Question:

Since it seems my employeer is blocking post’s to UseNet – it is a little old but . . .

Neat report.  Sounds like you already had a chance to fly fish some quality water.  Tight lines. Mu

Response:

Nice TR, Marshall. Sounds like you had a pretty good guide.

Response:

Merced River:   This is the river that flows right through the middle of Yosemite, and gets heavy fishing pressure in the summer.  The guide I hired took us down below where most of the crowd fish.

Marshall, it was very close to there that I decided to take up fly fishing more seriously!  I had dabbled a little, but I was spinning on this particular trip to Yosemite.  I saw some trout in a feeding lane in a small clear pool, and there was no way I could catch them on my little spinner. It drove me nuts.  I decided then and there I was going to flyfish and next time I see some fish like those, I’m gonna get ‘em, dammit!  Fun trip.  I hiked down a trail (Tuolomne?) and ran into a couple guys camping who had a massive wild brown they caught on a Rapala in a deep canyon section.  Yup, different techniques are best for different conditions

Response:

Since it seems my employeer is blocking post’s to UseNet – it is a little old but . . . My first TR, so here goes . . . Location:  Merced River – Yosemite National Park, CA            Off Hwy 140, 1 mile below the 120/140 stop sign Elevation: 4,000 ft Date/Time: Saturday, Nov. 4th, 2001 [11am-4:30pm] Pictures located at: http://homepage.mac.com/mkrasser/PhotoAlbum4.html This is still my freshman year of flyfishing, [I started last Aug. 2001 on the Big Wood River in Sun Valley, ID.  Followed by a trip in Sept to the Feather River [Ca], 5 weeks ago I was at Putah Creek, [Ca], 4 weeks ago the Russian River [Ca], and 2 weeks ago a trip on the Klamath River [Ca] (K.R. pictures included at above web location). A quick Mini-TR on the Kamath,  the Salmon fishing was hot!  BUT, since we were NOT using flies I will not detail the 20 fish we caught and released [barbless hooks and roe] we did keep 2 for the smoker. I will mention the Steelhead that we were targeting with flies in the fast water . . . I forgot to "bow to the fish" do I need to say more? I lost the nice 6-7 pounder (guide est.) when it jumped for joy.  I had another major slam that I missed [using a mossback fly] as well.  We did manage to catch/release several nice native trout in our quest for Mr. Steelhead [top lft picure]. Merced River:   This is the river that flows right through the middle of Yosemite, and gets heavy fishing pressure in the summer.  The guide I hired took us down below where most of the crowd fish. This was mega-pocket water!!!  This late in the year, the water level is rather low and is super clear [16 ft leaders, ouch].  Lucky for us, the valley received a light rain the Wed. before our arrival, so the system received a last minute boost before winter.  Anyway, we were climbing over bus size granite boulders and rock hopping cross-stream, to get the perfect angle for the pockets.   I should mention that I dragged my wife along on her first flyfishing outing this day.  I was hoping that I could provide here with a positive experience on this trip, but according to the guide . . . this time of year, and on this river, a PHD is required.  The guide was very hands on and worked with both of us to get the technique down, but he tended to want to do most of the casting himself [we could hold the rod under his hand, though].  Using this technique, he was able to get her hooked into a nice bright orange native male – I was too far away to snap a photo   Even on this cool November day [30's rising to the mid 60's] there was a Baetis and Caddis hatch happening.  When we arrived at the first pool, our guide went nuts – there were at least 5 trout rising to the hatch at the head of the pool and at least one was a brown.   He worked with both of us at this pool, and we both missed our strikes – we then headed up stream to rest these fish.  And found others just as eager to miss our flies as well. I could just NOT see the sz18 Baetis fly in the pocket water.  Cool a swirl, guide say’s ah that was your fly he was swirling at!   We then went back down to pool #1 for try #2 at the fish – same result.  So we headed back upstream again.   We climbed up on this huge boulder and butt dragged to look over the edge – wow TWO 18-20 inchers directly below us.  Hmmm the Guide forgot to warn my wife as to why he and I were moving this way . . . so she walked right up to the edge and said, "oh look – fishies", and they said, "oh look human – goodbye".  Luckly this boulder was so huge it was in 2 zip codes, so they crawled [see pic: guide w/wife] to the head of the rock, and worked that pool. They just could not get the distance needed from here, so the guide and I moved down to water level and I missed another nice one.   We split sides here and I headed to a pool on the left and they headed to what looked like a prime pool.  With the guide’s assistance, BAM – she hooked-up and landed the bright male [14 incher].  On that note we headed back down to pool #1 again [my wet leg and all <grin].   The fish were happily slurping up the emergers and this time I connected.  As my wife pointed out . . . mine was not as big or as pretty as her’s [whatever].  We then hopped in our 4×4’s and headed downstream to what would be prime pocket water for me.   The guide worked a little more with my wife on her casting, but he was not quite patient enough [in my opinion], and I could tell she was getting bored and frustrated.   She said, go on ahead – I’ll rest here – ya right . . . she whipped out her knitting from her backpack and that was the end of that.   The guide and I headed into the land of small pocket water [I was casting rather well un-assisted by now - the guide was surprised - I was one with the line].  Interesting note that probably has no bearing on my flycasting targeting – but I was a deadly bait caster from my Table Rock Lake days – growing up in Missouri – I could flip that plastic worm or jig-n-pig right were I wanted it in the fallen/flooded timber at rather great distances [no use here in California].   Anyway,  I pulled 2 nice ones out of the first pocket just above the main pool and missed another 3 as well.  We figured they had moved up out of the still water to feed.  I was using a caddis pattern [that I could see] for these puppies.   We moved on up to one more small pocket, and the guide made me call where the strike would occur [he nailed it exactly in the previous pocket].  I called it, but after 4 casts and no take – the guide said let’s go home – must not be there.  One more cast I pleaded and that one did it – right where I called it <grin.   As the light started to fade we walked back to our vehicles and called it a day, in this land of giant rocks and golden sunlight. Sorry for the length, Marshall

Response:

Question:

If you check your history the British got thier first Enigma cipher machine from the Polish army. The Polish language is enough of an enigma to me.   My in-laws may as well be speaking in secret code. Joe F. (Foregoing the obvious humor opportunities)

It’s all Navajo to me. Wolfgang who is STILL studying for the Turing test!

Response:

It’s all Navajo to me.

Ah yes *our* "Enigma machine" against the Japanese. * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!

Response:

rw wrote It’s a darn good thing for you Brits that an American submarine crew captured the Enigma cipher machine from a German U-boat. I saw it in a movie.

Obviously, you didn’t pay attention.  At the end of the movie they displayed the actual events that were the basis of the story. There were three such missions and the first two were run by the British. The American mission did not occur until after D-day, as I recall. —                                                       -dnc-

Response:

Wolfgang wrote Wolfgang who is STILL studying for the Turing test!

You mean to tell me that all of this patter comes from a machine. (The bad jokes are a brilliant strategy…congratulations.  Who programmed you?)

Response:

Wolfgang wrote Wolfgang who is STILL studying for the Turing test! You mean to tell me that all of this patter comes from a machine. (The bad jokes are a brilliant strategy…congratulations.  Who programmed you?)

I could answer that question, but what reason would you have to believe me? Wolfgang riding the razor’s edge between a paradox and a conundrum

Response:

Wolfgang wrote Wolfgang wrote Wolfgang who is STILL studying for the Turing test! You mean to tell me that all of this patter comes from a machine. (The bad jokes are a brilliant strategy…congratulations.  Who programmed you?) I could answer that question, but what reason would you have to believe

me? Faith in my fellow machine? —                                                       -dnc-

Response:

Wolfgang wrote Wolfgang who is STILL studying for the Turing test! You mean to tell me that all of this patter comes from a machine. (The bad jokes are a brilliant strategy…congratulations.  Who programmed you?) I could answer that question, but what reason would you have to believe me?

Is your name really Eliza? — visit my web site: http://home.earthlink.net/~royalwulff/ something bogus to avoid spam)

Response:

rw wrote It’s a darn good thing for you Brits that an American submarine crew captured the Enigma cipher machine from a German U-boat. I saw it in a movie. Obviously, you didn’t pay attention.  At the end of the movie they displayed the actual events that were the basis of the story. There were three such missions and the first two were run by the British. The American mission did not occur until after D-day, as I recall. —                                                       -dnc-

Really? Gosh, I must have been trying to beat the crowd to the parking lot. — visit my web site: http://home.earthlink.net/~royalwulff/ something bogus to avoid spam)

Response:

Is your name really Eliza?

Eliza Lott?

Response:

… who is STILL studying for the Turing test!

would that be the non-sequiTUR test?? jeff (offering guided flyfishing sequi tours and non-sequi tours in the nc mountains)

Response:

Is your name really Eliza? Eliza Lott?

More like Eliza Little. Eliza was the first computer program that passed an "operational" turing test, IMHO. It was created in the 60’s by a famous computer scientist whose name I forget. It mimiced a psychiatrist who turned everything you said back into a question. Eliza’s creator was so appalled when people started talking (i.e. typing) to this rudimentary, stupid program that he spent the rest of his career attacking Artificial Intelligence, which always stuck me as odd. I see Eliza as a spoof of psychiatry. — visit my web site: http://home.earthlink.net/~royalwulff/ something bogus to avoid spam)

Response:

 Most of the vets would be in their 80’s is probably the answer. —  Don Thompson  Zoomie(BushBug)  ACA#3460  TLCB#335  Any Time, Any Place  Pull the chocks, lets get this kite in the air.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hats off to them, and a question: why the last time?

Response:

Most of the vets would be in their 80’s is probably the answer.

I thought about that, but why at 60 years, and plus, that doesn’t seem, well, "British."  I though maybe it freaked out the French, those English boats full of rowdy Br.E.F.  retirees and all…<G. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text — Don Thompson Zoomie(BushBug) ACA#3460 TLCB#335 Any Time, Any Place

Response:

Yeah, I heard that the Brits had their underwear in a bunch because the movie U-571 rewrote history, substituting an American crew for the British crew that actually captured the Enigma machine.

Yeah the story was fictional, but at the end they gave credit to the supposedly actual crews that recovered Enigmas, or Enigma code information.  I just caught a glimpse of this as I was leaving – anyone know if any of *those* were British? * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!

Response:

If you check your history the British got thier first Enigma cipher machine from the Polish army. Maybe that’s why the "I saw it in a movie" statement with the little smiley?<g

Yeah, I heard that the Brits had their underwear in a bunch because the movie U-571 rewrote history, substituting an American crew for the British crew that actually captured the Enigma machine. I guess that is pretty outrageous from their point of view, kind of like if an English movie showed the British Army planting the Union Jack on Iwo Jima. It’s a good film, though. — visit my web site: http://home.earthlink.net/~royalwulff/ something bogus to avoid spam)

Response:

Today, a fleet of ‘Little Ships’, sets sail from Dover across the English Channel. This weekend, for the last time, veterans will gather in Dunkirk to commemorate the evacuation of the British Expeditionary Force from the beaches, sixty years ago.

Hats off to them, and a question: why the last time? TC, R – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -The rescue of the British troops was accomplished, but at great loss, by a motley fleet of craft which included small civilian vessels. Many were no bigger than pleasure launches and crewed by old men and boys. Tight Lines, Tony Deacon

Response:

Yeah, I heard that the Brits had their underwear in a bunch because the movie U-571 rewrote history, substituting an American crew for the British crew that actually captured the Enigma machine. I guess that is pretty outrageous from their point of view, kind of like if an English movie showed the British Army planting the Union Jack on Iwo Jima.

Yep.   On top of that, there’s apparently another revisionist war history movie in the works with Americans masterminding an escape from a notorious high-security POW prison (the name escapes me at the moment).   Trouble is, there weren’t even any Americans there at the time. Joe F.

Response:

Today, a fleet of ‘Little Ships’, sets sail from Dover across the English Channel. This weekend, for the last time, veterans will gather in Dunkirk to commemorate the evacuation of the British Expeditionary Force from the beaches, sixty years ago.

My dad and I were planning a trip to Europe next year to view WWII sites and sights, it’s too bad we’ll miss that – it’s something I’d like to see. Regards, Jeff

Response:

It’s a darn good thing for you Brits that an American submarine crew captured the Enigma cipher machine from a German U-boat. I saw it in a movie. — visit my web site: http://home.earthlink.net/~royalwulff/ something bogus to avoid spam)

Response:

If you check your history the British got thier first Enigma cipher machine from the Polish army.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It’s a darn good thing for you Brits that an American submarine crew captured the Enigma cipher machine from a German U-boat. I saw it in a movie. — visit my web site: http://home.earthlink.net/~royalwulff/ something bogus to avoid spam)

Response:

If you check your history the British got thier first Enigma cipher machine from the Polish army.

The Polish language is enough of an enigma to me.   My in-laws may as well be speaking in secret code. Joe F. (Foregoing the obvious humor opportunities)

Response:

If you check your history the British got thier first Enigma cipher machine from the Polish army.

Maybe that’s why the "I saw it in a movie" statement with the little smiley?<g — Charlie…

Response:

Today, a fleet of ‘Little Ships’, sets sail from Dover across the English Channel. This weekend, for the last time, veterans will gather in Dunkirk to commemorate the evacuation of the British Expeditionary Force from the beaches, sixty years ago. The rescue of the British troops was accomplished, but at great loss, by a motley fleet of craft which included small civilian vessels. Many were no bigger than pleasure launches and crewed by old men and boys. Tight Lines, Tony Deacon

Response:

Today, a fleet of ‘Little Ships’, sets sail from Dover across the English Channel. This weekend, for the last time, veterans will gather in Dunkirk to commemorate the evacuation of the British Expeditionary Force from the beaches, sixty years ago.

        the dogged courage of the peoples of the united kingdom as displayed during the second world war has always been one of the most inspirational collective acts in world history.         here’s to all of you, over there. wayno

Response:

Question:

The original message was not a troll, it was a subtle way of telling the whiners to F-off. I was exchanging beery emails with a flyfishing friend from Maine late Friday night and his observations were the impetus for the post Saturday morning. We are both surprised, I think, that the overwhelming consensus is to just leave well enough alone. The serial whiners had me convinced that a vast army of flyfisherfolk with delicate sensibilities were lurking out there but too intimidated to post, much to the detriment of the group. I truly believed it. I said that I would crosspost the call for a "show of hands" to a few other newsgroups, but I don’t think it’s worth the effort. Only eleven people besides myself have indicated that they would vote YES if the proposal came to a vote. The list follows, if you indicated or would like to indicate that you would vote YES but don’t see your email addy on the list, reply to this post. I’m gonna set the ROFF "show of hands" number arbitrarily at 55 before I bother to crosspost. My offer to do the grunt work required to start a RFD and a CFV will eventually expire so "show those hands" and start thinking about moderator(s) if this thing flies. Just as an aside, for whatever reason, I take a lot of email grief from the serial whiners. Volunteering to do a bit of work to push them off to a new newsgroup should in no way be considered altruistic or noble. I am doing this for personal and selfish reasons, I like ROFF just the way it is, consider it one of the more helpful and "newbie friendly" of the rec. newsgroups and I am sick and bloody fucking tired of whiners. — Ken Fortenberry

Response:

I truly believed it.

You should believe it because it’s true. The people I know of already participate other FF forums. They, like me, aren’t interested in a new group. Just as an aside, for whatever reason, I take a lot of email grief from the serial whiners. Volunteering to do a bit of work to push them off to a new newsgroup should in no way be considered altruistic or noble. I am doing this for personal and selfish reasons, I like ROFF just the way it is, consider it one of the more helpful and "newbie friendly" of the rec. newsgroups and I am sick and bloody fucking tired of whiners.

There are other people here that are "fucking tired" of other things in ROFF. I will continue to criticize ROFF when I think it’s appropriate. ROFF is not sacred. I won’t do this through email. Here’s a suggestion for you, have the "membership" make a rule. Anything goes on ROFF except for criticism of ROFF itself. That will get rid of this "whiner." Willi

Response:

Yes. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The original message was not a troll, it was a subtle way of telling the whiners to F-off. I was exchanging beery emails with a flyfishing friend from Maine late Friday night and his observations were the impetus for the post Saturday morning. We are both surprised, I think, that the overwhelming consensus is to just leave well enough alone. The serial whiners had me convinced that a vast army of flyfisherfolk with delicate sensibilities were lurking out there but too intimidated to post, much to the detriment of the group. I truly believed it. I said that I would crosspost the call for a "show of hands" to a few other newsgroups, but I don’t think it’s worth the effort. Only eleven people besides myself have indicated that they would vote YES if the proposal came to a vote. The list follows, if you indicated or would like to indicate that you would vote YES but don’t see your email addy on the list, reply to this post. I’m gonna set the ROFF "show of hands" number arbitrarily at 55 before I bother to crosspost. My offer to do the grunt work required to start a RFD and a CFV will eventually expire so "show those hands" and start thinking about moderator(s) if this thing flies. Just as an aside, for whatever reason, I take a lot of email grief from the serial whiners. Volunteering to do a bit of work to push them off to a new newsgroup should in no way be considered altruistic or noble. I am doing this for personal and selfish reasons, I like ROFF just the way it is, consider it one of the more helpful and "newbie friendly" of the rec. newsgroups and I am sick and bloody fucking tired of whiners. — Ken Fortenberry

Response:

Yes Tim Lysyk

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Yes. The original message was not a troll, it was a subtle way of telling the whiners to F-off. I was exchanging beery emails with a flyfishing friend from Maine late Friday night and his observations were the impetus for the post Saturday morning. We are both surprised, I think, that the overwhelming consensus is to just leave well enough alone. The serial whiners had me convinced that a vast army of flyfisherfolk with delicate sensibilities were lurking out there but too intimidated to post, much to the detriment of the group. I truly believed it. I said that I would crosspost the call for a "show of hands" to a few other newsgroups, but I don’t think it’s worth the effort. Only eleven people besides myself have indicated that they would vote YES if the proposal came to a vote. The list follows, if you indicated or would like to indicate that you would vote YES but don’t see your email addy on the list, reply to this post. I’m gonna set the ROFF "show of hands" number arbitrarily at 55 before I bother to crosspost. My offer to do the grunt work required to start a RFD and a CFV will eventually expire so "show those hands" and start thinking about moderator(s) if this thing flies. Just as an aside, for whatever reason, I take a lot of email grief from the serial whiners. Volunteering to do a bit of work to push them off to a new newsgroup should in no way be considered altruistic or noble. I am doing this for personal and selfish reasons, I like ROFF just the way it is, consider it one of the more helpful and "newbie friendly" of the rec. newsgroups and I am sick and bloody fucking tired of whiners. — Ken Fortenberry

Response:

Don’t go changing,to try and please me,You never worked that hard before.I couldn’t love you any better,I love you just the way you are.Nooooooooooooooooo!     OT:Went to the surf last night for the first time this year.Caught two 20"stripers(no strippers in sight)Had two walk two miles wearing neoprene to get to the good spot.It was worth it.Had the beach all to myself and a glorious sunset to boot.I always get this shock of recognition every year when I catch the first one;I forget just how amazingly strong these fish are.Schoolie fish had my reel screaming and my rod bent over.I can’t imagine what it must be like to land a large one,say 36".Maybe this year I’ll get lucky and find out. Regards,Shawn

Response:

I’d vote yes… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I said that I would crosspost the call for a "show of hands" to a few other newsgroups, but I don’t think it’s worth the effort. Only eleven people besides myself have indicated that they would vote YES if the proposal came to a vote. The list follows, if you indicated or would like to indicate that you would vote YES but don’t see your email addy on the list, reply to this post.

Response:

In addition to Roff, I’ve been frequenting The Virtual Flyshop (Bulletin Board), upon the suggestion of others at Roff.  It provides excellent, mostly on-topic, civil discussions.  Lots of collective fly-fishing knowledge shared. Very newbie friendly.  And I understand that there are other similar resources.  With all these resources available why bother to develop an antiseptic ROFF alternative?  Not that I’m crazy about some of the outright nastiness on ROFF. I am just choosing to ignore it as often as possible. Pat K

Response:

Any tips on where I might find a few good fly fishing spots on the Cape? DMS

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The original message was not a troll, it was a subtle way of telling the whiners to F-off. I was exchanging beery emails with a flyfishing friend from Maine late Friday night and his observations were the impetus for the post Saturday morning. We are both surprised, I think, that the overwhelming consensus is to just leave well enough alone. The serial whiners had me convinced that a vast army of flyfisherfolk with delicate sensibilities were lurking out there but too intimidated to post, much to the detriment of the group. I truly believed it. I said that I would crosspost the call for a "show of hands" to a few other newsgroups, but I don’t think it’s worth the effort. Only eleven people besides myself have indicated that they would vote YES if the proposal came to a vote. The list follows, if you indicated or would like to indicate that you would vote YES but don’t see your email addy on the list, reply to this post. I’m gonna set the ROFF "show of hands" number arbitrarily at 55 before I bother to crosspost. My offer to do the grunt work required to start a RFD and a CFV will eventually expire so "show those hands" and start thinking about moderator(s) if this thing flies. Just as an aside, for whatever reason, I take a lot of email grief from the serial whiners. Volunteering to do a bit of work to push them off to a new newsgroup should in no way be considered altruistic or noble. I am doing this for personal and selfish reasons, I like ROFF just the way it is, consider it one of the more helpful and "newbie friendly" of the rec. newsgroups and I am sick and bloody fucking tired of whiners. — Ken Fortenberry

Response:

Any tips on where I might find a few good fly fishing spots on the Cape? DMS

Dennis I’ve only been to the Cape twice so I’m not what you’d call an authority.  I fished at Barnstable Harbour, Pleasant Bay near Chatham and the Coast Guard Beach on the Atlantic side at the north end. There’s some pictures a some descriptions on mt site under "Trips". Cheers Visit The Streamer Page at http://members.home.net/pcharles/streamers/index.html

Response:

Any tips on where I might find a few good fly fishing spots on the Cape?

www.flyfishing-the-salt Sorry if anyone else already posted this, but my newserver went down last night and has been acting funny. Mu

Response:

Question:

(words of great insight snipped) A toast to you, Mike, as I enjoy your literary skills over a scotch on a quiet evening in Pennsylvania.  Only on roff. Mark faulkner

Response:

Here, here! Nice work, Mike. Steve Zimmerman Go Cougars!! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – [excellent prose snipped]

Response:

What urgeth then a man of sense, to seek the soothing solace of a rippling stream, with complex and expensive tools ? ‘Tis surely not the gain involved, for a bag of comely fish may just as well be gleaned with simple gear, likewise by abject fools. Perhaps the contemplation then ? the peace and quiet, and sometimes awesome, even frightening, and  inspiring solitude ? the sight of glorious nature, richly clad in many shades of riotous and verdant colour, may even ban the deepest blackest mood. The stream a

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:

A big "thanks"to the guys who have so readily replied to my request for help with some very sound advice. I really appreciate your words of wisdom and will be endeavouring to put them into practice. I’m also impressed with this forum – so much response so quickly! Regards, Brian Meredith Nelson New Zealand — Posted via Talkway – http://www.talkway.com Surf Usenet at home, on the road, and by email — always at Talkway.

Response:

Brian: Two other thoughts on the situation. 1.  Another common way to spook fish in NZ is with your line itself.  You need to make sure that your leader is long enough — generally we fished with 12-15 foot leaders.  They’re a bitch to cast, but necessary.  Ideally, you want to put the fly 6 feet in front of the fish (though depending on depth, you may need more), so you still have 6 or 8 feet of leader behind the fish before it attaches to your fly line. 2.  Generally NZ fish aren’t particularly "leader shy", but in slow moving, crystal clear water they may see your tippet.  Generally we would fish with 3x fluorocarbon tippet, but in the situation you describe, I might be tempted to put on a 4x or even 5x fluorocarbon.  That’s only a 4 lbs. breaking strength, but might be necessary. Keep in mind that the deeper the fish, in smooth water, the wider his angle of view.  This is counter intuitive:  the fish sees MORE from a deep lie than from a shallow lie.  So if you’d been approaching fish successfully in shallow water, and judged how close you could get from that, you may get too close.  I made that mistake myself stalking a 10 lbs.+ brown cruising a regular beat in a deep hole, to my everlasting regret.  I got where I thought it would be safe, but he had stopped cruising. Also, you’ve got to stay much further back from a fish in smooth water than in roily water.  A fish lying deep in smooth water may be literally impossible to catch.  E.g. if you have to cast well in front, in order to give time for the nymph to sink, any cast that would present the fly properly would "line" the fish.  Your only hope in that kind of situation would be to wait for the wind to riffle the surface of the water.  Then you might just get a cast in. Michael — www.geocities.com/yosemite/falls/3363

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Some advice for a novice please? I am fortunate to live in New Zealand’s South Island where there are some of theworld’s most renowned trout waters. They are populated mostly by brown trout which are notoriously difficult to catch. This pat weekend I was fishing the source of the Gowan River as it emerges from lake Rotoiti in the Nelson lakes national Park. I spotted my fish, a beautiful looking brown sitting on station in crystal clear and slow moving water. I stalked him with great care and there followed an hour of some of my most careful casting, some of which (not all by any means!) placed my size 6 pheasant tail nymph gently upstream of his mouth before drifting majestically over him. And nothing. He did not move. He did not strike. He just stayed on station and ignored that nymph and the four other varieties I tried. So what was I doing wrong? Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated. BrianM — Posted via Talkway – http://www.talkway.com Surf Usenet at home, on the road, and by email — always at Talkway.

Response:

<< stalked him with great care and there followed an hour of some of my most careful casting, some of which (not all by any means!) placed my size 6 pheasant tail nymph gently upstream Egads, Brian!  A size *6* pheasant tail

        i figured (fugured?) that size 6 was a typo. wayno

Response:

brianm wrote Some advice for a novice please?

[wily trout story snipped] Next time you see a big fish on station in ultra clear, smooth water, try observing him (without him observing you) for a while to see how he is feeding.  Is he on the bottom?  Just below the surface but never breaking it?  Occasionally sipping? Also, try taking a little mesh net with you to see what’s in the water. Those little nets they sell for tropical fish aquariums work pretty good, but for faster results, try 2-3 square feet of nylon mesh (you can get at any hardware store).  It’s a little cumbersome but at worst, you’ll get an interesting cross section of some of the insects in the water and at best, you just might have a pattern in your box. —                                                       -dnc-

Response:

<<even peter charles has failed to catch a fish; or, at least, legend would have it that way. It is true.  I have witnessed it.  Of course Peter had gotten into the Sleeman’s and had mistaken the broom in the cabin for his fly rod. Dave LaCourse

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – This pat weekend I was fishing the source of the Gowan River as it emerges from lake Rotoiti in the Nelson lakes national Park. I spotted my fish, a beautiful looking brown sitting on station in crystal clear and slow moving water. I stalked him with great care and there followed an hour of some of my most careful casting, some of which (not all by any means!) placed my size 6 pheasant tail nymph gently upstream of his mouth before drifting majestically over him. And nothing. He did not move. He did not strike. He just stayed on station and ignored that nymph and the four other varieties I tried. So what was I doing wrong? Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated.

I’ve had the good fortune to fish the South Island in two trips, and I envy your location. I agree with Dave that a size six may be too big.  However NZ nymphs do tend to the larger sizes — mostly 10-14 in my experience (rarely as small as 16, but 6 is HUGE).  You should check with local anglers/shops for advice. Several other points: Often, if the fish is in a comfortable, deep lie, it will not move even if spooked.  So you could easily have spooked it and not realized it.   Besides actually seeing you, if it was a bright sunny day, you could have spooked it with a reflection or a shadow.  Do you have a silver or gold reel?  Other silver metal that might flash?  Even black or dark colors, if glossy, can send a reflection on a bright sunny day that will put off a wary NZ trout. Shadows are especially treacherous if the sun is low and behind you.  Your body and  rod will then cast a shadow upstream. It’s actually very hard to cast lines near a wild NZ trout for an hour without spooking it.  So my guess would be the trout was spooked and was just holding its lie. Also, were there other fishermen around?  YOU might not have spooked it, but someone could have fished to it before you showed up.  This is particularly likely if the fish is in an obvious lie (as this one seems to be). Also, NZ fish will rarely go for a fly pattern once refused.  So, for example, if it saw the PT and decided not to take it (say because you dragged it) you MUST change patterns.  The fish may not have been spooked, simply keyed into some other fly. In general, if you’re pretty sure you covered a NZ fish with a fly once, and it doesn’t take, you should change flies immediately.  (The art is to be sure you’ve covered the fish — that comes with experience.  I had a day on a small stream in NZ where the fish would only take if the fly was DIRECTLY on their nose.  I mean six inches off, which normally is fine, would not induce a strike.  You had to keep casting until you got it right). But generally, there’s no point in chucking the same fly over and over again.  If you’re sure you’ve covered a fish, you should change flies. Again, check with your local shop.  But cased caddis, brassies, etc. might draw a strike that a PT wouldn’t.  It’s not unusual to try 4 or 5 different patterns, and occasionally you can draw a strike on the 5th pattern.  Keep in mind that every time you cast to a NZ fish, you risk spooking him.  So try to make very cast count.  If you think you’ve covered the fish, change flies.  Don’t screw around. If you’re working a fish without any luck, stop after a few casts and watch it.  If it hasn’t been spooked, you should be able to see it nymphing — occasional left or right swings to take a fly.  If it’s glued to a spot without moving, it’s likely spooked.  Waiting a few minutes may let the fish go back on the feed, assuming it wasn’t badly spooked. When all else fails, chuck a Wooly Bugger upstream and across, and strip it by his nose.  I’ve never actually had it work, but I have had totally unresponsive fish at least follow the fly before refusing it.  One of these days, I’m sure, it will work. Michael — www.geocities.com/yosemite/falls/3363 – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

<< stalked him with great care and there followed an hour of some of my most careful casting, some of which (not all by any means!) placed my size 6 pheasant tail nymph gently upstream Egads, Brian!  A size *6* pheasant tail?  I should think the fish would be more comfortable ingesting a size 14 -18 ptail.  I may be missing something here, but I have never seen a ptail tied larger than a size 12.  What size tippet did you have? A #6 hook would equate to a 1X or 2X tippet. Big is not necessarily always "better", Brian. Try smaller nymphs, smaller tippet (maybe even fluorocarbon). Of course a size 2X tippet with a #6 pheasant tail would make a wonderful trolling machine.   d;0)  You ain’t trollin’, are you, Brian?     <G Dave LaCourse

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Some advice for a novice please? I stalked him with great care and there followed an hour of some of my most careful casting, some of which (not all by any means!) placed my size 6 pheasant tail nymph gently upstream of his mouth before drifting majestically over him. And nothing. He did not move. He did not strike. He just stayed on station and ignored that nymph and the four other varieties I tried. So what was I doing wrong? Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated. BrianM

    *assuming you didn’t actually spook him*…let me repeat that: *assuming you didn’t actually spook him*, then you were doing *nothing* wrong.  you were offering fake food to an animal that didn’t want to eat. in short, you were "fishing".  while the same anomaly will continue to occur throughout your fishing career, take heart:  it is a noble endeavor, and your occassional failures make you part of an ever-growing club.     even peter charles has failed to catch a fish; or, at least, legend would have it that way. wayno – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text — Posted via Talkway – http://www.talkway.com Surf Usenet at home, on the road, and by email — always at Talkway.

Response:

Some advice for a novice please? I am fortunate to live in New Zealand’s South Island where there are some of theworld’s most renowned trout waters. They are populated mostly by brown trout which are notoriously difficult to catch. This pat weekend I was fishing the source of the Gowan River as it emerges from lake Rotoiti in the Nelson lakes national Park. I spotted my fish, a beautiful looking brown sitting on station in crystal clear and slow moving water. I stalked him with great care and there followed an hour of some of my most careful casting, some of which (not all by any means!) placed my size 6 pheasant tail nymph gently upstream of his mouth before drifting majestically over him. And nothing. He did not move. He did not strike. He just stayed on station and ignored that nymph and the four other varieties I tried. So what was I doing wrong? Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated. BrianM — Posted via Talkway – http://www.talkway.com Surf Usenet at home, on the road, and by email — always at Talkway.

Response:

Question:

When I hunt I do not wear camo. I do not use scent-b-gon washes for my clothes. I do not spray doe estrus everywhere, or play taped hen turkey calls on a portable deck. I DO, however, use a double-barreled shotgun which was manufactured in 1990, modern magnum loads, and electric socks.

Forgive my ignorance, but what are electric socks? Michael Smith

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Which begs a question of all who have been involved in the ’strike indicator’ controversy: What is it about fly fishing that appeals most to you? Those who relish the streamside strategy, the endless presentations into pools you just KNOW are full of trout, a cold cheese sandwich and a smoke for lunch amid the splendor of our natural settings…those are the ones I feel more akin to, and for whose sportsmen’s ethos I have the utmost respect. However, for those who consider a day without an entry into the log book of either a catch or a kill a wasted day, you are the ones who are, in my opinion, missing the point. You might as well be using dynamite on the fish and bazookas on deer. So, if I am mistaken in wanting to change the focus of this debate from hardware, then flame me at will. However, if in truth the true debate is found in the ethos of the sportsman, consider yourself well and weigh in with your position. W.E.S. Harman Virginia Commonwealth University Richmond, Virginia "L’ecrivain original n’est pas celui qui n’imite personne, mais celui que personne ne peut imiter." (The original writer is not he who refrains from imitating others, but he who can be imitated by none.) – Francois-Rene De Chateaubriand,  "Genie du Christianisme"

I’m sorry, but the issue should be not what technology is used, but rather the attitude and the intend with which it is employed.  The purist takes issue with the uninitiated to avoid having to share, as by sharing, in his mind, he is reduced. Peter

Response:

When I hunt I do not wear camo. I do not use scent-b-gon washes for my clothes. I do not spray doe estrus everywhere, or play taped hen turkey calls on a portable deck. I DO, however, use a double-barreled shotgun which was manufactured in 1990, modern magnum loads, and electric socks. Forgive my ignorance, but what are electric socks? Michael Smith

You don’t want to know unless your sure your waders don’t leak. Mike

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -As an all-around outdoor sports kind of guy, I find myself in the company of hunters and fishermen quite a bit. I consider myself something of a traditionalist, largely due only to the fact that I find that technology often has the effect of taking the sport out of being a sportsman. When I hunt I do not wear camo. I do not use scent-b-gon washes for my clothes. I do not spray doe estrus everywhere, or play taped hen turkey calls on a portable deck. I DO, however, use a double-barreled shotgun which was manufactured in 1990, modern magnum loads, and electric socks. With fishing it is largely the same. I do not use strike indicators, ’stink baits’ or other fly-modifications, or barbed hooks. I DO use a graphite rod, DuPont line, and nylon leaders. The point of all of this is that, at a certain point, technology can and does take the sport out of being a sportsman. I use modern equipment because it is safer and more reliable than antiques. This I find easy to defend. However, the modifications, concoctions, and natural subterfuges which technological advancement makes available to us, I believe allows the worst of us to compensate for our lack of knowledge and patience, placing more importance on the kill than the hunt (or the landing over the actual fishing). Which begs a question of all who have been involved in the ’strike indicator’ controversy: What is it about fly fishing that appeals most to you? Those who relish the streamside strategy, the endless presentations into pools you just KNOW are full of trout, a cold cheese sandwich and a smoke for lunch amid the splendor of our natural settings…those are the ones I feel more akin to, and for whose sportsmen’s ethos I have the utmost respect. However, for those who consider a day without an entry into the log book of either a catch or a kill a wasted day, you are the ones who are, in my opinion, missing the point. You might as well be using dynamite on the fish and bazookas on deer. So, if I am mistaken in wanting to change the focus of this debate from hardware, then flame me at will. However, if in truth the true debate is found in the ethos of the sportsman, consider yourself well and weigh in with your position. W.E.S. Harman Virginia Commonwealth University Richmond, Virginia "L’ecrivain original n’est pas celui qui n’imite personne, mais celui que personne ne peut imiter." (The original writer is not he who refrains from imitating others, but he who can be imitated by none.) – Francois-Rene De Chateaubriand,  "Genie du Christianisme"

A fine question. I fish for a variety of reasons. The strongest is that I love the sea, I go there summer and winter with or without a rod, but fishing is what turns voyeurism into an actual connection for me. That connection can be made with a 12′ surf rod, or a dropline even, but I use a fly rod. I enjoy the uncertainty of fly fishing. When I began my friends all used spinning gear, and would probably catch 20 cod before I would catch anything on the fly. But once I’d catch something they would say "I can’t believe you actually caught something on that rod." This gave me a sense of accomplishment, a feeling of overcoming an obstacle. I like that. With my surf rod I can go out and spray casts all over the place and cover a tremendous amount of water, and I will catch a fish more often than not. With my fly rod I can only fish water within 100′ of me. Sometimes this water doesn’t look like it can hold anything, and when it does it is a happy surprise. It’s this surprise I like best in fishing, and the more I tip the odds in my favor the less of a surprise it is when I catch a fish. So for me technology diminishes the joy I find in fishing. That’s why when I’m in my boat I try never to look at the fishfinder. I look at the water depth so I can find changes, then turn it off. I think the purpose of many of the technological advances in sport are marketing driven. Make something difficult easier and you get more appeal to the masses. If it took 100 hours for every fish we caught, many would not fish, so for the industry it’s good business to make the sport easier. People who are new to the sport will not notice the difference, and will probably get as much enjoyment from it as I do. I would not enjoy using their methods, and they probably would not enjoy mine, and I think that’s OK. All this makes me think back to a bumper sticker I had in the 70s that said "Short Skiis Suck". In order to make skiing easier and more widely appealing, manufacturers put out these short, easy to skid turn skiis. All of a sudden any bozo could survive a difficult run. Those of us who were still on 205s, 210s etc. didn’t care for this, and didn’t care for the difference it made in the shape of a mogul; gnarly choppy bumps instead of smooth, rounded bumps. When I think of this it seems to me that in any sport major technology shifts will be despised by those who got there without them, while the newer people will wonder what’s the big deal. That most of what I like is the traditional and most of what I don’t like is technological just tells me that I’m getting on in years :-                                                 jc

Response:

Michael: Electric socks keep ones feet warm while hunting in sub-zero temperatures. Well, they’d keep them warm at any time, but are especially useful when hunting in seriously cold weather. Might I add they are also useful for wearing under waders when you’re going to be in super-cold water. W.E.S. Harman Virginia Commonwealth University Richmond, Virginia "L’ecrivain original n’est pas celui qui n’imite personne, mais celui que personne ne peut imiter." (The original writer is not he who refrains from imitating others, but he who can be imitated by none.) – Francois-Rene De Chateaubriand,   "Genie du Christianisme" – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – When I hunt I do not wear camo. I do not use scent-b-gon washes for my clothes. I do not spray doe estrus everywhere, or play taped hen turkey calls on a portable deck. I DO, however, use a double-barreled shotgun which was manufactured in 1990, modern magnum loads, and electric socks. Forgive my ignorance, but what are electric socks? Michael Smith

Response:

Forgive my ignorance, but what are electric socks? Michael Smith

Look at them as part of your outdoor potty training. They teach you to pee far from you standing position, and not to dribble. 8^) Bruce….

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – …snip… The point of all of this is that, at a certain point, technology can and does take the sport out of being a sportsman. I use modern equipment because it is safer and more reliable than antiques. This I find easy to defend. However, the modifications, concoctions, and natural subterfuges which technological advancement makes available to us, I believe allows the worst of us to compensate for our lack of knowledge and patience, placing more importance on the kill than the hunt (or the landing over the actual fishing). Which begs a question of all who have been involved in the ’strike indicator’ controversy: What is it about fly fishing that appeals most to you? Those who relish the streamside strategy, the endless presentations into pools you just KNOW are full of trout, a cold cheese sandwich and a smoke for lunch amid the splendor of our natural settings…those are the ones I feel more akin to, and for whose sportsmen’s ethos I have the utmost respect. However, for those who consider a day without an entry into the log book of either a catch or a kill a wasted day, you are the ones who are, in my opinion, missing the point. You might as well be using dynamite on the fish and bazookas on deer.

This is in the same vein as my post from last week on "What is flyfishing to You: Was…". Its something that takes some meditation to answer with the convictions of truth. Your ruminations focusing on technology are well meant but the more I consider it the more I think they are perhaps misplaced. The reason is that what you describe relishing is the challenge of succeeding in a "fair chase" endeavor. This is not merely the harvesting (or R’ing) of the game but is the overcoming of obstacles barring your way to that success. Thus, for an accomplished sportsman excess technological "advantages" take the challenge and fun out of the endeavor. For those of lesser prowess, these technological advantages put them into the game closer to the same challenge level as the more accomplished individuals and can therefore experience similar joys when they succeed occasionally. As sporting prowess increases, the sportsman will often shift the balance in the "fair chase" equation back to a level that gives more challenge, thus voluntarily negating to some extent their increased skill level. This is often accomplished by going to more traditional and less technological methods (witness the resurgence of popularity in long bow archery for hunting to replace compound bows) or by setting and only seeking greater challenges for themselves (trophy bucks only, traveling to impenetrable areas to fish, targeting very selective trout, etc, etc). In the end, it is all relative to the individual. A sportsman, as I see it, certainly wants some success but not necessarily too much so that a challenge remains to be met. Where an individual falls on this scale can be shifted through technological innovation. It may be true to some extent that the ultimate purist has the least success in their sport (in terms of numbers). When I consider what flyfishing is to me I can roll over a litany of single experiences in my mind but none of them suffice as individual justifications to flyfish (or bowhunt, which falls in the same aesthetic category for me). When I look back at memories of flyfishing the conclusion that I have come to is that these endeavors are the closest thing to a striving for perfection that I may ever experience. What are the true memories at the end of a season? It is not the nice day catching many fish, one after another. It is not the various places gone, people seen, sunsets, bugs, gear, or water. These are part of the collage of experience that you can lovingly thumb through upon reflection but not the core. The core memories are the fleeting moments when the striving for perfection has been nearly achieved, the proper selection of gear for a promising spot never before considered or never properly fished before. A new insight and the laying in of the right fly on a lightly presented cast- just right. A sipping rise and a good fish on, well played and now in hand and for a moment in time everything has stopped and the universe has altered its course to revolve around that fleeting instant where judgement and skill (and perhaps some luck) have combined to meet the challenge that has been set. It may be the only fish of the day but it will be remembered long after the season ends and many more fish have been taken with less grace and spirit. So there flows the river Why. Jon (Am in total agreement on the "gotta get my game (fill in species here)" to have fun attitude described previously)

Response:

As an all-around outdoor sports kind of guy, I find myself in the company of hunters and fishermen quite a bit. I consider myself something of a traditionalist, largely due only to the fact that I find that technology often has the effect of taking the sport out of being a sportsman. When I hunt I do not wear camo. I do not use scent-b-gon washes for my clothes. I do not spray doe estrus everywhere, or play taped hen turkey calls on a portable deck. I DO, however, use a double-barreled shotgun which was manufactured in 1990, modern magnum loads, and electric socks. With fishing it is largely the same. I do not use strike indicators, ’stink baits’ or other fly-modifications, or barbed hooks. I DO use a graphite rod, DuPont line, and nylon leaders. The point of all of this is that, at a certain point, technology can and does take the sport out of being a sportsman. I use modern equipment because it is safer and more reliable than antiques. This I find easy to defend. However, the modifications, concoctions, and natural subterfuges which technological advancement makes available to us, I believe allows the worst of us to compensate for our lack of knowledge and patience, placing more importance on the kill than the hunt (or the landing over the actual fishing). Which begs a question of all who have been involved in the ’strike indicator’ controversy: What is it about fly fishing that appeals most to you? Those who relish the streamside strategy, the endless presentations into pools you just KNOW are full of trout, a cold cheese sandwich and a smoke for lunch amid the splendor of our natural settings…those are the ones I feel more akin to, and for whose sportsmen’s ethos I have the utmost respect. However, for those who consider a day without an entry into the log book of either a catch or a kill a wasted day, you are the ones who are, in my opinion, missing the point. You might as well be using dynamite on the fish and bazookas on deer. So, if I am mistaken in wanting to change the focus of this debate from hardware, then flame me at will. However, if in truth the true debate is found in the ethos of the sportsman, consider yourself well and weigh in with your position. W.E.S. Harman Virginia Commonwealth University Richmond, Virginia "L’ecrivain original n’est pas celui qui n’imite personne, mais celui que personne ne peut imiter." (The original writer is not he who refrains from imitating others, but he who can be imitated by none.) – Francois-Rene De Chateaubriand,   "Genie du Christianisme"

Response:

Question:

Standing up in a canoe is like anything else.  Doing it right requires practice.  I’ve done it but I don’t like to stand in a canoe.  When I was looking for the boat I have now, a kayak, I received many recommendations saying that I should get a canoe.  The main point was that I could pole a WW canoe up a shallow run when, with a kayak, I’d have to get out and wade.  They had a good point and I have had to wade some chutes that I could have poled a boat up.  However, my kayak offers many advantages for a solo paddler and I normally use it for transportation to a place and then I get out and do whatever I’m going to do. Bob — —– Bob Perkins, Director of Institutional Research and Planning Methodist College Fayetteville, NC  28311                          Office: 910-630-7037

Response:

I am considering purchasing a canoe or kayak for quick trips to the lakes, rivers and bays for fly fishing and recreation around Houston.  Most of the time I will be fishing alone, but would like to take my son or another friend at times.  Day trips only, no overnight or long journeys anticipated.   Suggestions as to canoe vs kayak and other details would be appreciated.  Size, composition, design, etc. would all be helpful.

Response:

I am considering purchasing a canoe or kayak for quick trips to the lakes, rivers and bays for fly fishing and recreation around Houston.  Most of the time I will be fishing alone, but would like to take my son or another friend at times.  Day trips only, no overnight or long journeys anticipated.   Suggestions as to canoe vs kayak and other details would be appreciated.  Size, composition, design, etc. would all be helpful.I bought a 13 foot Navarro canoe that I like a lot.  It’s pretty light

at 58 pounds, 38 inches wide with a pretty flat bottom (flattened arch is what the brochure calls it) which gives it enough initial stability that you can actually stand up in it to cast, though I don’t very often. It’s built with resin impregnated cherry wood ribs and a fiberglass skin. It’s quite pretty to look at if that’s important to you…about $900.  It’s not designed for white water but handles very nicely on lakes and slower moving water with one or two anglers aboard. E-mail me if you have any questions…We-No-Nah makes a canoe with similar configuration, size and weight.  No wood but it’s about $150 cheaper, and they also make a good canoe.  Happy hunting. Dean Henry

Response:

: I am considering purchasing a canoe or kayak for quick trips to the lakes, rivers and bays for I’ve never owned or tried a kayak, but my guess is they would not be a comfortable general-purpose fishing platform. I used to own a 12ft canoe that was absolutley great alone, but really could not handle two people. For two, I wouldn’t go smaller than 15ft. We have an Old Town Discovery 15"8", and like it alot. I handle it alone (car-top) always, and I’m a small guy; its 80lbs, but if you’re willing to spend more you can get much lighter canoes. Just go to a shop and pick up all the canoe maker’s sales booklets. These will explain different hull shapes, etc., and I think you’ll see what you want pretty quickly. If not, then talk to a salesperson. I don’t know how much time you’ve spent in boats or in canoes, but if you have no experience, you might find canoes a bit nervous. I think some people get used to it and some don’t; I’m not sure you can ever tell ahead of time. Just gotta try it, I guess. good luck, Jon Cook.

Response:

Canoe probably your best bet. Its only draw back is the extra weight. I have a poke boat which is a semi covered deck, very light, kayak like boat. Its great for getting around, but forget even kneeling in it. In a canoe you could, with care, stand to cast. I. Clair

Response:

I second the Aquaterra Keowee.  I bought the single seat model early this year and I love it.  It’s actually a pretty good fly fishing platform, but I use it mostly for getting to where I want to fish and then wading if possible.  It’s stable, lightweight, and floats in anything, but you have to sit in it, no kneeling.   Doug

Response:

David, I e-mailed you the other day, but I think I forgot to send it. Duhh! Anyway, I’ll repeat what I wrote and you can ignore this if I did send. If you are planning to take two kids along you will need a canoe. It is challenging for three people to fly fish from a canoe. You’ll have to take turns casting. If you want to have a real blast fishing solo, try a Keowee. It is a 9 foot long, 30-40 pound heavy duty plastic molded recreational kayak. No whitewater for this baby, but it is great for poking around in places that even a canoe can’t easily get into and out of. It has just enough room for a small amount of gear and is very stable – not `tippy’ like most kayaks. Once you are in, it is nearly untippable. It takes a wee while to get used to getting in and out – not a easy as a canoe – but I love mine. My fishing friend and I each have one and we just pop them on the roof racks and off we go. They are made in the U.S. by a company called Aguaterra. They make many models, so specify the Keowee. It comes in several colours, including camo I think, and costs about $300 US. I think LL Bean sells it and maybe even Eddy Bauer. I bought mine in Maine from Maine Sport near Camden. I’ve also seen it in Kittery Maine at a large outfitter (can’t remember the name) and at the LLBean store in Freeport, Maine. In New Hampshire I have seen it in Littleton at the LaHouts Sports Store. I believe I’ve seen it in the LLBean catalog. I also use a canoe sometimes and own a float tube. I enjoy them all. Have fun with whatever you end up buying. Sandy

Response:

I have something very similar – it’s a Creek Boat. It’s a one man, sit down low, fishing boat. It has a small livewell and a mounting block for a trolling motor and a foot steering system built in. Mine has oarlocks added also. Price is in the same range. It is a little lighter, but it is not indestructible. -Andy – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I second the Aquaterra Keowee.  I bought the single seat model early this year and I love it.  It’s actually a pretty good fly fishing platform, but I use it mostly for getting to where I want to fish and then wading if possible.  It’s stable, lightweight, and floats in anything, but you have to sit in it, no kneeling.  

Response:

In a canoe you could, with care, stand to cast.

Careful here. That is sort of like saying "in an automobile you could, with care, enter the Pikes Peak road rally".   You’d best not stand in a canoe with a rounded bottom and no keel, such as typical for whitewater.  Pick one with a wide beam, flat or shallow vee bottom and tumblehome – wider at or just above the waterline than at the gunwales. The manufacturers offer different models for various purposes. Pick one made for fishing or cargo or family use, not whitewater or fast cruising. Mark Vinsel http://www.lanminds.com/local/vinnie/gallery.html

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – David, I e-mailed you the other day, but I think I forgot to send it. Duhh! Anyway, I’ll repeat what I wrote and you can ignore this if I did send. If you are planning to take two kids along you will need a canoe. It is challenging for three people to fly fish from a canoe. You’ll have to take turns casting. If you want to have a real blast fishing solo, try a Keowee. It is a 9 foot long, 30-40 pound heavy duty plastic molded recreational kayak. No whitewater for this baby, but it is great for poking around in places that even a canoe can’t easily get into and out of. It has just enough room for a small amount of gear and is very stable – not `tippy’ like most kayaks. Once you are in, it is nearly untippable. It takes a wee while to get used to getting in and out – not a easy as a canoe – but I love mine. My fishing friend and I each have one and we just pop them on the roof racks and off we go. They are made in the U.S. by a company called Aguaterra. They make many models, so specify the Keowee. It comes in several colours, including camo I think, and costs about $300 US. I think LL Bean sells it and maybe even Eddy Bauer. I bought mine in Maine from Maine Sport near Camden. I’ve also seen it in Kittery Maine at a large outfitter (can’t remember the name) and at the LLBean store in Freeport, Maine. In New Hampshire I have seen it in Littleton at the LaHouts Sports Store. I believe I’ve seen it in the LLBean catalog. I also use a canoe sometimes and own a float tube. I enjoy them all. Have fun with whatever you end up buying. Sandy

VISUALLY SPEAKING, from an outsider’s point of view.  Visual Pollution is just as real as many other forms.  I imagine, to someone of your generation, fly fishing out of a kayak, to many of us would be like seeing a whale turd in a party punch-bowl.  You not only don’t like looking at it, you wouldn’t use it either.  Yet, float tubes are another matter and I cannot explain to you why.  Go for a canoe, my friend. nuff said. George Gehrke

Response:

Go with a canoe.  The Keowee is a nice platform, but its carrying capacity is limited.  I know a guy who fishes out of a sea kayak, but he paddles 2-5 times a week and normally doesn’t fly fish.  It’s theoretically possible for me to fly fish out of my Prijon Taifun (kayak), but if I’m going to fly fish I’ll use the boat to get where I’m going and then wade. Bob — —– Bob Perkins, Director of Institutional Research and Planning Methodist College Fayetteville, NC  28311                          Office: 910-630-7037

Response:

One important consideration in chosing a craft for flyfishing is comfort. I have a 16′ Greenland style kayak that I use in the ocean. I also spend some time in the surf on a sit_on_top style kayak (you wouldn’t believe how many stripers hang out in that surf). Of the two, the sit on top is probably more stable for casting and fighting fish, and is certainly a better surf boat, but it is much less efficient to paddle and for me, is very uncomfortable. The one I’ve been using, ocean kayaks ‘frenzy’, has ribs built into it to give multiple places for bracing your feet. I suppose if you are 2" shorter or taller than me it would probably be a comfortable fit, but no matter how much I adjust the seat I can’t get a comfortable fit. Thus, I can’t imagine spending a lot of time trying to cast from it. Most conventional kayaks have internal foot braces that are adjustable. So if you decide to go plastic/sit on top I’d recommend spending at least one hour sitting in the boat to see if it is comfortable for you. Casting when your legs are cramping up can be a drag.                                                         jc

Response:

I recently went through the canoe vs. kayak dilemma and settled with a kayak–a folding kayak. Although I had wanted a platform I could stand in, the seaworthiness and the portability of the folding kayak ruled out.  Obviously it’s nice to have easy access to my gear, food, etc. and even bring along someone else, but a kayak was a much better choice for me as I do most of my flyfishing is saltwater and I often travel by air to fish. The kayak I bought, a Feathercraft K Light Plus folds into a backpack and weighs only 32 pounds; it takes only 15 minutes to assemble; my rod fits under the deck bungees and I can take it out easily. The best thing is that I can take the kayak out into open ocean and not be concerned about being swamped over and I can fight a current quite easily.  I’ve been in big rips and paddled right back-up the beach to my car and fished in four foot swells–no problem. In a canoe in current I’d be swept away. I’m sure I will take it to the Everglades for redfishing and  the Keys and Bahamas for bonefishing just as I took it to Martha’s Vineyard for stripers, blues, and bonito. The kayak is fast, too.  If getting to a destination is your objective, you will expend much less energy and have more time for fishing if you use kayak rather than a canoe. As far as casting from the kayak goes it has yet to be a problem–I just keep the backcast high–no need to stand. As far as storage goes, I keep most of what I need in a waterproof deck bag and waterproof bags in the hull. Folding kayaks are not inexpensive; but for the ability to take it wherever I want to fish, it’s worth it. Good luck, Darren Lew New York, NY

Response:

It is actually pretty hard to tip a family/fishing type canoe. The first thing you should do is go out and tip yours on purpose (or tip a demo model before you buy). Learn how it reacts, and what it takes to tip it. Do this with two people – have one stand and the other make some sudden moves.

I used to stand up while surfing waves in my Blue Hole in my wilder days of youth ;- In my experience, in most cases the canoe stays upright when someone standing in it falls out. The canoe gets "pushed out of the way" rather than capsizing, or the person loses footing and trips trying to regain it in the confines of a canoe (most come with rather small dance floors). In a wide keeled boat, this is less likely to happen, but it still is a risk. Even small jon boats exhibit this "snatch-the-rug" behavior. The pedestals in bass boats are there largely for stability; people aren’t that good at standing in small areas without something to lean on for any length of time. Try marking off a small rectangle and stand in it casting for a while without stepping outside of it. I would plan on sitting to cast most of the time. If (big if when you are as sloppy as I am) you have a nice tight loop it doesn’t need to drop below shoulder level anyway. -Andy

Response:

writes: Canoe probably your best bet. Its only draw back is the extra weight. I have a poke boat which is a semi covered deck, very light, kayak like boat. Its great for getting around, but forget even kneeling in it. In a canoe you could, with care, stand to cast. I. Clair

Alot depends on the canoe. I have a mad river winoski that I have no problem standing in however, the tradoff for that stabality is speed. Other models are faster than my boat some are more durable, less durable, lighter or heavier. Boats vary alot in what they are designed for, you may want to take a look at rec.boats.paddle. Also get a honest idea of what you want from a boat, then go talk to a dealer that knows boats. Canoes are canoes in the same way cars are cars, if you need a pickup you will never be satisfied with a civic. Lastly, the main item that keep me away from a Poke is I need the versitility that a canoe offers. I can carry two adults ,my lab and decoys. Yet, it is not too much boat for one person to fish from solo. Charles

Response:

David…I would recommend a canoe based on your intended use. I currently have two We-No-Nah canoes which are incredible for their intended use, the c-1 for racing and the tandem for backcountry touring. For your use a basic Coleman or Old Town would be fine, why spend the bucks for weight savings or paddling efficiency when you can get what you need for a quarter of the cost? Since you are not going to do any major carries or long distance paddling stick with the basics. By the way if you do go with a canoe I still wouldn’t advise on standing to cast. Good luck with your decision. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I am considering purchasing a canoe or kayak for quick trips to the lakes, rivers and bays for fly fishing and recreation around Houston.  Most of the time I will be fishing alone, but would like to take my son or another friend at times.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – David, I e-mailed you the other day, but I think I forgot to send it. Duhh! Anyway, I’ll repeat what I wrote and you can ignore this if I did send. If you are planning to take two kids along you will need a canoe. It is challenging for three people to fly fish from a canoe. You’ll have to take turns casting. If you want to have a real blast fishing solo, try a Keowee. ……. VISUALLY SPEAKING, from an outsider’s point of view.  Visual Pollution is just as real as many other forms.  I imagine, to someone of your generation, fly fishing out of a kayak, to many of us would be like seeing a whale turd in a party punch-bowl.  You not only don’t like looking at it, you wouldn’t use it either.  Yet, float tubes are another matter and I cannot explain to you why.  Go for a canoe, my friend. nuff said. George Gehrke

So far, great responses and advice, and all is appreciated.  At this point, I will approach the purchase by several methods, all tempered with everyone’s input (even George’s – more later).  In Houston, we have REI and Sun & Ski Sports stores, as well as others that will rent kayaks and canoes.  I intend to try several.  Also, I have found several kayak and canoe clubs that give demonstrations and/or lessons.  Knowledge is a powerful tool, especially when so cheaply obtained!  To George – I not only explained to my 9 year old son the visual nuances and social faux pax of a "whale turd in a party punch bowl", but also of some peoples’ intolerance to the lifestyles of others.  Gee, I am in my mid forties with gray hair, yet you seem to believe I am some twenty year old doing an endo and scaring the trout – although whitewater kayaking is on my to-do list. Imagine the visual pollution of the first bamboo rod to a greenheart rod holder, the first fiberglass rod to a bamboo holder, the first graphite rod to a fiberglass rod holder!  Is your mode of transportation a horse, a Model T, a `57 Chevy, a bicycle, a Viper, a bus??!!?  Yet, ornithopters are another matter, and I cannot explain to you why, my friend. "Strive to leave for our children a better world, then they will do the same for theirs."     – David Hinners

Response:

Question:

Have a look at the Jack Dennis Western Fly Tying Manuals, especially Vol II, the best intro into working with hair I have ever seen.                           TU

Hi Thomas, Good advise. I especially wanted to comment on your sign off (TU). It kind of makes a person think of Trout Unlimited. Tight Lines Al Beatty BT’s Fly Fishing Products Bozeman, MT (96 catalog)

Response:

At the Troutabout flyfishing show in Syracuse a few weeks ago there was a guy there that was tying some really nice spun deer hair bass flies.  The entire body of the fly was spun with a light beige deer hair forming a very dense body.  The hair was then trimmed to look like a baitfish and then colored using pantone markers.  The result was a very realistic looking baitfish imitation.  In any case, he had I believe one of Jack Dennis’s bass flies books on his tying bench so I imagine it contains some good information on spinning deer hair. — John Fereira Isis Distributed Systems – Ithaca, NY

Response:

  Not to kock anyones books or tapes, I’m sure the’re good, but IMHO the best video for deer hair instruction is by Jimmy Nixx.  The tape is 2 hours long and crammed full of instruction.  I learned all my deer hair techniques from just watching the tape. Chuck —

Response:

Have a look at the Jack Dennis Western Fly Tying Manuals, especially Vol II, the best intro into working with hair I have ever seen.                            TU

Response:

Well, there is really not much more I can say… Thank’s.                  Aaron Zee

Response:

Path:

news.bright.net!chi-news.cic.net!mr.net!winternet.com!newsfeed.concentric.n et!n ews.texas.net!news.kei.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.iadfw.n et!u senet Newsgroups: rec.outdoors.fishing.fly Organization: Guest user Lines: 4 NNTP-Posting-Host: dal05-27.ppp.iadfw.net Well, there is really not much more I can say… Thank’s.                  Aaron Zee

Bag the book, Deer hair is tough enough Try to get a video by Jack Dennis etc.

Response:

Question:

I’m going to be in Florida over the next weekend and wonder if there is any possibility of some flyrodding for Snook.  Any advice out there? -old willy

Response:

I’m going to be in Florida over the next weekend and wonder if there is any possibility of some flyrodding for Snook.  Any advice out there? -old willy

Well Willam… depending on where you are going the fishing can be great. Here in SW Florida (Ft Myers) snnok fishing is coming into its primetime. Fly of choice for me is the Clouser minnow in any bright colors. Good luck

Response:

Check out your local fly shops or better yet call them in advance with a small order of flies and they will probably point you in the right direction.  Local knowledge of tides and flies will help you out.                                                           Good Luck,                                                             Reddfin

Response: