.  It would make a good tie off thread for parachute hackle where you finish the hackle on the post not on the hook shank.  I believe this is the product that Hans van Klinken was talking about in his article www.algonet.se/~sjostran/English/10035.htm Inspired by van Klinken’s method but not wanting to rely on this very specialized spiderweb material, lately I’ve been tying off the head and leaving the hackle (already secured to the post at a much earlier step) for the last step.  I anchor my thread onto the post near the bottom. Then wind the hackle down.  Then tie of with a series of half-hitches – each one I can manipulate as it tightens down (with the hooked end of my whip finisher) so that it doesn’t trap any hackle. Also BTW, is it better to tie the body first, or the parachute? If you tie the parachute first how do you keep the hackle out of the way when tieing the body?

–         Cheers, Herman         Herman Nijland         Daytime webmaster         Lifetime flyfisher

Response:

When I try the Parachute Adams I can’t get the hackle to look as nice as the store-bought ones. The professionally tied flies have nice "thin" parachutes, but mine are kind of bushy. Any suggestions, Harry? Are you referring to the post being bushy ? or  the hackle ?

I was referring to the hackle. Also BTW, is it better to tie the body first, or the parachute? If you tie the parachute first how do you keep the hackle out of the way when tieing the body? — visit my web site: http://home.earthlink.net/~royalwulff/ something bogus to avoid spam)

Response:

If I get a chance I’ll upload a pic of the tye in area a bit later today……

  Take a look  : http://www.troutflies.com/flies/Parachute_howtoo/5Aposthackle_tieinMA… Harry Mason www.Troutflies.com

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – When I try the Parachute Adams I can’t get the hackle to look as nice as the store-bought ones. The professionally tied flies have nice "thin" parachutes, but mine are kind of bushy. Any suggestions, Harry? Are you referring to the post being bushy ? or  the hackle ? I was referring to the hackle. Also BTW, is it better to tie the body first, or the parachute? If you tie the parachute first how do you keep the hackle out of the way when tieing the body?

  Some undersize the hackle by a hook size or so. I like that as well IMO, I think neck hackles are a better feather for a parachute because the barbs are stiffer, again IMO.  Being stiffer, they stay perpendicular to the post and do not "mesh"  with each other.A clean crisp look ,if you will. With this method you can tye in the hackle and the just leave it. After you apply the tail and dub the body including the head, you can then wrap the hackle and tye it off at the eye as a last step. What is clean about this is the fly is in essence done when you begin to wrap the hackle, you do not have to come back and dub the hackle tye down area after the hackle wraps. The last wraps are for the hackle .  The hackle will stand straight up alongside  the post and be out of the way more or less as you build the rest of the fly. Harry Mason www.Troutflies.com

Response:

  I tried to  clarify the steps for the Parachute tye down. Comments welcome  http://www.troutflies.com/flies/Parachute_howtoo/10A_finished.htm Harry Mason www.troutflies.com

Response:

 I tried to  clarify the steps for the Parachute tye down. Comments welcome

The only comment I can think of is great job, very helpful instructions. — Charlie…

Response:

Harry,  I tried to  clarify the steps for the Parachute tye down. Comments welcome http://www.troutflies.com/flies/Parachute_howtoo/10A_finished.htm

I’m mightily impressed with that how-to!  This is how God intended fly patterns to be presented when He invented the Web. Anybody else putting patterns on the web:  Note that Harry’s raised the bar. Bravo. Wes Peterson Who would call himself "liberal," let him love justice. Let him love equality. Let him love compassion and charity. But let him love first, and above all the rest, Liberty.

Response:

  I tried to  clarify the steps for the Parachute tye down. Comments welcome  http://www.troutflies.com/flies/Parachute_howtoo/10A_finished.htm

Very nice job Harry. Quality pictures well explained. TL MC

Response:

http://www.troutflies.com/flies/Parachute_howtoo/10A_finished.htm

Nice shots Harry. Who did your camera work? Someone with a lot of pateince? Do you usually hackle your flies before putting on the tail & dubbing. Seems to me I would have to move the hackle around too much & would have to be carefull not to bind the fibers down. Sol

Response:

http://www.troutflies.com/flies/Parachute_howtoo/10A_finished.htm Nice shots Harry. Who did your camera work? Someone with a lot of pateince? Do you usually hackle your flies before putting on the tail & dubbing. Seems to me I would have to move the hackle around too much & would have to be carefull not to bind the fibers down. Sol

  Thanks , Sol.  It’s just about the hackling method, not a pattern. For those that are just starting, seeing how can be much better than reading. Now if I can just find a way to show a blind pinch through my thumb I can tye a no hackle for the camera Harry Mason www.Troutflies.com

Response:

Thanks Harry….that’s a fine piece of work. I have alot of novice tiers in my wintercourse who will be very gladto get the URL from me. This indeed wil make things clear for them and give ‘m the oppotunity to take a good look when they’re back home again! Very nice photographic work too! — Hans van der Stroom http://www.casema.net/~stroomh ICQ # 20196762 – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –   I tried to  clarify the steps for the Parachute tye down. Comments welcome  http://www.troutflies.com/flies/Parachute_howtoo/10A_finished.htm Harry Mason www.troutflies.com

Response:

 I tried to  clarify the steps for the Parachute tye down. Comments welcome Harry Mason www.troutflies.com

Those are magnificent pictures, Harry, and very lucid text.  But let me desecribe an alternative method and ask you what you think of it. I learned this from Doug Wennick of Flyfisher’s Paradise, State College, PA. 1.  Select a length of post material (I like antron yarn) that is twice as long as necessary but only half as thick. 2.  Tie it across the BOTTOM of the hook shank with two figure-8 wraps, at right angles, like a "low-wing" airplane (or Trico spinner). 3.  Pull both "wings" upright, straight up, to make a post, and wrap the tying thread around it to hold it there,  just as in your picture. I have found this to work better, for me, than starting with the post material parallel to the hook shank and then propping it up and cutting off the tag ends. A lot less bulk. I would appreciate hearing your comments, pro or con,  about this method.  Thanks. vince norris

Response:

When I try the Parachute Adams I can’t get the hackle to look as nice as the store-bought ones. The professionally tied flies have nice "thin" parachutes, but mine are kind of bushy. Any suggestions, Harry? BTW, is it better to wind the grizzly hackle and the brown hackle at the same time or separately? — visit my web site: http://home.earthlink.net/~royalwulff/ something bogus to avoid spam)

Response:

When I try the Parachute Adams I can’t get the hackle to look as nice as the store-bought ones. The professionally tied flies have nice "thin" parachutes, but mine are kind of bushy. Any suggestions, Harry?

Are you referring to the post being bushy ? or  the hackle ? BTW, is it better to wind the grizzly hackle and the brown hackle at the same time or separately?

 I like separate wraps.I find that if you turn both at the same time they do not "seat" well , one turns or spins and the thing turns into a hay seed.    Bind in last of  the two hackles a bit above the prior one on the post . Turn ( wrap) the lower one first.  You do not need to tye it off per say just half hitch the first one at the eye. Wrap the second one down to the eye and tye off both of them . This is the same method you can use for multiple hackle drys like Sofa pillows  or  the like . The only difference is the hackle collar is on the hook, not a post. Harry Mason www.troutflies.com

Response:

Hi RW, I also like the antron or poly yarn tied as per the last message. The professionally tied flies having the "nice thin" parachutes are probably the cause of the tier starting the wraps of hackle lower and giving you fewer wraps. I tend to tie still water flies sparsely and the rougher the water the fuller the hackling and tailing. I wrap both hackles at the same time. This works best if you don’t use hackle pliers and if you use maximum tension on the hackle. You will find the maximum but trial and error When I try the Parachute Adams I can’t get the hackle to look as nice as the store-bought ones. The professionally tied flies have nice "thin" parachutes, but mine are kind of bushy. Any suggestions, Harry? BTW, is it better to wind the grizzly hackle and the brown hackle at the same time or separately? — visit my web site: http://home.earthlink.net/~royalwulff/ something bogus to avoid spam)

– Vic Brockett http://home.earthlink.net/~vicbrockett

Response:

If I get a chance I’ll upload a pic of the tye in area a bit later today…… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – When I try the Parachute Adams I can’t get the hackle to look as nice as the store-bought ones. The professionally tied flies have nice "thin" parachutes, but mine are kind of bushy. Any suggestions, Harry? Are you referring to the post being bushy ? or  the hackle ? BTW, is it better to wind the grizzly hackle and the brown hackle at the same time or separately? I like separate wraps.I find that if you turn both at the same time they do not "seat" well , one turns or spins and the thing turns into a hay seed.   Bind in last of  the two hackles a bit above the prior one on the post . Turn ( wrap) the lower one first.  You do not need to tye it off per say just half hitch the first one at the eye. Wrap the second one down to the eye and tye off both of them . This is the same method you can use for multiple hackle drys like Sofa pillows  or  the like . The only difference is the hackle collar is on the hook, not a post. Harry Mason www.troutflies.com

Harry Mason www.troutflies.com

Response:

One of those, *hey why didn’t I think of it before* ideas. There are some instances where the thick part on the back of the post is actually useful to build up bulk for a nice tapered body but I can definitely think of situations where I had wished it wasn’t there.  Thanks. Mu Young Lee Ann Arbor, MI USA – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I learned this from Doug Wennick of Flyfisher’s Paradise, State College, PA. 1.  Select a length of post material (I like antron yarn) that is twice as long as necessary but only half as thick. 2.  Tie it across the BOTTOM of the hook shank with two figure-8 wraps, at right angles, like a "low-wing" airplane (or Trico spinner). 3.  Pull both "wings" upright, straight up, to make a post, and wrap the tying thread around it to hold it there,  just as in your picture. I have found this to work better, for me, than starting with the post material parallel to the hook shank and then propping it up and cutting off the tag ends. A lot less bulk. I would appreciate hearing your comments, pro or con,  about this method.  Thanks. vince norris

Response:

  Sounds perfectly doable to me, and in fact ,easier than say kip or calf body. The bulk thing can be a problem with hair fibers and on small bugs the poly post is preferred. I use flats  only because of habit and the "natural" look.  I like the poly or  antron post because of the various colors one can use . Try a black post some time in  a white  foam line and you will literally_ see_ what I mean  That’s what interesting about tying, not much is chiseled or even written in stone , you can do pretty much as you please. There are techniques that should be learned and practiced only because trial and error over time has shown them to be the "best" way.Once you master those, you can sub this for that and create things that work for _you_ …that’s the fun part.    Have at it ..;-) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –  I tried to  clarify the steps for the Parachute tye down. Comments welcome Harry Mason www.troutflies.com Those are magnificent pictures, Harry, and very lucid text.  But let me desecribe an alternative method and ask you what you think of it. I learned this from Doug Wennick of Flyfisher’s Paradise, State College, PA. 1.  Select a length of post material (I like antron yarn) that is twice as long as necessary but only half as thick. 2.  Tie it across the BOTTOM of the hook shank with two figure-8 wraps, at right angles, like a "low-wing" airplane (or Trico spinner). 3.  Pull both "wings" upright, straight up, to make a post, and wrap the tying thread around it to hold it there,  just as in your picture. I have found this to work better, for me, than starting with the post material parallel to the hook shank and then propping it up and cutting off the tag ends. A lot less bulk. I would appreciate hearing your comments, pro or con,  about this method.  Thanks. vince norris

Harry Mason www.Troutflies.com

Response:

Question:

Tom , My friend your singing to The Choir .   Harry – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – :  #17-Outlaw all types of fishing in any of the river so reclamied. : After all it’s about the fish …right? You bet, Harry. I’m with you on that one. Rather than proposing to make it pure C+R, why not have a 1-weekend season? Hunting seems to work rather well like that. If the fish can handle pure C+R, they can handle some harvest. Why bias the policy against the vast majority of fishermen who like to keep some fish? : : 15.) Bill nations with an exorbitant military service fee for resolving their : wars with our military. This huge windfall of trillions of dollars would fund : the government. clean up the environment/save the wild fish and lower our : taxes. Should this be taken as "I’m not willing to pay for it myself"? Of course, sending a bill doesn’t mean you actually collect money. Do you *really* think we’d reap a "windfall"? No, if they have the money, rather than pay us, they’d keep that money and raise their own army. Then we’d be back to square one. It is in our own interest for these nations to not keep large standing armies. That’s what gives us the title "superpower". If a country had the money to build a strong military, it probably would not need US aid to protect itself from other nations. For example, England would not need US intervention in the foreseeable future, but Kosovo will. Meanwhile, the US spent over a billion dollars on Kosovo and we never see that money again. The US will end up fighting over there again without compensation because of Milosevic or some other tyrant and we will spend billions of dollars to try to solve a problem that will never be solved without 50 or more years of commitment. As far as I am concerned, the US environmental problems are more important than Kosovo. Congress whines "a Billion dollars has been spent on the salmon in the last 20 years….", but is a happy camper whenever we blow billions of dollars in a few weeks to try to rectify a problem that has existed for 1000’s of years in the false hope that we can make things better in a month of bombing when the Serbs and Kosovars have been intolerant of each other for hundreds, if not thousands of years. A few years of peacekeeping will not make things better and the US will spend more on Kosovo, a place more than 3000 miles away from America than it will on fixing our environmental problems in the next few years. When was Kosovo a part of the US? Is it the 51st state? It is wrong for the government to spend more money on Kosovo than it does for many states. I bet the people of Wyoming are pleased that the citizens of Kosovo get more Wyoming taxpayer dollars than the people of Wyoming. If Kosovo wants our help, they better pay their share of the taxes. Whenever Americans need improvements or protection, Americans pay their government for those services. Why should another nation who uses our Governement to solve their problems be absolved from paying for the services that they used? Anyways, the *real* question is how much are *you* willing to have *your* taxes increase to fund all of your points?  If you are not willing to pay for it yourself, then it’s all just hot air. no, I am willing to pay my taxes even with an increase, but the government should be efficient with the money it collects from taxpayers. It is not right for the government to spend billions of dollars on the problems of other nations while we have so many problems at home to solve. If the government is going to spend money on other nations, the government should demand payment for services rendered. I pay to fish by buying a license and that money is used to manage fisheries. My payment pays for the management services provided by my state. Why should the military be any different? If a country has a problem that has to be resolved by the military and they ask for our help, that US military aid should be paid for by the country that is asking for our help. What’s wrong with paying for services delivered? It’s ridiculous to let our tax dollars be spent without demanding compensation for what has been done. Spend the money on the salmon/steelhead, forests, waterways, educational system, infrastructure and technology instead of throwing money into a fire. Tom JonCook.

Response:

Are there any other rivers in the lower 48 states that a summer Steelhead will take a fly on the surface?   I’ve had many days of ten fish on the Deschutes river in Oregon skating fly’s on the surface for Steelhead.  Wonder why they take a fly on the surface on the Deschutes, and not on other rivers? — Sharp Hooks, Pat Holdzit Fishing Products Inc. http://www.holdzit.com Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.

Response:

At the right time and place they’ll take a dry on any water.

Response:

I believe wild fish come to the surface more readily than planted fish. I know that Bill McMillan swears by surface fishing for steal head in his book Dry Line Fishing For Pacific Steelhead.

Response:

I believe wild fish come to the surface more readily than planted fish. I know that Bill McMillan swears by surface fishing for steal head in his book Dry Line Fishing For Pacific Steelhead.

Hi All, There are two ways to dry fly fish for steelhead. Waking or skating dry flies and dead drifting dry flies. We met an old English angler on the Bulkley River in B.C. who said that the only tasteful way was to dead drift dries. I think wild fish are preferable. Sun off the water and 60 degree water temperater also can help. You are looking for water that is less than 10 feet deep, moving at a medium speed and with a pretty smooth surface. Maybe late September, early October? There are less Steelhead than ever, but if you want to work hard enough for them, they can still be found.

Response:

There are less Steelhead than ever, but if you want to work hard enough for them, they can still be found.

Why do you think that is, Bill? I mean, why are there fewer steelhead than ever? — something bogus to avoid spam)

Response:

says… There are less Steelhead than ever, but if you want to work hard enough for them, they can still be found. Why do you think that is, Bill? I mean, why are there fewer steelhead than ever?

Excessive commercial fishing pressure, improperly designed dams, water pollution, destruction of habitat and improperly managed sport fisheries….. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text — something bogus to avoid spam)

Response:

If you catch enough steelhead, the nonsense about a difference between hatchery and wild fish becomes obvious.  I have always found steelhead come up for dries best in the tail of a pool, usually on a side.  Probably just less water overhead and that they usually are found in this area at the start and end of the day which probably means they have not been disturbed for some time.  If you spot a fish in such a location, a little skate when the fly is about 2 foot above the fish’s lie helps. Fred – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I believe wild fish come to the surface more readily than planted fish. I know that Bill McMillan swears by surface fishing for steal head in his book Dry Line Fishing For Pacific Steelhead.

Response:

There are less Steelhead than ever, but if you want to work hard enough for them, they can still be found. Why do you think that is, Bill? I mean, why are there fewer steelhead than ever? — something bogus to avoid spam)

I started fishing steelhead in the 60s in northern California. It was still pretty good fishing then, but the older guys really saw it in it’s ‘hay days’. I have fished with an old group of anglers that fished for them heavily from the end of W W II till just recently. Mostly, they are too old to wade and secondly in the last 10 years they have lost interest. We still have a pretty strong younger group that travel up and down the northwest coast of North America. I have listened to them tell the stories of fishing 50 years ago on the great un-damed rivers of North America. The mighty Russian, Eel, Trinity, Klamath, Rogue, Umpqua and on up through Oregon, Washington and the great rivers of British Columbia. It is a crime what we let happen to our great rivers. We mostly wipped out the wild steelhead in the 1900s. Bad logging, too many dams, de-watering and agriculture have lead to the loss of habitate for the might ‘Iron Head’. Commercial netting up north in BC is to blame also. If they could just start working on some of the good rivers that are left we could save some wild steelhead stocks. I have been thinking about this for the last 10 years. Take a few rivers and turn them back to wild rivers with no hatchery fish. Close them for 10 years and build back up a good population. No logging on the drainage. No dams. No more roads. Steelhead should all be wild and all be catch and release. If you have caught wild steelhead on a fly rod with a floating line and dry or unweighted steelhead fly, you can understand this kind of thinking. Hell, if you caught a wild steelhead on any kind of tackle you would understand. Rather than complain all the time, we should try to save what is left.

Response:

says… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – There are less Steelhead than ever, but if you want to work hard enough for them, they can still be found. Why do you think that is, Bill? I mean, why are there fewer steelhead than ever? — something bogus to avoid spam) I started fishing steelhead in the 60s in northern California. It was still pretty good fishing then, but the older guys really saw it in it’s ‘hay days’. I have fished with an old group of anglers that fished for them heavily from the end of W W II till just recently. Mostly, they are too old to wade and secondly in the last 10 years they have lost interest. We still have a pretty strong younger group that travel up and down the northwest coast of North America. I have listened to them tell the stories of fishing 50 years ago on the great un-damed rivers of North America. The mighty Russian, Eel, Trinity, Klamath, Rogue, Umpqua and on up through Oregon, Washington and the great rivers of British Columbia. It is a crime what we let happen to our great rivers. We mostly wipped out the wild steelhead in the 1900s. Bad logging, too many dams, de-watering and agriculture have lead to the loss of habitate for the might ‘Iron Head’. Commercial netting up north in BC is to blame also. If they could just start working on some of the good rivers that are left we could save some wild steelhead stocks. I have been thinking about this for the last 10 years. Take a few rivers and turn them back to wild rivers with no hatchery fish. Close them for 10 years and build back up a good population. No logging on the drainage. No dams. No more roads. Steelhead should all be wild and all be catch and release. If you have caught wild steelhead on a fly rod with a floating line and dry or unweighted steelhead fly, you can understand this kind of thinking. Hell, if you caught a wild steelhead on any kind of tackle you would understand. Rather than complain all the time, we should try to save what is left.

I think the steelhead and salmon could come back to historic proportions if the following things were done: 1.) All remaining undammed rivers are allowed to flow freely for eternity. 2.) Cities built near spawning habitat should be forced stop all development     near the spawning habitat. 3.) Ban commercial fishing for coldwater fish in the sea or freshwater. Catch     and Release only for wild stocks and certain hatchery stocks should be     maintained to create fisheries for the average angler while saving the     wild fish with prudent management. Seafood farming (the planting and     raising of seafood)would be implemented instead of commercial fishing. 4.) Train and pay former commercial fishermen to help study and protect the         fish stocks.     5.) Create tree farms for necessary lumber and ban logging in pristine         forests. Hire loggers to log the tree farms and use their expertise to             assist in the reclaimation of logged forests. Train loggers to fight         forest fires, maintain national parks and use their forestry skills             /training to help wilderness areas. 6.) retrofit all amenable dams with fish ladders to allow fish migration. 7.) breach all dams that cannot be retrofitted to help the salmon/steelhead         migrations. 8.) All hatchery plantings be restricted to planting native river stocks only     and augmenting the hatchery stock by a yearly infusion of native river.     stocks. 9.) Ban all logging, development and restrict access in sensitive areas. 10.) Reward organizations and industrial firms by giving huge tax breaks to companies that actively seek to help the environment by complying with the environmental regulations. 11.) Punish (15,000% tax rate)all firms that show wanton disregard for the environment by heavy taxation. 12.) Punish firms that try to leave the US in effort to circumvent the rules with a 20,000% tax rate. 13.) Punish (100,000% tax rate) rogue firms that try to lay off workers to offset financial punishments due to environmental callousness and ineptitude. 14.) after implementation of rules 10-13, all firms will be in compliance as it will be unprofitable to intentionally pollute. 15.) Bill nations with an exorbitant military service fee for resolving their wars with our military. This huge windfall of trillions of dollars would fund the government. clean up the environment/save the wild fish and lower our taxes. 16.) With the 15 rules above, the salmon, steelhead and other wild stocks would be saved, fisheries for the average angler would exist, the environment would be cleaner, the old growth forest would remain, wars would cease, loggers would still be employed, development would be carefully controlled, taxes would be lower, the military would be superpowerful/well funded and we would have enough money to enhance America’s future and resolve many of our problems.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – :  #17-Outlaw all types of fishing in any of the river so reclamied. : After all it’s about the fish …right? You bet, Harry. I’m with you on that one. Rather than proposing to make it pure C+R, why not have a 1-weekend season? Hunting seems to work rather well like that. If the fish can handle pure C+R, they can handle some harvest. Why bias the policy against the vast majority of fishermen who like to keep some fish? : : 15.) Bill nations with an exorbitant military service fee for resolving their : wars with our military. This huge windfall of trillions of dollars would fund : the government. clean up the environment/save the wild fish and lower our : taxes. Should this be taken as "I’m not willing to pay for it myself"? Of course, sending a bill doesn’t mean you actually collect money. Do you *really* think we’d reap a "windfall"? No, if they have the money, rather than pay us, they’d keep that money and raise their own army. Then we’d be back to square one. It is in our own interest for these nations to not keep large standing armies. That’s what gives us the title "superpower".

If a country had the money to build a strong military, it probably would not need US aid to protect itself from other nations. For example, England would not need US intervention in the foreseeable future, but Kosovo will. Meanwhile, the US spent over a billion dollars on Kosovo and we never see that money again. The US will end up fighting over there again without compensation because of Milosevic or some other tyrant and we will spend billions of dollars to try to solve a problem that will never be solved without 50 or more years of commitment. As far as I am concerned, the US environmental problems are more important than Kosovo. Congress whines "a Billion dollars has been spent on the salmon in the last 20 years….", but is a happy camper whenever we blow billions of dollars in a few weeks to try to rectify a problem that has existed for 1000’s of years in the false hope that we can make things better in a month of bombing when the Serbs and Kosovars have been intolerant of each other for hundreds, if not thousands of years. A few years of peacekeeping will not make things better and the US will spend more on Kosovo, a place more than 3000 miles away from America than it will on fixing our environmental problems in the next few years. When was Kosovo a part of the US? Is it the 51st state? It is wrong for the government to spend more money on Kosovo than it does for many states. I bet the people of Wyoming are pleased that the citizens of Kosovo get more Wyoming taxpayer dollars than the people of Wyoming. If Kosovo wants our help, they better pay their share of the taxes. Whenever Americans need improvements or protection, Americans pay their government for those services. Why should another nation who uses our Governement to solve their problems be absolved from paying for the services that they used? Anyways, the *real* question is how much are *you* willing to have *your* taxes increase to fund all of your points?  If you are not willing to pay for it yourself, then it’s all just hot air.

no, I am willing to pay my taxes even with an increase, but the government should be efficient with the money it collects from taxpayers. It is not right for the government to spend billions of dollars on the problems of other nations while we have so many problems at home to solve. If the government is going to spend money on other nations, the government should demand payment for services rendered. I pay to fish by buying a license and that money is used to manage fisheries. My payment pays for the management services provided by my state. Why should the military be any different? If a country has a problem that has to be resolved by the military and they ask for our help, that US military aid should be paid for by the country that is asking for our help. What’s wrong with paying for services delivered? It’s ridiculous to let our tax dollars be spent without demanding compensation for what has been done. Spend the money on the salmon/steelhead, forests, waterways, educational system, infrastructure and technology instead of throwing money into a fire. Tom – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -JonCook.

Response:

 #17-Outlaw all types of fishing in any of the river so reclamied. After all it’s about the fish …right? HM – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – says… There are less Steelhead than ever, but if you want to work hard enough for them, they can still be found. Why do you think that is, Bill? I mean, why are there fewer steelhead than ever? — something bogus to avoid spam) I started fishing steelhead in the 60s in northern California. It was still pretty good fishing then, but the older guys really saw it in it’s ‘hay days’. I have fished with an old group of anglers that fished for them heavily from the end of W W II till just recently. Mostly, they are too old to wade and secondly in the last 10 years they have lost interest. We still have a pretty strong younger group that travel up and down the northwest coast of North America. I have listened to them tell the stories of fishing 50 years ago on the great un-damed rivers of North America. The mighty Russian, Eel, Trinity, Klamath, Rogue, Umpqua and on up through Oregon, Washington and the great rivers of British Columbia. It is a crime what we let happen to our great rivers. We mostly wipped out the wild steelhead in the 1900s. Bad logging, too many dams, de-watering and agriculture have lead to the loss of habitate for the might ‘Iron Head’. Commercial netting up north in BC is to blame also. If they could just start working on some of the good rivers that are left we could save some wild steelhead stocks. I have been thinking about this for the last 10 years. Take a few rivers and turn them back to wild rivers with no hatchery fish. Close them for 10 years and build back up a good population. No logging on the drainage. No dams. No more roads. Steelhead should all be wild and all be catch and release. If you have caught wild steelhead on a fly rod with a floating line and dry or unweighted steelhead fly, you can understand this kind of thinking. Hell, if you caught a wild steelhead on any kind of tackle you would understand. Rather than complain all the time, we should try to save what is left. I think the steelhead and salmon could come back to historic proportions if the following things were done: 1.) All remaining undammed rivers are allowed to flow freely for eternity. 2.) Cities built near spawning habitat should be forced stop all development    near the spawning habitat. 3.) Ban commercial fishing for coldwater fish in the sea or freshwater. Catch    and Release only for wild stocks and certain hatchery stocks should be    maintained to create fisheries for the average angler while saving the    wild fish with prudent management. Seafood farming (the planting and    raising of seafood)would be implemented instead of commercial fishing. 4.) Train and pay former commercial fishermen to help study and protect the         fish stocks.         5.) Create tree farms for necessary lumber and ban logging in pristine         forests. Hire loggers to log the tree farms and use their expertise to             assist in the reclaimation of logged forests. Train loggers to fight         forest fires, maintain national parks and use their forestry skills             /training to help wilderness areas. 6.) retrofit all amenable dams with fish ladders to allow fish migration. 7.) breach all dams that cannot be retrofitted to help the salmon/steelhead         migrations. 8.) All hatchery plantings be restricted to planting native river stocks only     and augmenting the hatchery stock by a yearly infusion of native river.    stocks. 9.) Ban all logging, development and restrict access in sensitive areas. 10.) Reward organizations and industrial firms by giving huge tax breaks to companies that actively seek to help the environment by complying with the environmental regulations. 11.) Punish (15,000% tax rate)all firms that show wanton disregard for the environment by heavy taxation. 12.) Punish firms that try to leave the US in effort to circumvent the rules with a 20,000% tax rate. 13.) Punish (100,000% tax rate) rogue firms that try to lay off workers to offset financial punishments due to environmental callousness and ineptitude. 14.) after implementation of rules 10-13, all firms will be in compliance as it will be unprofitable to intentionally pollute. 15.) Bill nations with an exorbitant military service fee for resolving their wars with our military. This huge windfall of trillions of dollars would fund the government. clean up the environment/save the wild fish and lower our taxes. 16.) With the 15 rules above, the salmon, steelhead and other wild stocks would be saved, fisheries for the average angler would exist, the environment would be cleaner, the old growth forest would remain, wars would cease, loggers would still be employed, development would be carefully controlled, taxes would be lower, the military would be superpowerful/well funded and we would have enough money to enhance America’s future and resolve many of our problems.

Response:

Question:

Hi, I am interested in trying my hand a fly fishing this Spring, and I have been given a Horrocks Ibbotson Model 1104 bakelite fly reel and a Langley fly rod that is about 8′ long and came in an aluminum tube.  Everything is in real nice shape, and the reel has the original box.  This set looks to be from the 30’s or 40’s(?) and I am wondering as to whether it would be better to try and learn on this vintage equipment, or sell it/trade it and try and get a more modern outfit.  Any suggestions appreciated, especially if any one can tell me what weight line I should equip it with or have any other hints.  Please email Thank you, Jim K Media, PA  

Response:

Jim, Horrocks-Ibbotson rods were very cheap, production rods.  Even ones in good shape aren’t worth much today.  Go ahead and fish it ot your heart’s delight. Pete C

Response:

Question:

Available variuous tinsel.  Gold, silver, copper.  Fine & medium. Flat and round.  7 to 15 yards. FLY FISHING ACCESSORIES                         BOXES of 12             ITEM    FINE    MEDIUM  WIDE Wire Copper     22               Embossed Silver         25       Flat Silver     17      18      19 Oval Silver     29      29       Wire Silver     31               Embossed Gold           24       Flat Gold       13      11      14 Oval Gold       31      24       Wire Gold       29               Mixed Types 12  different per box       27               Gd Olive 4 Strand Floss 1               Steel Grey 4 Strand Floss       1 $10.00 per box For more info call: Boris Kortiak TBS Industries 4211 Van Kirk St. Philadelphia, PA 19135 tel: +1 (215) 535-6500 8:30 AM to 3:30 PM Eastern Time Monday through Friday

Response:

Question:

So, I’ve been lurking around for a while and am still new to this newsgroup stuff, but i can’t help asking for help. Im just starting to FF for Steelhead and would apprec. any advice on the best places to FF for steelhead within a day trip from Portland, (any othr hint on tackle or tech. would also be much appreciated!) I’ve been fishing this area all my life about the last 20 FF mostly for trout and drift FF for steelies and salmon (only once have i caught any Chinook but what a thrill!) So I’m not a beginner but would like to maximize my chances for a hook up without running afoul of the rest of the regular fisherfolk. P.S. I’ve had problems with my postings going out multiple times so I’ll try to watch it. please advise if problem persists Russ Weitz "Reality is an escape for people who don’t fish" "Reality is an escape for people who don’t fish" – Unknown

Response:

So, I’ve been lurking around for a while and am still new to this newsgroup stuff, but i can’t help asking for help. Im just starting to FF for Steelhead and would apprec. any advice on the best places to FF for steelhead within a day trip from Portland, (any othr hint on tackle or tech. would also be much appreciated!) I’ve been fishing this area all my life about the last 20 FF mostly for trout and drift FF for steelies and salmon (only once have i caught any Chinook but what a thrill!) So I’m not a beginner but would like to maximize my chances for a hook up without running afoul of the rest of the regular fisherfolk.

The Sandy/Salmon river to the east is only maybe 45 minutes away depending on what part of Portland you are coming from. The Trask and Wilson rivers to the west are probably about the same also depending on which side you live on. Add 30 minutes time if you are coming from Beaverton/Hillsboro going east or Gresham going west. Good Luck, I hear the rivers are finally starting to drop after a very wet November/December.      - Ken

Response:

You might also want to check out the links under United States then Oregon at http://www.davisbrown.com/ffgeo.htm  There are plenty of places with fishing reports and fly shop assistance. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – So, I’ve been lurking around for a while and am still new to this newsgroup stuff, but i can’t help asking for help. Im just starting to FF for Steelhead and would apprec. any advice on the best places to FF for steelhead within a day trip from Portland, (any othr hint on tackle or tech. would also be much appreciated!) I’ve been fishing this area all my life about the last 20 FF mostly for trout and drift FF for steelies and salmon (only once have i caught any Chinook but what a thrill!) So I’m not a beginner but would like to maximize my chances for a hook up without running afoul of the rest of the regular fisherfolk. P.S. I’ve had problems with my postings going out multiple times so I’ll try to watch it. please advise if problem persists Russ Weitz "Reality is an escape for people who don’t fish" "Reality is an escape for people who don’t fish" – Unknown

Response:

Question:

Offering guided trips to some of the best tailwater rivers in the east. 16 years flyfishing experience.  Float (16′ Clackacraft) or wade trips (private access) available.  Reservations available July 28-Aug.3.  E-mail for rates to: Tight Lines and Screaming Reels Southern Style!  

Response:

Question:

Will be in Portland, OR in May for approximately one week business trip.  Looking to get early start on flyfishing plans while in area. Anyone care to give a brief rundown on the type(s) of flyfishing opportunities for trout/salmon/steelhead I might expect in May? Thanks in advance. JGG

Response:

Will be in Portland, OR in May for approximately

A good time for trout, nnot so hot for steelhead Anyone care to give a brief rundown on the type(s) of flyfishing opportunities for trout/salmon/steelhead I might expect in May?

Depending on when in May, the Deschutes could be good for trout, in general, too early for much in the way of steelhead.                 Mike in PDX         "If the trout are lost, smash the state."                                 Tom McGuane

Response: