Question:
I’m going to be in Bonita Springs, Florida and will have a 17ft Boston Whaler at my disposal for fly fishing from April 29 – May 3rd. Could anyone give me some suggestions on some flies to tie for Snook and Redfish. I’m a trout/steelhead fisherman from Washington State and this will be me first attempt at this type of fishing. Thanks in advance Scott D. Craig The members of this genus (Salvelinus) are by far the most active and handsome of the trout, they live in the coldest, Lacey, WA. cleanest and most secluded waters. Check out the homepage No higher praise can be given to a http://www.eskimo.com/~craigs Salmonid than to say, it is a charr. (Jordan and Evermann 1896) — Scott D. Craig The members of this genus (Salvelinus) Fisheries/Aquatic Biologist are by far the most active and handsome U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service of the trout, they live in the coldest,
Response:
For what it’s worth, most population experts are expecting the world population to hit a peak in the next century and begin to decline.
Are those the same experts who said the DOW wouldn’t go above 4000? — -Wayne Trzyna Fight spam! Join CAUCE (Coalition http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~trzyna See http://www.cauce.org/
Response:
Why single out recreation for fees? What about education, highways, national defense?
A common argument for the fees is, "Let those who use it pay for it." What makes it unique from the rest is that virtually everyone uses education, highways, and defense. Good point, though. Take this fee-based taxation to the extreme, and you’ll see how miserable life can be. Just imaging the nuisance if all roads were toll roads.
Yep. Government is a necessary institution, and I prefer paying for it once per year, not every time I turn around.
Yes, definitely. I think that a yearly pass for the USFS/BLM/NPS is reasonably inexpensive, but I don’t know if that’s just good in one area. The big question is, who should pay for the forests? All citizens or just those who use them? We all like tax cuts, but I’m not sure that the National Forests and the people who use them should have to pay for themselves. Sometimes government funding is necessary. This may be one of those times. — Got maps? TopoWeb does. http://members.xoom.com/Topo_Web
Response:
Why single out recreation for fees? What about education,
Property taxes. Not a good system. The rich get better schools, which perpetuates inequality. highways,
There is a usage fee for highways — the gasoline tax. It should be much higher. national defense?
Since we all benefit from national defense we all pay, through income taxes. I’m not too crazy about paying a million buck a pop for cruise missiles in Kosovo. And if recreationists are paying fees to use the forest, why are loggers and miners in the same forest subsidized?
They shouldn’t be subsidised. Laws governing mining on public lands, in particular, should be reformed. Right now it’s a giveaway. Logging is a little better, but still very bad. Grazing is very bad. All these fees should come up to match private-sector prices. Take this fee-based taxation to the extreme, and you’ll see how miserable life can be. Just imaging the nuisance if all roads were toll roads.
I support a policy that has those that use the resource pay for its upkeep, with some proportion payed by society as a whole. Then the people who use it become stakeholders and they damn well want their money’s worth. — something bogus to avoid spam)
Response:
Up until the past decade, it would have been a naive notion. Not only were the fees not kept by the area used, but I believe (someone will correct me if I’m wrong), they weren’t kept for the use of the system in general. They were dumped into the revenue for the state or US, whichever applied. There’s been a big move of recent years that’s had the effect of keeping more money in the individual places it’s collected, or at least within the parks and forests divisions. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Until I started reading this thread, I was under the naive notion that use fees I’ve been paying help support the resource I’m using. It pisses me off that this is not the case. Don’t get too upset about it. At least if you are using a less popular resource. If everything went back to where it came in, we’d only be left with the Disneylands (Yosemite, Yellostone, etc) — Fight Spam! Join CAUCE (Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email) at http://www.cauce.org/ It is there as an experiment to see if email spammers scan content
—– I’m going to live forever or die trying. I only answer my email every few months, on average. Patience helps. http://www.visi.com/~cyli
Response:
Until I started reading this thread, I was under the naive notion that use fees I’ve been paying help support the resource I’m using. It pisses me off that this is not the case.
Don’t get too upset about it. At least if you are using a less popular resource. If everything went back to where it came in, we’d only be left with the Disneylands (Yosemite, Yellostone, etc) — Fight Spam! Join CAUCE (Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email) at http://www.cauce.org/ It is there as an experiment to see if email spammers scan content — Pete Hickey | | VEIWIT University of Ottawa | | mirrors for Ottawa,Ont. Canada K1N 6N5| (613) 562-5800×1008 | dyslexics.
Response:
says… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – …snipped information should you want to do a search. As for encountering a "standing army of park-police" on a trout stream, that is highly improbable. The US Park Police are only found in a few areas, such as the parks in Washington, DC; the Bay area parks, around the St. Louis arch, and in a few other urban areas. You are much more likely to encounter some impoverished interpretive ranger out on a trail. …snipped Actually Richard, the function of the Park Ranger is almost entirely law enforcement. Most of the "interpretive" work in the parks is now done by volunteers. Take a look at the job recruitment specifications. They want applicants with military and/or law enforcement backgrounds… not naturalists. Even the NPS Ranger school at Grand Canyon is primarily concerned with crowd, traffic and riot control… certainly not interpretation. I backpack in the National Parks extensivley, particularly Yosemite & Sequoia, and on my last several trips the only Rangers I met (both NPS and USFS) were only interested in inspecting my permit. They carried sidearms and had no time to stand and chat about the wonders of nature.
Sorry Kurt, but I speak from experience _as_ a park ranger, and only a small minority of badged personnel actually have law enforcement commissions. In every park in which I have worked, interpretation, resource management and other rangers far outnumber the law enforcement personnel. I know quite well the function of the ranger jobs I have held and my varied responsibilities were not related to law enforcement. As for job recruitments, you can look for yourself on the opm.gov site; most ranger positions do have certifications based on experience in natural history, history or resource management. Yes, some jobs do require a law enforcement commission, but most do not. The Albright Training Center at Grand Canyon is not a law enforcement academy, though some courses are taught there. Most permanent protection rangers instead are schooled at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in the southeast. Rangers still do most of the interpretive work, too, though volunteers are a big help in a time of declining budgets. Your personal experience may indeed have included backcountry rangers checking you for your permit, but that is not what most rangers do at all. I am still pretty certain you have never encountered a US Park Police person in checking permits on the trail; they are not in most wild parks. Still hope your fishing is going well.
Response:
…snipped information should you want to do a search. As for encountering a "standing army of park-police" on a trout stream, that is highly improbable. The US Park Police are only found in a few areas, such as the parks in Washington, DC; the Bay area parks, around the St. Louis arch, and in a few other urban areas. You are much more likely to encounter some impoverished interpretive ranger out on a trail.
…snipped Actually Richard, the function of the Park Ranger is almost entirely law enforcement. Most of the "interpretive" work in the parks is now done by volunteers. Take a look at the job recruitment specifications. They want applicants with military and/or law enforcement backgrounds… not naturalists. Even the NPS Ranger school at Grand Canyon is primarily concerned with crowd, traffic and riot control… certainly not interpretation. I backpack in the National Parks extensivley, particularly Yosemite & Sequoia, and on my last several trips the only Rangers I met (both NPS and USFS) were only interested in inspecting my permit. They carried sidearms and had no time to stand and chat about the wonders of nature. . . . Kurt
Response:
rw I support a policy that has those that use the resource pay for its upkeep, with some proportion payed by society as a whole. Then the people who use it become stakeholders and they damn well want their money’s worth.
I agree with you in principle, the problem of course is setting the balance between support from users and support from the general fund. It certainly should never be the case that use fees go back into the general fund as apparently(according to other sources posting here) they do. Until I started reading this thread, I was under the naive notion that use fees I’ve been paying help support the resource I’m using. It pisses me off that this is not the case. I can see how big business would support use fees as a long term strategy for usurping more resources. Use fees discourage lower income people from using public resources and at the same time sour them toward people who want to use general money, which might otherwise be used for social development, to preserve natural resources . A clever ploy for eroding political support for resource preservation. (Or am I just paranoid?)
Response:
Say what you want,flame to the empty void.You all make some valid points but in the end I dont mind the small fees that pile up every time I turn around.And they do add up (list of last years expenses ommitted,you’re welcome) I like the improvements that I have seen happen to our beloved nat parks.If it keeps out the losers and sends them somewhere else fine.If it means finding a reasonably acommodating restroom when its desired fine.If it keeps the roads in good enough shape, fine.I wish that the industrys that benifit from the parks were footing the bill but I also wish that I was 10 foot tall and bulletproof.none of these things will happen.So what its just money and like love and power its just a collective hallucination.Tell ya what Ill drop an extra five in the next collection box I come across just for you guys. Zoc
Public lands belong to the public and shouldn’t be held hostage for those who can afford them. My next objection is that right now I have so many god damned season passes on my windshield that I can’t see out of it to drive the truck. Nonetheless, despite all the tags, it seems like whatever area I’m entering requires a NEW tag that I don’t have. One national tag would seem reasonable. The current system sucks. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text — Leave no trace or don’t leave home.
Response:
Say what you want,flame to the empty void.You all make some valid points but in the end I dont mind the small fees that pile up every time I turn around.And they do add up (list of last years expenses ommitted,you’re welcome) I like the improvements that I have seen happen to our beloved nat parks.If it keeps out the losers and sends them somewhere else fine.If it means finding a reasonably acommodating restroom when its desired fine.If it keeps the roads in good enough shape, fine.I wish that the industrys that benifit from the parks were footing the bill but I also wish that I was 10 foot tall and bulletproof.none of these things will happen.So what its just money and like love and power its just a collective hallucination.Tell ya what Ill drop an extra five in the next collection box I come across just for you guys. Zoc
Response:
This is irrespective of the fact that this is a clandestine tax increase. These fees go into the general fund. They are not applied to the areas that collect them. Nor are national park entrance fees, by the way. And I’m glad of that. Because the more money the park-managers get, the more they build bureaucratic empires, erect roads and visitors centers, pass pointless regulations, and deploy a standing army of park-police. This is not what a visit to a trout-steam is supposed to be about.
Your information on park entrance fees is somewhat out of date. Under the current demonstration program, 80% of the fees stay in the park that collects them, and the other 20% goes towards other parks. The NPS web site has all the information should you want to do a search. As for encountering a "standing army of park-police" on a trout stream, that is highly improbable. The US Park Police are only found in a few areas, such as the parks in Washington, DC; the Bay area parks, around the St. Louis arch, and in a few other urban areas. You are much more likely to encounter some impoverished interpretive ranger out on a trail. As for building a bureaucratic empire, remember that most developments in the parks are prompted or directed by Congressional legislation. If you really want to make a difference, work through your representatives, and make your voice heard at the ample opportunities parks provide for comment during general management plan revisions and other basic planning processes. Good luck with your fishing.
Response:
Note: Please forward this message to every outdoors person you know. This is one case where the quantity of letters is important. STOP THE COMMERCIALIZATION, PRIVATIZATION AND MOTORIZATION OF PUBLIC LANDS — LETTERS REQUIRED BEFORE APRIL 13, 1999 The Fee-Demonstration Program is currently temporary on some of our national forests. But supporters of the forest fees are working to make fees permanent next year, locking fees in place well before the test program’s scheduled ending in September 2001. At the same time, they are pretending that the American public has no problem with forest fees! The powerful Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held Fee-Demo hearings on March 3, 1999 – but they did not invite testimony from anyone except those corporations and motorized user groups which support Forest Fees. On April 13th, we will have OUR CHANCE TO BE HEARD when the House Interior Appropriations subcommittee holds its Public Witness Day. Please send a quick letter or postcard by April 10th. State: – Your opposition to forest fees – Ask the subcommittee to increase Forest Service recreation budgets (so as to maintain our National Forests without visitor fees) – Ask that your letter be part of the record for Public Witness Day on April 13th. Send your comments to: Congressman Ralph Regula House Interior Appropriations subcommittee B-308 Rayburn Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Public input is absolutely VITAL if the battle to save our wilderness is going to be won. Letters sent after April 10th are still helpful. The Sierra Club and over 75 other environmental groups oppose the imposition of recreation access and user fees on public lands. Environmental activists oppose user fees on public land, including wilderness lands, for reasons beyond opposition to payment of fees for use of public lands for which the public already pays taxes. The more serious concern is that the recreation fee demonstration program is not a benign effort to fund needed programs but is the leading edge of the recreation industry’s attempts to transform public land recreation into commercial products. The trend to deprive federal agencies of adequate recreation budgets and force them to charge fees instead is directly related to efforts to privatize, commercialize, and motorize recreation on the public lands. Please help by making your concerns known to Congress. For those not yet familiar with the ongoing efforts to turn industrial strength wreckreation into the next extractive forest industry, additional information can be found at the Wild Wilderness web site. http://www.wildwilderness.org PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTER ASAP AND HAVE YOUR FRIENDS DO THE SAME.
Response:
Note: Please forward this message to every outdoors person you know. This is one case where the quantity of letters is important.
Great. So the quality of letters isn’t important? We should just flood D.C. with letters to promote our own interests without any rational discussion? I don’t think so. Even if I agreed with your view, I don’t support campaigns like yours and Bluewater’s. I’m actually not entirely sure where I stand on this issue. Fishermen and hunters have to pay for their activities on public lands. Shouldn’t we? On the other hand, it seems like a crime to have to pay to set foot on "public" land. But then again, you have to pay to get into National Parks (and State Parks, for that matter), whether on foot or in a car. It’s a somewhat complex issue. One thing is sure: Encouraging snail-spam won’t get us anywhere. PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTER ASAP AND HAVE YOUR FRIENDS DO THE SAME.
No, thanks. And I don’t have any friends, thanks. — Got maps? TopoWeb does. http://members.xoom.com/Topo_Web
Response:
I live in a town of less than 200,00 people. Of these are more than 3,000 native born Chinese. Mostly legal. An even larger population of undocumented, illegal Mexicans exist, consequently we have some great Chinese and Mexican food available. Instead of permitting other countries to make their own way we interfere and then let their brightest minds and most courageous individuals jump a boat, raft or even legally immigrate to this once spacious country. For ourselves we cannot think past tomorrow’s paycheck or stock report, all the while bemoaning the loss of jobs and the downsizing used to increase the bottom line. I have long considered that perhaps it is time to use our outdoors as a private club. Buy a lifetime membership now and pay annual dues. The membership could stay with the family, passing down through the generations. As sad as it is, there is, possibly, no other way to preserve our outdoors. . . .Politicians can now garner enough votes to get elected by promising a group of individuals more welfare or unemployment or legal status or whatever, the point is . . .politicians will gladly rape and loot and pillage our resources for another kick-back or term in office. Who then will watch over what we know, under the present system, will one day be gone forever…our children will likely never see an old growth forest. The majority of the time, our influence on young lives is not enough to counter-balance the E. F. Hutton and Niki ads. How many representatives would prosper by telling those in the inner cities, " They would have more if we didn’t waste money on those old parks and forests that no one ever goes to anyway?" What effect would our voices then have in the overall scheme of things. . . .sometimes I think about things like this . . .and then, like I am doing tomorrow, I go fishing before it’s all gone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . john . . . .
Response:
(comments about the pressures caused by immigration were here) I have long considered that perhaps it is time to use our outdoors as a private club. Buy a lifetime membership now and pay annual dues. The membership could stay with the family, passing down through the
generations. The European aristocracy tried that. It claimed the forests for its own use and attempted to lock out the commoners. It didn’t work out. It wouldn’t here. As sad as it is, there is, possibly, no other way to preserve our
outdoors. If that is true then there is no chance for preservation. Let us hope we can find a feasible way instead. . . .Politicians can now garner enough votes to get elected by promising a group of individuals more welfare or unemployment or legal status or whatever, the point is . . .politicians will gladly rape and loot and pillage our resources for another kick-back or term in office.
Yes, well, that’s virtual democracy for you. Destroy the Constitution, which while still alive circumscribed the areas of activity permitted to the federal government, and what you get in the age of mass media and bloc voting is a government of unlimited powers, including the power to destroy. You also get pols in charge willing and free to do anything, anything at all, that helps them cling to power through just one more election. Who then will watch over what we know, under the present system, will one day be gone forever…our children will likely never see an old growth forest.
Yes, that is quite likely. Smoke ‘em if you got ‘em, while they last. The majority of the time, our influence on young lives is not enough to counter-balance the E. F. Hutton and Niki ads.
No one with such a skewed view of the problem has a prayer of finding a solution. It is not just mass marketers who are creating the culture of immediate gratification that drives virtual democracy. It is also the pols who claim to be working on behalf of those very young lives you mention, and the bureaucrats they hire to carry out the policies bought by the bloc votes and money fountains that give them power. The American state has become a vast superstructure of institutions, public, private and hybrid, that are steadily building their own interlocked system of autonomy and are subject to an ever decreasing level of control by the people. How many representatives would prosper by telling those in the inner cities, " They would have more if we didn’t waste money on those old parks and forests that no one ever goes to anyway?"
Most representatives who have such constituents of course say that to them, though often not in so many words. Elected representatives habitually pander to bloc votes. It’s what they do for a living. The problem is not that, it is that we have allowed the rise of a government, hand in hand with other institutions not usually (and, IMO, mistakenly) not typically seen as part of government, not strictly limited in its permitted powers. That gives those representatives the means to seize and use the people’s resources (all kinds, including tax monies, public lands, whatever) to pay whatever their various bloc votes and campaign contributors demand as the sale price for their critical support during elections. What effect would our voices then have in the overall scheme of things.
By "our" voices, I suppose you mean those of us who love the American outdoors. We tend to be individualistic. Our voices, plural, are individually insignificant against the roar of the organized special interests. We sometimes try organizing ourselves, but it goes against the grain because in order to do it each of us is still forced to subordinate his voice within what inevitably becomes just another special interest institution, one that claims to represent us but that always ends up representing the preferences of a clique or bloc, thus becoming corrupt in exactly the same way the institutions the one we are deluded is "ours" is working to influence. We thereby become part of the problem. . . .sometimes I think about things like this . . .and then, like I am doing tomorrow, I go fishing before it’s all gone . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Smart man. That may well be all you can do. My solution, in fact I think the only possible solution, is reform of the political system to establish a new structure of limits on the power of the American state. That is a revolutionary view, and I do not know how to bring about such drastic change. At least as long as we are as prosperous and well-defended as we now are it is most unlikely to happen, and that means we will continue to experience an erosion of both control of the established power structure of our own society and the resources we outdoors lovers need to pursue our passion. I suspect you right to enjoy what’s left while you can. Stephen W. Anderson Rocky Mount, NC
Response:
I support fees. I think that sufficent user fees should be charged for the BLM and park services to be self-sufficient, BUT NO MORE. At times the adminstration has starved the system, and others treated as a source of general revenues. The US park and land system is one of the better in the world and a major source of international tourism.
Response:
I support fees. I think that sufficent user fees should be charged for the BLM and park services to be self-sufficient, BUT NO MORE. At times the adminstration has starved the system, and others treated as a source of general revenues. The US park and land system is one of the better in the world and a major source of international tourism.
This is all true, but some see the recreation fee program as an effort to shift the burden of support to recreation, and when those revenues fail to meet the needs of the public lands the resource extractors will step in and say "See? Those hikers and fishermen don’t really want all that land, so give it to us instead." For over a century federal tax revenues have subsidized the extraction of minerals, grazing of cattle, and harvest of timber from the public lands. Why should recreationists– whose impact is minimal and needs are few –suddenly be asked to carry the weight when corporate America still benefits from subsidies? Why, for example, shouldn’t an excise tax on minerals pay for campgrounds? If you look at who is supporting the recreation fee demonstration program the lines become clear. If agribusiness, big timber, and mining corporations are for it, then who do you think really stands to benefit? Recreation lands need federal support, but that support should come from those that are converting publically owned resources into private profit, not families that spend two weekends a year camping on the National Forest. -drl — Derek R. Larson Indiana University Dept. of History "Nothing interesting occurred today…" -Meriwether Lewis at Ft. Clatsop, Oregon, Jan.4th, 1806
Response:
(comments about the pressures caused by immigration were here)
Seems like damn near every person has their own private Bogyman about why the fishing and the hunting and the open spaces have gone to hell and their own solution (none of which are going to work) and no one will admit to the real cause. When I was kid the US population was just under a million and a half and I had a ball. Be glad you’re not in your grand kids shoes. Even if they live in Deer Park, Montana they won’t they won’t be able to see much difference if they move to the Bronx. The days of open space are gone. Be glad you at least saw the tail end. Hank
Response:
Seems like damn near every person has their own private Bogyman about why the fishing and the hunting and the open spaces have gone to hell and their own solution (none of which are going to work) and no one will admit to the real cause. When I was kid the US population was just under a million and a half and I had a ball. Be glad you’re not in your grand kids shoes. Even if they live in Deer Park, Montana they won’t they won’t be able to see much difference if they move to the Bronx. The days of open space are gone. Be glad you at least saw the tail end. Hank
Hey Hank, you must be pretty old if the US population was 1.5 million people when you were a kid. 
For what it’s worth, most population experts are expecting the world population to hit a peak in the next century and begin to decline. Later, - Ken — "Many go fishing all their lives without knowing that it is not fish they are after." – Henry David Thoreau
Response:
Just how old are you Hank….One and a half mil….bout 1810 or therabouts? Waldo – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – (comments about the pressures caused by immigration were here) Seems like damn near every person has their own private Bogyman about why the fishing and the hunting and the open spaces have gone to hell and their own solution (none of which are going to work) and no one will admit to the real cause. When I was kid the US population was just under a million and a half and I had a ball. Be glad you’re not in your grand kids shoes. Even if they live in Deer Park, Montana they won’t they won’t be able to see much difference if they move to the Bronx. The days of open space are gone. Be glad you at least saw the tail end. Hank
– The Blue Ridge Book Gallery P.O. Box 5112 Banner Elk, NC 28604 http://www.abebooks.com/home/BLUEBOOKS/HOME.HTM
Response:
Sorry Ken, sometimes the fingers get going before the brain. That was 150 million in the thirties. Got any solution for the excess 5 Billion that showed up in the interim? I don’t, Hank – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Hey Hank, you must be pretty old if the US population was 1.5 million people when you were a kid. For what it’s worth, most population experts are expecting the world population to hit a peak in the next century and begin to decline. Later, – Ken — "Many go fishing all their lives without knowing that it is not fish they are after." – Henry David Thoreau
Response:
I support fees. I think that sufficent user fees should be charged for the BLM and park services to be self-sufficient, BUT NO MORE. At times the
Why single out recreation for fees? What about education, highways, national defense? And if recreationists are paying fees to use the forest, why are loggers and miners in the same forest subsidized? Take this fee-based taxation to the extreme, and you’ll see how miserable life can be. Just imaging the nuisance if all roads were toll roads. Government is a necessary institution, and I prefer paying for it once per year, not every time I turn around. Also note: these fees do not go to the BLM or park service. They go into the general fund, just like your income tax. Finally, and I think this is the most important point of all, if the value of public lands is measured in economic terms — how much the visitor is willing to pay — this is the first step toward selling off the public lands to the highest bidder. If visitors are only willing to pay $100, and developers are willing to pay $1000, does that mean the developers should have their way? I believe the value of public lands lies much deeper than mere economy. — -Wayne Trzyna Fight spam! Join CAUCE (Coalition http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~trzyna See http://www.cauce.org/
Response:
Sorry Ken, sometimes the fingers get going before the brain. That was 150 million in the thirties. Got any solution for the excess 5 Billion that showed up in the interim? I don’t,
NATO and Milosevic are working on that problem as hard as they both can do. Give ‘em time. Stephen W. Anderson Rocky Mount, NC
Response:
I’m actually not entirely sure where I stand on this issue. Fishermen and hunters have to pay for their activities on public lands.
The point is that under the proposed legislation, in addition the fishing license you already have to buy, and the campground fee you already have to pay, you will also have to pay simply for just being there by the River. The experimental fee programs mentioned already charge $5 per day at the Bighorn and Green rivers for instance. I personally find these programs an obnoxious nuisance at best. Every time I turn around I’m filling out paper-work, paying fees, running around trying to find correct change, etc. This is not what a visit to a trout-stream is supposed to be about. This is irrespective of the fact that this is a clandestine tax increase. These fees go into the general fund. They are not applied to the areas that collect them. Nor are national park entrance fees, by the way. And I’m glad of that. Because the more money the park-managers get, the more they build bureaucratic empires, erect roads and visitors centers, pass pointless regulations, and deploy a standing army of park-police. This is not what a visit to a trout-steam is supposed to be about. I for one feel strongly about this issue and will write a letter. — -Wayne Trzyna Fight spam! Join CAUCE (Coalition http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~trzyna See http://www.cauce.org/
Response:
Question:
All the comments so far are quite interesting to me because I have yet to own a rod over 8′ in length. I built a 8′ 6 wt. st croix and a 7′2" 3 wt. st croix for myself two years ago and have only used the 8′ a dozen times. The short light rod is just a ball to use and I have caught some good fish on it! 1 to 4 lb largemouth, tuns o sunfish, 61/2 lb. brown, 9 lb carp, 4 1/2 lb smallmouth buffalo.There aren’t many things I would trade my small short rod for. The superiority of one man’s opinion over another’s is never so great as when the opinion is about fishing. Tim ILBTim
Response:
I find a 9ft quality 5 wt. idealfdor all fresh water fishing. Unless you are fishing very small streams stick wit what you have unless money is no object.
Response:
Short rods definitely are useful and fun, especially on small brushy streams. Lamiglass makes some short rods, with the smallest around 51/2 ft. St. Croix used to make some nice ones back in the days of glass, but I have no idea what their line is now.
Response:
Short rods are advantageous in tight conditions with canopy type overgrowth. A long rod in this situation would always be stuck in the canopy. In areas where most of the cover is on the banks and not overhanging the river, a longer rod will allow you to backcast over the obstructions more easily, is more accurate (like having a longer finger to point with) and definitely gives you better line handling and mending. So as many answers to fly fishing questions goes, "It all depends". Make your choice depending on the conditions or personal preferance. Lee Wulff once said that he didn’t fish short rods because they were better, but because they were more challenging and he enjoyed fishing them more than long rods. Check out Joan Wulff’s book for some specialty casts to use with short rods. Dan Dan Gracia Orvis West Coast Fly Fishing Schools If you kill that big fish you can’t catch ‘em again. So what if they eat other fish? If you kill the big ones there will only be little ones left (funny how that works!).
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Short rods are advantageous in tight conditions with canopy type overgrowth. A long rod in this situation would always be stuck in the canopy. In areas where most of the cover is on the banks and not overhanging the river, a longer rod will allow you to backcast over the obstructions more easily, is more accurate (like having a longer finger to point with) and definitely gives you better line handling and mending. So as many answers to fly fishing questions goes, "It all depends". Make your choice depending on the conditions or personal preferance. Lee Wulff once said that he didn’t fish short rods because they were better, but because they were more challenging and he enjoyed fishing them more than long rods. Check out Joan Wulff’s book for some specialty casts to use with short rods. Dan Dan Gracia Orvis West Coast Fly Fishing Schools If you kill that big fish you can’t catch ‘em again. So what if they eat other fish? If you kill the big ones there will only be little ones left (funny how that works!).
Re: Short fly rods Don’t forget that long rods can really come in handy if you fish stillwater from a belly boat. I fish an out of production (I think) Orvis 10 1/2′ in my tube. The minor inconviences are easily outweighed by the advantages of the extra length. Like you said, "It all depends…" Good luck, Nash
Response:
IMHO, I have a Sage 7.5′ 4wt and I love it! The majority of fishing I do is on small spring streams and it is perfect. I have other rods, longer and heavier, but this one is definitely my favorite. D.P.
The best rod I own is an Orvis "Tippet" 7.5′ 3wt 1.5 oz.. I use it for trout and panfish. It’s the first rod that I grab and the one I use when I dream about fishing.
Response:
I’ve used my Orvis Flea, 6 1/2′ 4 weight almost exclusively for the last two years. Originally bought it for small s.w. Michigan streams with low canopies but have had success on local northern Indiana ponds and even the Yellow Breeches in PA. You need a very smooth knot between leader and fly line because you’ll probably reel in that much to reach fish or to use net. On the plus side, almost any size fish gives your outfit a battle and the shorter rod makes you work on better casting mechanics for longer casts.
Response:
IMO, the biggest disadvantage to short rods is their limited ability to mend line, especially on big rivers. I use a 9 foot rod for 95% of the fishing I do. On smaller rivers, like the local Cache la Poudre, I prefer an 8 foot; shorter rods seem to work better for shorter casts. When I get rich some day, working for the government (right) I’d like to get a 9.5 foot six or seven weight for nymphinig big rivers. Generally speaking, the bigger the water, the bigger the rod. — -Wayne Trzyna
Response:
Doug, The Mighty Mite is a 5wt! You may just be able to get a nice Salmon or Steelhead if you are careful. Most likely, you could not get a Steelie or Salmon on a 6′ 1wt. The MM is and was not a gimmic when sold. It was offered as a short all around rod. They are rare and collectable, dont break it! Sean
Response:
IMHO, it depends on where you plan on fishing. If you’re on the big rivers, I’d go with a longer rod. Physically, they are capable of putting out more line (higher rod tip speed, etc.). If, however, you’re like me and are ducking overhanging branches and the like, I would STRONGLY recommend a short rod. I have a 7′2" 4wt that I absoulutely LOVE! My first rod was a 9′6" 5wt that was nice, just had to be so careful about tree fishing. Also, I really don’t think the added length makes too much of a difference in relation to distance unless you start talking about throwing flies way out there, because I’ve never been let down by the short rod in trying to hit a spot. My suggestion, go with the short! Terry
Response:
Also, who do you think won the war between the rods? Lefty Kreh and the long rods? or Ed Shenk et al and the short ones?
Jim, I think a random sampling of rod vendors’ offerings is more than sufficient to answer this question. Rods 8ft or longer in length are the rule, with rods under 8ft being the overwhelming minority. (In fact, this is probably also true if the criterion were 9ft or longer for a "long" rod.) This is not to criticize short rod proponents; only to point out that there is very little question on this subject if you look to the marketplace as your measurement of "who won the war". Regards, Fred
Response:
I am interested in knowledge about short fly rods, particulary fiberglass but also graphite. Line weights 3 – 5. Also, rods that are for sale. There have been waves of interest in these small rods in the past, probably started by Lee Wulff and Arnold Gingrich, but also Ed Shenk. I am interested in your experience with the short ones, different manufacturers, lengths, shortcomings, etc., not commercialized opinion driven by marketing usually published in the fly fishing journals. Also, who do you think won the war between the rods? Lefty Kreh and the long rods? or Ed Shenk et al and the short ones? Thanks. J. H.
Jim: Just my own experience, but I have a 6′6" Loomis GL3 (graphite) 3-weight that I really like to use on small streams. I have caught trout, largemouth and smallmouth bass, and lots of panfish on it and really love to use it. It does, however, leave a lot to be desired if you are fishing in a wind. I think that part has as much to do with the line weight as the length, but the two are probably related. Finally, if your small stream fishing includes dropping nymphs along cutbanks without actual casting, a 9′ rod works a lot better for that. Still, there is something that is just FUN about throwing a light line and a tiny fly on a short rod. I think it makes me a better fisherman with my other rods. Thanks, Bob
Response:
IMHO, I have a Sage 7.5′ 4wt and I love it! The majority of fishing I do is on small spring streams and it is perfect. I have other rods, longer and heavier, but this one is definitely my favorite. D.P.
Response:
IMHO, short rods (beginning with the bamboo type) have always been of interest to some fishermen because there have been promoters of fishing with them, especially the late Lee Wulff. He could cast very long distances with a short rod, as well as land very large fish. In the world of bamboo, a very heavy material, a short rod was a light rod. The advent of graphite has eliminated weight as a consideration in rod length. So now we can return to consideration of basic principles like the length of the rod as a lever for casting or its applicability for handling or manipulating line on the water. And in this regard, a longer rod is preferable, all other things being equal. Many of the light weight rods (by line size) are now relatively lengthy – few under 8′ and many at 9′ – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -The short rod interest has really confused me as of late also. I have always favored a shortish rod for the fishing I do in the Sierra and High Sierra. There really is no scientific fact for this, they are simply easier to carry and cast in tight conditions with light line. The trout are seldom over 12", so the short, light rod makes fair game of them. The 1oz, 1 and 2wt. rods are gimmics in my opinion. I have used one particular model and felt I did the fish I caught some real harm, by not bringing them in quick enough. The rod simply wouldnt allow it. I was using the rod to get a feel for the action and casting abilities and comparing it to light cane rods. While I know of no 1 or 2wt. cane rods, there was a significant difference between this rod and 3 and 4wt. cane. The cane has the same sweet action and feel (heavier yes) but brought fish to the hand much faster. I believe this is another fad the industry is going through. Much has been written over th past two years about short, light rods. So much so, that the once common and inexpensive short cane rods have become the rage across the country. This is both good and bad. Bad, because I really cant afford to buy the SB 290’s and HI Tonka Princes any longer, at the rate I break them. 
. But good because, these really are decent rods and deserve some respect. As with anything "collectable" the prices will certinly rise to unaffordability soon enough. Thoughts out there? Regards, Sean
Response:
The short rod interest has really confused me as of late also. I have always favored a shortish rod for the fishing I do in the Sierra and High Sierra. There really is no scientific fact for this, they are simply easier to carry and cast in tight conditions with light line. The trout are seldom over 12", so the short, light rod makes fair game of them. The 1oz, 1 and 2wt. rods are gimmics in my opinion. I have used one particular model and felt I did the fish I caught some real harm, by not bringing them in quick enough. The rod simply wouldnt allow it. I was using the rod to get a feel for the action and casting abilities and comparing it to light cane rods. While I know of no 1 or 2wt. cane rods, there was a significant difference between this rod and 3 and 4wt. cane. The cane has the same sweet action and feel (heavier yes) but brought fish to the hand much faster. I believe this is another fad the industry is going through. Much has been written over th past two years about short, light rods. So much so, that the once common and inexpensive short cane rods have become the rage across the country. This is both good and bad. Bad, because I really cant afford to buy the SB 290’s and HI Tonka Princes any longer, at the rate I break them. . But good because, these really are decent rods and deserve some respect. As with anything "collectable" the prices will certinly rise to unaffordability soon enough. Thoughts out there? Regards, Sean
Response:
Question:
The guy is a snake oil selling fraud. I mean, who couldn’t catch 10 lb bass with regularity in a fish farm? If you are trying to learn how to fish, don’t use butthead Bill as a benchmark! FB — Fishin Buddy o << o | These opinions are offered by weight < < o <J provocative content may have occurred << << during shipping and handling.
Response:
what caused such a rash against Bill.
Response:
what caused such a rash against Bill.
He’s not a bad fisherman as long as he has his divers hookin’ those toads for him.
Response:
The guy swears by a certain product (Stow Away Batteries)-(Now Champion), (Diawa)-(Now Quantum)and then turns around and talks up a new one when the sponsor antes up more money. He cant even stay with the people who sponsored him through his fishing career and made him what he is today. Just my opinion.
Response:
I have to agree. Bill Dance will push the product that offers to pay him the most $$$. It really detracts from the show and his credibility. Al in NH
Response:
Bill is no worse than R. Martin, who is open about his "tools" used to film his spots. As he put it to a friend of mine - – - " they made Star Wars in a studio with tricks, didn’t they ??" I guess it just comes with the turf.
Response:
Bill is ALOT worse than Roland Martin. How many times do you hear where Roland is fishing today? Logan Martin, Okechobee, Lanier. Lakes everyone know and can access. And Bill? "We’re here fishing Gump’s Private Pond where trespassers will be shot."
Response:
He is miles ahead of Jimmy, throw the fish in live well from the front of the boat, Houston. — Gert Jensen Editor: BACKCASTS 600 Warren Rd. VP Communication Bldg.1, Apt.3-A Northeastern Council Ithaca, NY 14850 Federation of Fly Fishers Ph:607-257-5796 ‘Conserving–Restoring–Educating Through Fly Fishing’ See our Home Page: http://light.lightlink.com/ephemera/
Response:
I boycotted Dance for over 4 years after a 1986 episode where he was fishing for smallmouth below a TVA reservoir. It seemed great at first (99% of his shows were just largemouth so this was a nice change of pace), but then he hooked what he thought was a world record smallmouth. The fish turned out to be a large drum. A real fisherman would have been thrilled to have caught something that fought well enough to be a record smallie, but Bill murdered the poor fish by drum". What a jerk! Real men know drum are a classy gamefish and a valuable asset to the ecosystem. Of course drum are too smart to bite lures on a regular basis so Dance, thinking with his wallet, would not get sponsorship $ for intelligent species like drum, carp, etc. The Dancin’ Eel: most useless lure ever made? Stumbling onto his show in late 1990, he seemed to have become a kinder, gentler angler, taking better care of fish, but his shows seem staged. IMHO the only worthwhile Dance show is "The Worst of Bill Dance", 40 minutes of celebrity guests and bloopers. Dance haters can take pleasure when he falls in the water, bangs his head, hooks himself, etc. Ahti Eric Rovainen
Response:
The best part of bill dance? When in the bloopers episode, his snagged lure flies out of a tree (huge crankbait) and pops him in the croch. YES! Thats funny!
Response:
What!, we all don’t use those bullshit "Nightcrawler Links"? Yes, cheap hotdogs in cherry koolaid.
Response:
I have to agree. Bill Dance will push the product that offers to pay him the most $$$. It really detracts from the show and his credibility. Al in NH
How about Roland Martin??? His show is just an info-mercial for spiderwire the the guide who happens to be on his boat that week! RonM
Response:
I have started watching Bill in the past 9 months. He is one of my favorites. Maybe I am missing something. He has good tips for me. He talks about how to preserve nature. Yes he sells products but are we supposed to stop watching Full House because they drink Pepsi. He has to fund his show. All shows need funding. There are not enough viewers to demand high dollars for a fishing show. This is just my opinion. I do like Jimmy, Bill, Hank, and Bass Masters.
Response:
I watch Bill Dance’s shows, too. Every fisherman out there with a show advertises all the time. That’s how they can pay for the show. But I sure wish old Bill would just grab those bass out of the water when he gets them to the boat instead of yanking them up in the air so that it looks like they’re jumping. Dennis
Response:
