Question:

  I think that a sense of being crowded has much to do with the size of the stream. On many small streams it is futile to fish behind another angler without a significant wait and there is no way that two people could share even the largest pool. Larger streams and rivers can accommodate many more anglers per mile without the sense of crowding. As the streams and rivers have become more crowded over the years, especially on the more famous waters, many anglers have accepted this over crowding as part of angling.

I consider a river to be crowded when you can’t rest a pool or a run after someone has fished it because someone else will jump in there. Unfortunately you have to get used to it on most of the rivers around here. I don’t fish too much smaller water, but I probably should.  I like fishing the big water and can usually drive to a spot that isn’t as crowded.  Even on the big rivers, people seldom venture to areas that require hiking to get at or that will require a longer drive down a dirt road. One of the best things about fishing smaller water is that you can often have them to yourself. The drawback is that even one other angler can spoil things.

Fishing smaller water to me means smaller fish, but possibly more of them so what they lack in size you make up for in numbers.  They can be a great source of enjoyment, but I fear I am getting lazy with so much water in easy walking/driving distance.  The last 2 years has not seen me doing much hiking to get at fish.  I get enough hiking in during hunting season. Besides, if things are good on a big river you can still get plenty of fish and bigger ones too.  I do miss the innocence displayed by fish in the smaller water that doesn’t get pounded. — Warren Findley Shut up and fish! For Yellowstone Clave info: http://www.geocities.com/troutbum_mt/YNP.html

Response:

If anyone is fishin’ the sections of Upper Creek that I fish, I consider the stream to be crowded!

I think that a sense of being crowded has much to do with the size of the stream. On many small streams it is futile to fish behind another angler without a significant wait and there is no way that two people could share even the largest pool. Larger streams and rivers can accommodate many more anglers per mile without the sense of crowding. As the streams and rivers have become more crowded over the years, especially on the more famous waters, many anglers have accepted this over crowding as part of angling. One of the best things about fishing smaller water is that you can often have them to yourself. The drawback is that even one other angler can spoil things. Willi

Response:

If anyone is fishin’ the sections of Upper Creek that I fish, I consider the stream to be crowded!

Opie, if you are fishing within 2 states of me I considered things getting too crowded Warren

Response:

If anyone is fishin’ the sections of Upper Creek that I fish, I consider the stream to be crowded! Opie, if you are fishing within 2 states of me I considered things getting too crowded

Hell, I’ve fished AND hiked with the boy.  He is a crowd unto himself, whether or not anyone else is in the crick!  About the only thing about him that ain’t crowded is the top of his head!!      :) Wolfgang amazed at what he can remember about a person in light of a promised absence at an upcoming event

Response:

If anyone is fishin’ the sections of Upper Creek that I fish, I consider the stream to be crowded! Op

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –   You guys should be glad to have so many wusses around.  Every November and December I go off for some late season steelheading on the Deschutes, in windy freezing rain, only to find it hard to lock into one of my favorite runs.  Often, once I get onto one, I look upstream: a fishermen. Downstream:  a fisherman.  "What the hell are these people doing out in weather like this?" I ask myself. Oh believe me, I am thankful.  I have started to notice more people going out in the winter time though.  I fear that the waters I like to fish will be crowded year around before too long.  Of course what I consider to be crowded during the winter is about 10 people on the mile stretch I fish <g — Warren Findley Yellowstone Clave info at: www.geocities.com/troutbum_mt

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I can’t believe what a bunch of wusses Colorado fishermen are. I had to run down to Mike Clark’s shop today to pick up a set of ferrules for a Leonard restoration. I drove the scenic route, which followed most of the Big Thompson and St. Vrain drainages. On a normal Saturday morning I’d have seen at least a hundred guys in the water, but today it was snowing, and I didn’t count a dozen fishermen out. I got home, bundled up in wool and goretex, and went back up to slaughter them. The fish were feeding like they were expecting something bad was about to happen, and I think they were right. It looks like runoff could get started any day now.

I notice much the same thing here too.  As soon as the weather is nice, the place I normally fish has a dozen people in it.  If it is crowded, I go to my alternate spot which is actually better, but a longer drive and more hiking. I did notice today that the river was a little darker than normal.  It was kind of funny though because you could see how the water level had dropped since the rain and warm weather we have been having.  Now that it is cold and snowing again, the water levels dropped but there is still some sediment in the water giving it a murky tinge.  I fear runoff is just around the corner for us too. Glad to hear you slayed them.  The fish up here seem to know that tomorrow is another day and are in no hurry to chow down just yet.  It is kind of funny, I think they are tired of midges after having fed on them all winter.  Now that they have tasted other flies, they have become really picky and mostly ignore the midges.  Thank God there are always some dumb ones <g — Warren Findley Yellowstone Clave info at: www.geocities.com/troutbum_mt

Response:

I can’t believe what a bunch of wusses Colorado fishermen are. ….snipped I notice much the same thing here too.  As soon as the weather is nice, the place I normally fish has a dozen people in it….

You guys should be glad to have so many wusses around.  Every November and December I go off for some late season steelheading on the Deschutes, in windy freezing rain, only to find it hard to lock into one of my favorite runs.  Often, once I get onto one, I look upstream: a fishermen. Downstream:  a fisherman.  "What the hell are these people doing out in weather like this?" I ask myself. JR

Response:

  You guys should be glad to have so many wusses around.  Every November and December I go off for some late season steelheading on the Deschutes, in windy freezing rain, only to find it hard to lock into one of my favorite runs.  Often, once I get onto one, I look upstream: a fishermen. Downstream:  a fisherman.  "What the hell are these people doing out in weather like this?" I ask myself.

Oh believe me, I am thankful.  I have started to notice more people going out in the winter time though.  I fear that the waters I like to fish will be crowded year around before too long.  Of course what I consider to be crowded during the winter is about 10 people on the mile stretch I fish <g — Warren Findley Yellowstone Clave info at: www.geocities.com/troutbum_mt

Response:

……. I headed back upstream to check some productive dry fly water.  When I got there I didn’t see any fish rising so I sat on the bank and watched for a few minutes to see if anything was going to happen….

It took me a very long time, at the beginning of my fishing life, to figure out that a day ends up being a lot more enjoyable the more I take time for these 5-10 minute sit-downs just to watch what is happening.  Sounds like you had a real pleasant day, despite the weather. JR

Response:

Nice report, jarhead. I can’t believe what a bunch of wusses Colorado fishermen are. I had to run down to Mike Clark’s shop today to pick up a set of ferrules for a Leonard restoration. I drove the scenic route, which followed most of the Big Thompson and St. Vrain drainages. On a normal Saturday morning I’d have seen at least a hundred guys in the water, but today it was snowing, and I didn’t count a dozen fishermen out. I got home, bundled up in wool and goretex, and went back up to slaughter them. The fish were feeding like they were expecting something bad was about to happen, and I think they were right. It looks like runoff could get started any day now.

Response:

Well, I was sitting around the house wishing I could be out fishing and decided I wasn’t going to let the weather stop me.  It has been snowing off and on since yesterday but it isn’t too cold out.  The wind has been pretty bad and was the real reason why I had not ventured out.  After milling around the house and constantly staring out the window, I decided to make a go of it anyway.  The urge to fish far outweighed any weather considerations so I grabbed my gear, loaded up my fly boxes, grabbed the six weight and hit the door. I haven’t been able to fish in a couple of weeks and the lack of fishing has really taken its toll on me.  Despite the crappy weather I was really jazzed about getting out on the water.  I arrived at the access on the Gallatin and scanned the surface while I was getting ready.  I did not see any fish rising, but I did see quite a few midges out and about.  When I finally reached the water I couldn’t believe how many midges there were.  All the little pockets and back eddies were just filled with midges. I fished my way downstream and came to a spot that I wasn’t able to wade so I climbed up along the bank.  I was kind of walking a little too close to the private property so I dipped down a little lower so as to not piss the land owner off.  The bank is really steep with several logs, trees and log jams along the bank.  The water is really deep too. I came up to a spot that had a little log jam with a couple of trees hanging over the bank.  I saw several piles of midges gathered in this little sheltered position.  A really nice sized fish was working this area and was coming up quite often.  He was in a position that I could not cast to however.  I tried doing some commando fishing and dapping a griffith’s gnat in the area but I put the fish down. I headed back upstream to check some productive dry fly water.  When I got there I didn’t see any fish rising so I sat on the bank and watched for a few minutes to see if anything was going to happen. Several minutes went by and not one rise.  I just couldn’t resist making a few casts to a little pocket that I can usually pull a fish out of.  Second cast and I was able to get the fly in there despite the wind.  A short drift and a silver bullet darted up from the bottom and slammed the fly.  I set the hook and the fight was on.  It felt so great to have a fish on after such a long period without being able to fish.  I landed a nice little rainbow of about 10-11" after he made several jumps and runs.  After releasing him, I sat on the bank to kind of soak in the feeling of being out on the water again and catching fish. I moved up to the next big section of dry fly water and saw a few rises while I was there but was unable to get the fish interested in what I was offering.  After about an hour of fishing/observing and only seeing 7 rises I decided to move back downstream.  The snow started coming in a lot harder and the wind picked up.  The snow was falling almost horizontally because of the wind and began picking up in intensity.  It was enough to finally drive me off the water and back to the truck. Even though I only caught one fish, it was great to be back out.  I wish the weather would have cooperated a little more, but perhaps tomorrow will hold better weather and the fish will be a little more eager.  Until then, I guess I will just have to tie up some more flies that I will be using in the not so distant future. — Warren Findley Yellowstone Clave info at: www.geocities.com/troutbum_mt

Response:

Question:

Care to share your hobbies?

Large format B&W photography 4-Season camping Fly fishing Hunting Trapping Botony Geology Thomas Vodacek Stagnant Brewery Brewing Since 1982

Response:

Care to share your hobbies? Large format B&W photography 4-Season camping Fly fishing Hunting Trapping Botony Geology Thomas Vodacek Stagnant Brewery Brewing Since 1982 Street Rodding and motorcycle riding.

collecting trains and cooking. Brewing since1995

Response:

Care to share your hobbies?

Brewing’s about it anymore, and I don’t get as much time to do that as I’d like. I used to love photography, especially sports photography.  I used to go to hockey games alot and take pictures of the players.  I live in Philadelphia.  I have an autographed 8 x 10 that I took of Flyers goalie Pelle Lindbergh that may actually be the very last autograph he ever signed before he died.  I wish I could prove it.  I caught him outside the stadium right after the last game he played, which was against Washington.  He signed the picture, then I watched him get in his car, and I heard the next morning he was dead.   I also have lots of old hockey, baseball, and football cards. Aside from beer, I also make some wine, but mostly just from kits. I like to cook, and make bread.  Actually made bread before I made beer.  Would like to try making cheese at some point.  It all seems to go toghether.  I always wanted to learn to make desserts, like cakes and stuff. Bill

Response:

collecting trains and cooking. Brewing since1995

Just *do* you cook a train? :0) I’m hoping to swing by Valley Park, MO on this summer’s vacation to see the "Whittle Shortline" folks and their wooden trains. My son’s not old enough for highly scaled N gauge yet.

Response:

Care to share your hobbies?

Computers & networking Photography Competitive pistol and rifle shooting Reloading for pistol and rifle Cooking Read a lot Racquetball Billiards/Pool Politics Kingfisher NRA-ILA, GOA, JPFO, SAF, CCRKBA, COA, LSAS, LEAA.  Money is a weapon. When guns are outlawed, politicians will still have armed bodyguards. It’s not who votes that counts; it’s who counts the votes.

Response:

Let’s see now….. 1. Home brewing……Oooorah! 2. RC model building (and flying). 3. Keeping planted aquariums. 4. Gardening. 5. Woodworking….or as SWMBO calls it….screwing around in the garage. Dan

Response:

Pinball machines Radio Controlled aircraft Robotics Hunting Fishing Camping while hunting/fishing Restoring a 1968 VW God, I need to trim my hobbies down a bit! Darren Brewing since 1995

Response:

Care to share your hobbies?

Swimming Reading Writing Photography Driving my Miata Cooking Gardening Cat — The Cat House http://www.feline.org Phone+Fax: 877.278.8075

Response:

Care to share your hobbies?

Computers Brewing Biology & Genetics in general Physics Science Fiction & Fantasy Classical Music Photography — Fred Stone

Response:

Care to share your hobbies?

Child care and graduate school. Phil

Response:

Tinkering with computers, and collecting obscure (mostly jazz/rock) CDs.  And I will be adding meadmaking to the list any day now! —

Response:

Care to share your hobbies?

Collecting Military Vehicles (M35A2 Deuce-and-a-half, and a Hummer) Ham Radio Cooking — Rich Weinkauf, N8QLT Cruise Missile Coordinates: 42d 28.05′N 083d 22.87′W HummerID 97.5 Fly Yellow Wagon 1971 Kaiser M35A2  **  MVPA #20486 Load Warrior Website http://msnhomepages.talkcity.com/Terminus/loadwarrior/ M35 Cool Stuff Site     http://www.highprofilevehicles.com

Response:

Care to share your hobbies?

Member of the SCA (renaissance re-enactment) Leatherwork Digital photography candle/perfume/balm making (I seriously dislike the aromatherapy tag) Winemaking

Response:

Question:

Putting all that together, I gather that I haven’t broken a rod while casting because I use a roll cast or retrieve enough of a wet line to avoid that overload on the lift, and I’m never over bending the rod while casting.  The fatal errors come in the heat of battle. The more I think about it, I see what you mean about casting being the heaviest force on the rod. Thanks for your help, Chas

Response:

The force generated by "hauling" is not "applied directly" to the line. It’s applied though the loaded, and increasingly loaded, rod.

If it’s done right the rod is already fully loaded and you are just accelerating the line and, more importantly, the tip of the line. — Charlie…

Response:

The force generated by "hauling" is not "applied directly" to the line. It’s applied though the loaded, and increasingly loaded, rod. If it’s done right the rod is already fully loaded and you are just accelerating the line and, more importantly, the tip of the line. — Charlie…

Charlie, Your analysis of hauling to increase line speed and thus increasing casting distance is correct.  If it was a matter of loading the rod as rw says the caster would only have to apply more power to accomplish this. Ernie

Response:

rw, If the haul is done correctly the rod is fully loaded and any additional speed must be imparted to the line by foreword movement of your arm and by pulling "hauling" the line through the guides. Ernie – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I have to doubt that additional rod loading is minimal, Mike. The only way the caster can increase the speed of the line is by accelerating it. The only way he can accelerate it is by exerting a force on the line at the rod tip. (F=ma). An equal and opposite force is exerted on the rod at the tip, which results in loading the rod.

Response:

Charlie, Your analysis of hauling to increase line speed and thus increasing casting distance is correct.  If it was a matter of loading the rod as rw says the caster would only have to apply more power to accomplish this. Ernie

I’m not saying that the *point* of hauling is to load the rod. I’m saying only that one *effect* of hauling is additional loading of the rod. It has to have that effect — there’s no way around it. Hauling accelerates the line, which generates a force on the rod tip. (F=ma) Consider three cases: 1. After loading the rod on the forward cast (with no hauling), you accidently lose your grip on the line with your noncasting hand. The acceleration of the line vanishes, the force on the rod tip vanishes, the rod straightens without appreciably affecting the line, and the line falls on the water in a bloody mess. 2. You make a normal forward cast without hauling, just holding the line tight. A force is applied to the line by the rod tip, causing acceleration of the line. An equal and opposite force is applied to the rod top, causing loading of the rod. 3. You make a forward cast while hauling. The action of the noncasting hand, pulling on the line, causes an *additional* acceleration of the line. This additional acceleration causes an *additional* force on the rod tip, resulting in additional loading of the rod. If you ignore things like friction, you could replace the effect (on the rod) of hauling by a transient additional stress in the line, and the rod would have no way of "knowing" the difference. It would simply load more. (The line would behave very differently, though.) These three cases are really just points in a continuum. Whether you consider this additional rod loading to be significant is your business, but it’s nonetheless real. This is just elementary physics. — visit my web site: http://home.earthlink.net/~royalwulff/

Response:

Whether you consider this additional rod loading to be significant is your business, but it’s nonetheless real. This is just elementary physics.

It also ignores the fact that the line is not attached to the tip of the rod and that the rod is very nearly, if not fully, loaded. There may be some additional loading, but what makes the haul work is the additional acceleration applied directly to the line. This is just elementary geometry<g. — Charlie…

Response:

http://www.mikeconnor.de You didn’t comment on my second reason.  Does this make sense to you?      A second reason that the loading is not the key is that you could achieve the same additional loading if you just applied a bit more casting force.  We know that a man of modest strength and a good haul can outcast a muscle man who doesn’t haul. Thanks Chas

This is also correct.    The amount of linespeed any particular rod may generate in a flyline by direct action is limited by various things, one of which is the strength and speed of the caster. ( assuming once again perfect technique). If you haul, you do not increase the loading, as you do not use direct rod action, but your line hand, and you do not require any more strength and speed to obtain similar results to someone who does not haul. However, a powerful person with good technique will always cast better ( assuming distance casting here of course), than a weaker person, simply because he has more power per se. TL MC

Response:

– "Where fishing is concerned, most anglers are basically manic excessives" http://www.mikeconnor.de – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If it were so that hauling dramatically increased rod loading, then hauling on an already optimally loaded rod would cause it to fold up. I’ve been mean to a few rods at times, putting a #10 line in a #8 rod and casting Pike flies for instance, but I’ve never managed to break one casting.  Is this because most of my fishing has been with Graphite or Glass? I have to dig back into some old Physics books to get the details, but I remember stress and strain curves for various materials showing a linear relationship until a limit was released, and then additional stress produced excessive strain until the material failed.  Certainly with an old shoe or a fish on the line and a stout leader it’s easy enough to pass the elastic limit, but does that happen in casting as well? Thanks Chas

If you ask most people at what point a rod is stressed the most, then many of them will tell you that it is in playing a fish.  This is not the case. The basic maximum stress condition for a rod, when used correctly, is when casting. Most modern rods can stand a great deal more stress in this respect than is generally realised.  What they can not stand is shock loading under stress. If you jerk a rod when it is already loaded with a "dead weight", either played out fish, old shoe etc etc then it is highly likely to break. Solid glass fibre rods were probably the most robust rods to date.  Carbon fibre suffers from one or two disadvantages here. Even a slight nick in the surface of a blank can cause sudden massive failure, sometimes the blank will simply shatter without warning. More rods are broken by various extraneous factors than by casting.  The failure might indeed occur when casting, but is usually the result of some other fault. Car doors, falling down on the rod, excessive heat, leaning a rod on a stone and nicking it, ramming the tip into a tree, etc etc. Constantly overloading a rod by casting full lines etc, which are way over the rated weight will usually cause a blank failure as well of course. Most rods broken while actually fishing, do so for a number of reasons, the main one directly fishing related, is getting snagged, putting a good bend in the rod, and then jerking it.  This will quite easily snap a carbon fibre blank, or shatter it . The sudden extreme shock loading under stress is more than the rod can handle. The second most common reason is trying to lift a long line, especially a sunken one, without first roll-casting the line to the surface. Attempting to do this will break most rods. The sudden massive loading is once again more than they can stand. The third most common reason is attempting to land a fish by holding the rod almost vertically, and allowing it to bend over ninety degrees from the vertical. The fish plunges, and the rod simply snaps at the tip. No major exertions are required here by the way, doing the same thing while threading a line through the rings  will also snap a rod tip quite easily. What often happens here, is that the rod is bent, and then the blank "rolls" suddenly changing the stress patterns in the blank walls, and causing it to break. Occasionally rods are broken when fighting very large fish, but this is again an error on the part of the angler. It should normally be impossible for a fish to break a rod, given sufficient angling skill, and correct tackle.. Holding a rod in the fingers and bending it, is also very dangerous. Especially with fine tips. Assuming a rod in good condition, no nicks etc. And also assuming correctly matched line, and reasonable casting, and correct use, then the likelihood of breaking a rod is actually very low indeed. TL MC

Response:

"Mike Connor" wrote This is not a matter of taking sides I hope. Otherwise I will simply retire from the discussion. This is a technical discussion and nothing more.

Of course, my sloppy wording betrayed me. Apart from that, you are perfectly correct. Although the rod loading generated by hauling is inconsequential, irrespective of the current loading state of the rod.  When the rod is already optimally loaded, and as you say at its stiffest, the added loading generated by hauling is so small as to be insignificant. This is just as well, as if hauling did in fact appreciably increase rod loading, then an already optimally loaded rod would simply fold up under the added strain.

You didn’t comment on my second reason.  Does this make sense to you?      A second reason that the loading is not the key is that you could achieve the same additional loading if you just applied a bit more casting force.  We know that a man of modest strength and a good haul can outcast a muscle man who doesn’t haul.

Thanks Chas

Response:

If it were so that hauling dramatically increased rod loading, then hauling on an already optimally loaded rod would cause it to fold up.

I’ve been mean to a few rods at times, putting a #10 line in a #8 rod and casting Pike flies for instance, but I’ve never managed to break one casting.  Is this because most of my fishing has been with Graphite or Glass? I have to dig back into some old Physics books to get the details, but I remember stress and strain curves for various materials showing a linear relationship until a limit was released, and then additional stress produced excessive strain until the material failed.  Certainly with an old shoe or a fish on the line and a stout leader it’s easy enough to pass the elastic limit, but does that happen in casting as well? Thanks Chas

Response:

When you haul you’re loading the rod by making it work harder against the inertia of the line. I don’t really think "shortening the line" is a good way to look at it. A haul takes in maybe two or three feet of line, and you have maybe 30 feet or more out. I agree with what you’re saying, but I can "cast" nearly thirty feet by using only my right arm as the rod (with fingers in O shape to act as the tiptop) and a lefthand haul. So there’s more to it than just the rod tip.

Your finger is playing the role of the rod tip in that case. — visit my web site: http://home.earthlink.net/~royalwulff/

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text —— Original Message —– Newsgroups: rec.outdoors.fishing.fly Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2000 6:33 AM This would be correct if the line was fixed at the rod tip. When hauling it is not. It moves more or less freely through the guides. The force applied is applied directly to the line, independent of the rod loading.  The "equal and opposite reaction" in this case, is immediate line acceleration due to a direct pull, and is independent of the rod. Some of this force( a relatively small amount actually ) does indeed go towards the total rod loading, but compared to the force which is transferred to the line, this may be more or less ignored. I’m afraid you’re missing the point, Mike. It’s really irrelevant whether the line is fixed or free to move through the guides. There is a force exerted on the line, by the rod tip, that accelerates the line. There is a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the rod tip. That force has the effect of bending the rod. The greater the force, the more the line is accelerated, and the more the rod is bent (i.e., loaded). None of this force can be "ignored". The force generated by "hauling" is not "applied directly" to the line. It’s applied though the loaded, and increasingly loaded, rod. The acceleration is induced by a direct pull on the line, and is only possible because the line is indeed able to move independent of the rod tip. The point is, that when you haul, the line moves, and the rod does not, or only slightly. Thread your rod up with a line. Lay the line out and point the rod straight down the line.  Grasp the line at the butt, and pull sharply. The rod has not been loaded in any way, but the line will spring towards you. The direct pull moves the mass directly. Do the same thing holding the rod at an angle to the line, The same thing occurs, with a relatively small proportion of the applied force bending the rod tip slightly, if at all. Progressively increase the angle until the rod is at right angles to the line. At this point the maximum possible rod loading, under these circumstances, will occur when you pull on the line, nevertheless, the majority of the energy involved still goes towards moving the line, the tip will barely move. It is quite immaterial how hard, how long, or how fast you pull. The energy is transferred directly to the line. The rod is barely affected. The angle of the rod changes the vector, and the rod loads a little, due to friction mainly, but the majority of the energy involved goes into moving the line. If it were so that hauling dramatically increased rod loading, then hauling on an already optimally loaded rod would cause it to fold up. This is not the case. The result of hauling is dramatically increased linespeed, because of the direct application of force to the line.  You dont have to believe me, just try it. This is also incidentally why striking a fish with a pull on the line is better than doing it with the rod. The force applied is transferred more or less directly, with very little loss, to the hook point. The rod does not move much,  and  is not loaded appreciably. Only the line moves. If you strike with the rod, you must first load it, before you can apply any force at all, and because of the mechanical disadvantage involved, the force you transfer will be minimal, and indirect. The principles are the same in both cases. In one case you are transferring energy to accelerate a mass using the short end of a flexible lever, and in the other case you are doing it by giving a direct pull.  The lever is in the second case quite immaterial, and may be ignored. TL MC Again, there’s no "direct" pull on the line. ALL the force affecting the airborne line is generated at the rod tip. If you lay  a piece of string along a table top, and pull one end, depending on the force and speed with which you pull, you can accelerate the string quite easily, giving it very considerable momentum. The string accelerates immediately, simply as a result of the pull. No rods etc are involved. The only force involved is the direct pull. Sure, but that’s not what’s happening when the line is strung though a rod. You (the caster) can exert a force on the line in your left (hauling) hand, but the only force that can be exerted on the airborne line *outside* the rod is exerted at the rod tip. Before hauling was discovered, the line momentum was indeed totally dependent on the acceleration of the rod tip. With hauling, this is no longer the case.  When hauling, the extra line velocity is independent of the rod tip. I’m not saying *anything* about the acceleration of the rod tip. I’m only saying that the force on the line (outside the rod) is generated ONLY at the rod tip. Where else? — visit my web site: http://home.earthlink.net/~royalwulff/ "Where fishing is concerned, most anglers are basically manic excessives" http://www.mikeconnor.de

Response:

This is not a matter of taking sides I hope. Otherwise I will simply retire from the discussion. This is a technical discussion and nothing more. Apart from that, you are perfectly correct. Although the rod loading generated by hauling is inconsequential, irrespective of the current loading state of the rod.  When the rod is already optimally loaded, and as you say at its stiffest, the added loading generated by hauling is so small as to be insignificant. This is just as well, as if hauling did in fact appreciably increase rod loading, then an already optimally loaded rod would simply fold up under the added strain. TL MC — "Where fishing is concerned, most anglers are basically manic excessives" http://www.mikeconnor.de – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – RW,     I have to side with Mike here, for a couple reasons.  If the haul is done right, it happens when the rod is fully loaded.  At that point it’s at it’s stiffest, and the flex isn’t increased much by the added force.  The reaction force is actually the force you apply with your line hand when you haul the line in.      A second reason that the loading is not the key is that you could achieve the same additional loading if you just applied a bit more casting force.  We know that a man of modest strength and a good haul can outcast a muscle man who doesn’t haul.      Also, there is direct pull on the line, the guides are like pulleys.  If you consider an 18 inch haul, and watch the effect on the rod tip, I bet it’s drawn back less than 4 inches.  The other 14 inches were directly applied to the line. Chas

Response:

This would be correct if the line was fixed at the rod tip. When hauling it is not. It moves more or less freely through the guides. The force applied is applied directly to the line, independent of the rod loading.  The "equal and opposite reaction" in this case, is immediate line acceleration due to a direct pull, and is independent of the rod. Some of this force( a relatively small amount actually ) does indeed go towards the total rod loading, but compared to the force which is transferred to the line, this may be more or less ignored.

I’m afraid you’re missing the point, Mike. It’s really irrelevant whether the line is fixed or free to move through the guides. There is a force exerted on the line, by the rod tip, that accelerates the line. There is a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the rod tip. That force has the effect of bending the rod. The greater the force, the more the line is accelerated, and the more the rod is bent (i.e., loaded). None of this force can be "ignored". The force generated by "hauling" is not "applied directly" to the line. It’s applied though the loaded, and increasingly loaded, rod. The acceleration is induced by a direct pull on the line, and is only possible because the line is indeed able to move independent of the rod tip.

Again, there’s no "direct" pull on the line. ALL the force affecting the airborne line is generated at the rod tip. If you lay  a piece of string along a table top, and pull one end, depending on the force and speed with which you pull, you can accelerate the string quite easily, giving it very considerable momentum. The string accelerates immediately, simply as a result of the pull. No rods etc are involved. The only force involved is the direct pull.

Sure, but that’s not what’s happening when the line is strung though a rod. You (the caster) can exert a force on the line in your left (hauling) hand, but the only force that can be exerted on the airborne line *outside* the rod is exerted at the rod tip. Before hauling was discovered, the line momentum was indeed totally dependent on the acceleration of the rod tip. With hauling, this is no longer the case.  When hauling, the extra line velocity is independent of the rod tip.

I’m not saying *anything* about the acceleration of the rod tip. I’m only saying that the force on the line (outside the rod) is generated ONLY at the rod tip. Where else? — visit my web site: http://home.earthlink.net/~royalwulff/

Response:

Additional rod loading when hauling is  minimal.  Most of the force used is transmitted directly to the line, increasing its speed immediately and drastically. Momentum = Mass * Velocity

I have to doubt that additional rod loading is minimal, Mike. The only way the caster can increase the speed of the line is by accelerating it. The only way he can accelerate it is by exerting a force on the line at the rod tip. (F=ma). An equal and opposite force is exerted on the rod at the tip, which results in loading the rod. — visit my web site: http://home.earthlink.net/~royalwulff/

Response:

This would be correct if the line was fixed at the rod tip. When hauling it is not. It moves more or less freely through the guides. The force applied is applied directly to the line, independent of the rod loading.  The "equal and opposite reaction" in this case, is immediate line acceleration due to a direct pull, and is independent of the rod. Some of this force( a relatively small amount actually ) does indeed go towards the total rod loading, but compared to the force which is transferred to the line, this may be more or less ignored. The acceleration is induced by a direct pull on the line, and is only possible because the line is indeed able to move independent of the rod tip. If you lay  a piece of string along a table top, and pull one end, depending on the force and speed with which you pull, you can accelerate the string quite easily, giving it very considerable momentum. The string accelerates immediately, simply as a result of the pull. No rods etc are involved. The only force involved is the direct pull. Before hauling was discovered, the line momentum was indeed totally dependent on the acceleration of the rod tip. With hauling, this is no longer the case.  When hauling, the extra line velocity is independent of the rod tip. TL MC — "Where fishing is concerned, most anglers are basically manic excessives" http://www.mikeconnor.de – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Additional rod loading when hauling is  minimal.  Most of the force used is transmitted directly to the line, increasing its speed immediately and drastically. Momentum = Mass * Velocity I have to doubt that additional rod loading is minimal, Mike. The only way the caster can increase the speed of the line is by accelerating it. The only way he can accelerate it is by exerting a force on the line at the rod tip. (F=ma). An equal and opposite force is exerted on the rod at the tip, which results in loading the rod. — visit my web site: http://home.earthlink.net/~royalwulff/

Response:

One other point.  Inertia is the direct measurement of a mass.  The only way to change inertia is to change the mass. One may not "break" inertia.  One may overcome it, ( move the mass) by applying force. Newtons laws explain this relatively simply. The first law states that:  " A body will remain at rest, or continue to move steadily in a straight line without acceleration unless it is acted on by an unopposed force. The second law states: "The acceleration of a body depends directly on the force acting on it but inversely upon its mass" The third law states: "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" Force is a measure of the rate at which momentum is changed. TL MC — "Where fishing is concerned, most anglers are basically manic excessives" http://www.mikeconnor.de – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Additional rod loading when hauling is  minimal.  Most of the force used is transmitted directly to the line, increasing its speed immediately and drastically.

Response:

I sure hope you’re not breaking your wrist with this arm cast, which would be very bad form, you know. JR – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I agree with what you’re saying, but I can "cast" nearly thirty feet by using only my right arm as the rod (with fingers in O shape to act as the tiptop) and a lefthand haul. So there’s more to it than just the rod tip. In fact, in a blindfold test I can’t tell the difference between a Cabelas rod and my own arm

Response:

So, In your estimation, does your wrist have a fast action or slow action and how does it affect your distance?

Well, it’s not a limp wrist I’ll tell you that much And while it *is* acting as the rod tip, it’s not loading in the same sense as a fly rod is it? Isn’t most of the line action due to acceleration because I’m pulling on it (and not wrist flip caused by the pulling)? –Steve

Response:

RW,     I have to side with Mike here, for a couple reasons.  If the haul is done right, it happens when the rod is fully loaded.  At that point it’s at it’s stiffest, and the flex isn’t increased much by the added force.  The reaction force is actually the force you apply with your line hand when you haul the line in.      A second reason that the loading is not the key is that you could achieve the same additional loading if you just applied a bit more casting force.  We know that a man of modest strength and a good haul can outcast a muscle man who doesn’t haul.      Also, there is direct pull on the line, the guides are like pulleys.  If you consider an 18 inch haul, and watch the effect on the rod tip, I bet it’s drawn back less than 4 inches.  The other 14 inches were directly applied to the line. Chas

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – This would be correct if the line was fixed at the rod tip. When hauling it is not. It moves more or less freely through the guides. The force applied is applied directly to the line, independent of the rod loading.  The "equal and opposite reaction" in this case, is immediate line acceleration due to a direct pull, and is independent of the rod. Some of this force( a relatively small amount actually ) does indeed go towards the total rod loading, but compared to the force which is transferred to the line, this may be more or less ignored. I’m afraid you’re missing the point, Mike. It’s really irrelevant whether the line is fixed or free to move through the guides. There is a force exerted on the line, by the rod tip, that accelerates the line. There is a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the rod tip. That force has the effect of bending the rod. The greater the force, the more the line is accelerated, and the more the rod is bent (i.e., loaded). None of this force can be "ignored". The force gener ated by "hauling" is not "applied directly" to the line. It’s applied though the loaded, and increasingly loaded, rod. The acceleration is induced by a direct pull on the line, and is only possible because the line is indeed able to move independent of the rod tip. Again, there’s no "direct" pull on the line. ALL the force affecting the airborne line is generated at the rod tip. If you lay  a piece of string along a table top, and pull one end, depending on the force and speed with which you pull, you can accelerate the string quite easily, giving it very considerable momentum. The string accelerates immediately, simply as a result of the pull. No rods etc are involved. The only force involved is the direct pull. Sure, but that’s not what’s happening when the line is strung though a rod. You (the caster) can exert a force on the line in your left (hauling) hand, but the only force that can be exerted on the airborne line *outside* the rod is exerted at the rod tip. Before hauling was discovered, the line momentum was indeed totally dependent on the acceleration of the rod tip. With hauling, this is no longer the case.  When hauling, the extra line velocity is independent of the rod tip. I’m not saying *anything* about the acceleration of the rod tip. I’m only saying that the force on the line (outside the rod) is generated ONLY at the rod tip. Where else? — visit my web site: http://home.earthlink.net/~royalwulff/

Response:

So, In your estimation, does your wrist have a fast action or slow action and how does it affect your distance? Paul

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – When you haul you’re loading the rod by making it work harder against the inertia of the line. I don’t really think "shortening the line" is a good way to look at it. A haul takes in maybe two or three feet of line, and you have maybe 30 feet or more out. I agree with what you’re saying, but I can "cast" nearly thirty feet by using only my right arm as the rod (with fingers in O shape to act as the tiptop) and a lefthand haul. So there’s more to it than just the rod tip. In fact, in a blindfold test I can’t tell the difference between a Cabelas rod and my own arm –Steve

Response:

Additional rod loading when hauling is  minimal.  Most of the force used is transmitted directly to the line, increasing its speed immediately and drastically. Momentum = Mass * Velocity A very short haul of a couple of inches is sufficient to increase line speed drastically, and thus increase its momentum, allowing the mass to be thrown a greater distance. The harder(force), longer ( distance) and faster( time) the haul, the greater the resulting line momentum, independent of the rod.  The same effect may be observed without using a rod at all. Shortening line decreases the mass, and therefore reduces momentum.  As far as hauling is concerned this is more or less negligible. Shortening the line by even a couple of feet, does not reduce its mass by much. If you overload the rod, the haul will still be effective, but due to the rod already being overloaded, additional strain, even slight, due to shock loading might damage it. Otherwise the length of line ( total mass ) is irrelevant when hauling. The effect is the same with or without a rod, and with any length of line. TL MC — "Where fishing is concerned, most anglers are basically manic excessives" http://www.mikeconnor.de – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – From what I’ve always been told,  the reason that hauling improves the line speed is that additional loading is put into the rod by the action of hauling. Obviously the hauling is done during the power phases fore and aft.  An immediate reaction of the hauling action is a shortening of the line,  and therefore an increase in velocity:  Is it at all significant compared to the additional loading of the rod?  Is the inertia of the line broken by the haul and therefore allows the spring of the rod to work on an already moving line? I suppose the way to test it out would be to overline a rod and cast a sufficient length of line to overload the rod.  Would hauling be effective? According to the simple haul/loading spring idea,  the haul would (perhaps) be ineffective, though the shortening of the line (derived from the haul) would still prevail?

Response:

When you haul you’re loading the rod by making it work harder against the inertia of the line. I don’t really think "shortening the line" is a good way to look at it. A haul takes in maybe two or three feet of line, and you have maybe 30 feet or more out.

I agree with what you’re saying, but I can "cast" nearly thirty feet by using only my right arm as the rod (with fingers in O shape to act as the tiptop) and a lefthand haul. So there’s more to it than just the rod tip. In fact, in a blindfold test I can’t tell the difference between a Cabelas rod and my own arm –Steve

Response:

From what I’ve always been told,  the reason that hauling improves the line speed is that additional loading is put into the rod by the action of hauling. Obviously the hauling is done during the power phases fore and aft.  An immediate reaction of the hauling action is a shortening of the line,  and therefore an increase in velocity:  Is it at all significant compared to the additional loading of the rod?  Is the inertia of the line broken by the haul and therefore allows the spring of the rod to work on an already moving line? I suppose the way to test it out would be to overline a rod and cast a sufficient length of line to overload the rod.  Would hauling be effective? According to the simple haul/loading spring idea,  the haul would (perhaps) be ineffective, though the shortening of the line (derived from the haul) would still prevail?

Response:

From what I’ve always been told,  the reason that hauling improves the line speed is that additional loading is put into the rod by the action of hauling. Obviously the hauling is done during the power phases fore and aft.  An immediate reaction of the hauling action is a shortening of the line,  and therefore an increase in velocity:  Is it at all significant compared to the additional loading of the rod?  Is the inertia of the line broken by the haul and therefore allows the spring of the rod to work on an already moving line?

When you haul you’re loading the rod by making it work harder against the inertia of the line. I don’t really think "shortening the line" is a good way to look at it. A haul takes in maybe two or three feet of line, and you have maybe 30 feet or more out. Imagine what would happen if the end of the line were attached to a springy tree branch when you hauled. (An all too frequent occurence in my case.) The rod would bend even if you didn’t move it forward. By hauling, you cause an increase in the force exerted by the rod tip on the line. When you haul in the normal, more felicitous case, more or less the same thing happens, but the resistance of the tree branch is replaced by the inertia of the line. — visit my web site: http://home.earthlink.net/~royalwulff/

Response:

Question:

<< How about some large, extended body mayflies like the Green Paradrake tied by Mike Lawson.  Other good patters would be trudes, Royal Humpy, Chernobyl Ant, Stimulators, Madame X, and those Turck Tarantulas are all pretty appealing to the eye.  Perhaps maybe something like a J.J.Special or Creature (as tied by Gary LaFontaine) would be good too. HTH. Warren Thank you, great suggestions.  I’ve got some Madame Xs going and a couple of Mouserat style things that make the Creature look kempt.  If I can set aside a little more time I’ll set up for extended body flys too. Thank you. Glenn GKT

Response:

Can you name a few decent trout patterns that would catch the attention of fly fishers stopping to look at the flys we’re raffling?

I’m a sucker for hoppers, personally. Either that or adult damselflies. Put down the chainsaw and listen to me. It’s time for us to join in the fight.

Response:

<< Ernie Harrison"   << The Royal Coachman is an eye catcher. Ernie Good suggestion.  I’m out of practice so there’ll be some Bluegill specials as I warm up on the pattern. Thank you. Glenn GKT

Response:

 Deer hair Mouse, stops a lot of folks, realistic ties…stones ,beetles ants make people stop and look. Big colorful streamers and a scantly clad lady should do the trick…

Reminds of some lures I had as a kid. Here’s one for you Ken, a budweiser can. Another was a topless mermaid. Willi

Response:

A couple of "realistic" flies separately mounted on card invariably provoke some attention.  Relatively simple beetle patterns, with lifelike legs, "Daddy long legs" ( Crane fly, tipulidae ) with knotted pheasant tail legs, spiders  with knotted peacock herl for legs, and realistic looking ants, and similar stuff usually work quite well. They will also catch fish occasionally !!!

A realistic damselfly adult is an eye catcher, with its electric blue color and its large size for a fry fly. I also agree with Charlie that streamers are a good choice. I’d think a display of little rainbow, little brown, and little brook trout mounted side by side would get some attention. — visit my web site: http://home.earthlink.net/~royalwulff/

Response:

A set of Ghost patterns tied up big – some #4’s – ought to do it.  Definitely eye-catchers but they aren’t Silver Doctors to tie… /daytripper – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Royal Coachman is an eye catcher. Ernie So what would catch a newbie’s eye?  And not take the time required for a full dress salmon fly? Maybe some streamers; little rainbow, brown, etc.

Response:

Some hopper paterns. Willi

Response:

 Deer hair Mouse, stops a lot of folks, realistic ties…stones ,beetles ants make people stop and look. Big colorful streamers and a scantly clad lady should do the trick… Here’s my question: Can you name a few decent trout patterns that would catch the attention of fly fishers stopping to look at the flys we’re raffling?

         Harry Mason     www.Troutflies.com               *** "Quality Flies for a Trout’s Eyes"

Response:

<< A realistic damselfly adult is an eye catcher, with its electric blue color and its large size for a fry fly. I also agree with Charlie that streamers are a good choice. I’d think a display of little rainbow, little brown, and little brook trout mounted side by side would get some attention.   <<  royalwulff Excellent advice.  Presentation is probably nearly as important as fly choice.  Thank you. Glenn GKT

Response:

<< Deer hair Mouse, stops a lot of folks, realistic ties…stones ,beetles ants make people stop and look. Big colorful streamers and a scantly clad lady should do the trick…   << Harry Mason   Our TU VP is a lovely woman but I think I’ll skip asking her to disrobe. Other than that, I’m going to put in a couple of Chris Helms style mice.  I appreciate the suggestion. Thank you. Glenn GKT

Response:

Can you name a few decent trout patterns that would catch the attention of fly fishers stopping to look at the flys we’re raffling?

Lots of good suggestions so far.  Streamers, in general, tend to be real eye catchers both because of their size and because they are often flashy attractors.  Hornbergs and Mickey Finns are both easy ties and eye catching, I think. Wolfgang

Response:

<< Lots of good suggestions so far.  Streamers, in general, tend to be real eye catchers both because of their size and because they are often flashy attractors.  Hornbergs and Mickey Finns are both easy ties and eye catching, I think. Wolfgang Thank you.  I thought of a Mickey Finn color pattern in a Hi-Ti style.  It’s a little time consuming and probably no more eye catching than a standard streamer. Glenn GKT

Response:

Use a Bee pattern.  The McGinty Bee attracts women who know nothing about fishing.  They all relate to it.  Many of the others just confuse them. John – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m tying for our local TU chapter’s raffle at the Somerset, NJ fly fishing show in January. We raffle off 500 or so flys in a a large wooden box.   I’ve done about 240 flys, at 6 specimens per type.  Since it takes me a few warm-up tries to get a decent fly with patterns I know well, and 50 tries on new patterns, I’ve also accumulated a pile of junk flies with which to go panfishing.  And I’m running out of inventiveness. Here’s my question: Can you name a few decent trout patterns that would catch the attention of fly fishers stopping to look at the flys we’re raffling? I put in some woven stones, I’ll do some woven Isonychia nymphs on swimming nymph hooks later today, and I have plenty of small spun deer hair items like Goddard Caddis and mini-Muddlers.  The other tyers and I have done plenty of flys that are actually useful, like BWO, GRHE, and Adams, but those are small and have to be examined closely. So what would catch a newbie’s eye?  And not take the time required for a full dress salmon fly? Thanks for the suggestions. Glenn GKT GKT

Response:

Glenn, How about some large, extended body mayflies like the Green Paradrake tied by Mike Lawson.  Other good patters would be trudes, Royal Humpy, Chernobyl Ant, Stimulators, Madame X, and those Turck Tarantulas are all pretty appealing to the eye.  Perhaps maybe something like a J.J. Special or Creature (as tied by Gary LaFontaine) would be good too. HTH. Warren – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m tying for our local TU chapter’s raffle at the Somerset, NJ fly fishing show in January. We raffle off 500 or so flys in a a large wooden box.   I’ve done about 240 flys, at 6 specimens per type.  Since it takes me a few warm-up tries to get a decent fly with patterns I know well, and 50 tries on new patterns, I’ve also accumulated a pile of junk flies with which to go panfishing.  And I’m running out of inventiveness. Here’s my question: Can you name a few decent trout patterns that would catch the attention of fly fishers stopping to look at the flys we’re raffling? I put in some woven stones, I’ll do some woven Isonychia nymphs on swimming nymph hooks later today, and I have plenty of small spun deer hair items like Goddard Caddis and mini-Muddlers.  The other tyers and I have done plenty of flys that are actually useful, like BWO, GRHE, and Adams, but those are small and have to be examined closely. So what would catch a newbie’s eye?  And not take the time required for a full dress salmon fly? Thanks for the suggestions. Glenn GKT GKT

Before you buy.

Response:

I tied a deer hair mouse once.  It was very realistic looking.  I never did fish with it, figured it was too much work to give to a fish.  Don’t know what happened to it. Ernie – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Deer hair Mouse, stops a lot of folks, realistic ties…stones ,beetles ants make people stop and look. Big colorful streamers and a scantly clad lady should do the trick… Harry Mason

Response:

<< A couple of "realistic" flies separately mounted on card invariably provoke some attention.  Relatively simple beetle patterns, with lifelike legs, "Daddy long legs" ( Crane fly, tipulidae ) with knotted pheasant tail legs, spiders  with knotted peacock herl for legs, and realistic looking ants, and similar stuff usually work quite well. They will also catch fish occasionally !!! << Mike Connor Good advice.  I was thinking of a Crane fly imitation like a Drowned Daddy. Thank you. Glenn Tippy GKT

Response:

The Royal Coachman is an eye catcher. Ernie

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – So what would catch a newbie’s eye?  And not take the time required for a full dress salmon fly? Maybe some streamers; little rainbow, brown, etc. — Charlie…

Response:

I’m tying for our local TU chapter’s raffle at the Somerset, NJ fly fishing show in January.   We raffle off 500 or so flys in a a large wooden box.   I’ve done about 240 flys, at 6 specimens per type.  Since it takes me a few warm-up tries to get a decent fly with patterns I know well, and 50 tries on new patterns, I’ve also accumulated a pile of junk flies with which to go panfishing.  And I’m running out of inventiveness. Here’s my question: Can you name a few decent trout patterns that would catch the attention of fly fishers stopping to look at the flys we’re raffling? I put in some woven stones, I’ll do some woven Isonychia nymphs on swimming nymph hooks later today, and I have plenty of small spun deer hair items like Goddard Caddis and mini-Muddlers.  The other tyers and I have done plenty of flys that are actually useful, like BWO, GRHE, and Adams, but those are small and have to be examined closely. So what would catch a newbie’s eye?  And not take the time required for a full dress salmon fly? Thanks for the suggestions. Glenn GKT GKT

Response:

So what would catch a newbie’s eye?  And not take the time required for a full dress salmon fly?

Maybe some streamers; little rainbow, brown, etc. — Charlie…

Response:

So what would catch a newbie’s eye?  And not take the time required for a full dress salmon fly?

Personally, I’ve always remember liking the looks of a Royal Trude.

Response:

A couple of "realistic" flies separately mounted on card invariably provoke some attention.  Relatively simple beetle patterns, with lifelike legs, "Daddy long legs" ( Crane fly, tipulidae ) with knotted pheasant tail legs, spiders  with knotted peacock herl for legs, and realistic looking ants, and similar stuff usually work quite well. They will also catch fish occasionally !!! TL MC — "Where fishing is concerned, most anglers are basically manic excessives" http://www.mikeconnor.de – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m tying for our local TU chapter’s raffle at the Somerset, NJ fly fishing show in January.

Response:

Question:

Would anyone like to give a history of Roff. When it started,who are the longest posters Etc.

Response:

I and several others helped kick off alt.fishing in the late 1980’s, and the Associated Press and several well known magazines interviewed us and ran articles on the new forum for fishers. Until the early 1990’s, I posted stats on who the top posters were per year.  Readership was about 20,000-40,000 in the early years Several years later, Brian Dixon (then in Colorado, ironically now working for HP a few buildings away from me) successfully led an effort to get the rec.outdoors.fishing.* hierarchy started. Certainly many of us older posters don’t post as much due to other activities. I remain very impressed with the quality and value of the fishing forums, and thank many of you for keeping things going. Thomas Gilg – President, Mid-Willamette Fly Fishers, Corvallis Oregon – VP Conservation, Oregon Council of the Federation of Fly Fishers – Oregon [Fish] Restoration and Enhancement Board, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife    (i.e. I and 6 others get to decide how to spend the several-dollar surcharge on every    angling license sold in Oregon to improve fisheries and fishing opportunities) – lots of other fishing conservation and education stuff

Response:

Would anyone like to give a history of Roff. When it started,who are the longest posters Etc.

I’m not sure who started ROFF or how long ago it was, but I’ll bet HWMNBN was the one who introduced him to USENET as they developed new fly patterns in a foxhole in the Korean War. –Steve (hey, someone’s gotta namedrop, even during a Clave)

Response:

, I posted stats on who the top posters were per year.  Readership was about 20,000-40,000 in the early years    thomas, is there any way that you or some other tekkie could roughly determine the number of posters/lurkers on roff at the present? wayno

There’s no way to count pure lurkers, without having server logs for every access point on the net – world wide. Most of us are already booked for other more worthy endeavors, but I invite my good friend from The Old North State to have at it with his usual gusto ;^) Otherwise, you could scoop a contributing authors list through one of the news archivers for as far back as they go. I figure that roughly 500 authors have contributed (positively or otherwise) since Opening Day. /daytripper (who’s heading for the Cape of Cod for the week. Buh Bye! ;^)

Response:

thomas, is there any way that you or some other tekkie could roughly determine the number of posters/lurkers on roff at the present?

Well, number of posters would be fairly easy. However, if there’s someone out there who can tell how many lurkers there are, please let me know. I have a few questions to ask about my future. –Steve

Response:

Tom;   From a self professed computer geek and fly fishing fanatic, thank you.          Frank Reid Before you buy.

Response:

, I posted stats on who the top posters were per year.  Readership was about 20,000-40,000 in the early years

        thomas, is there any way that you or some other tekkie could roughly determine the number of posters/lurkers on roff at the present? wayno

Response:

Amen! Well done Tom. This ng and ROFFT are the major reasons I enjoy my online time. — Jamie http://clik.to/flyfish

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Tom;   From a self professed computer geek and fly fishing fanatic, thank you.          Frank Reid Before you buy.

Response:

Wayne Harrison: … is there any way that you or some other tekkie could roughly determine the number of posters/lurkers on roff at the present?

Someone somehow used to post USENET readership statistics in one of the news.* newsgroups.  I think they derived actual readership numbers from some NNTP servers, and then did some reasonable math to come up with total readership.  They would also list top posters for the top lists. Someone with time on their hands might cruise the news.* groups to see if they still post such results. Thomas Gilg

Response:

Someone with time on their hands might cruise the news.* groups to see if they still post such results.

I found: http://metalab.unc.edu/usenetb-bin/to-group.pl?rec.outdoors.fishing.fly Not that I have time on my hands you understand<g. — Charlie…

Response:

Remarq.com, which I use as a free newsreader (hence the stupid phone ad at the bottom of my posts) lists ROFF as having 1958 Threads and 2241 posters. Don’t know how far back that goes nor how many of those posters are various "G" alias’ Cheers, Allen Epps Got questions?  Get answers over the phone at Keen.com. Up to 100 minutes free! http://www.keen.com

Response:

Wayne Harrison: … is there any way that you or some other tekkie could roughly determine the number of posters/lurkers on roff at the present? Someone somehow used to post USENET readership statistics in one of the news.* newsgroups.  I think they derived actual readership numbers from some NNTP servers, and then did some reasonable math to come up with total readership.  They would also list top posters for the top lists.

You could make REALLY crude guesstimates, but it would be nearly impossible to get real numbers short of asking every ISP newsprovider to track each of their users and report back. They probably did something like, there are x news providers, with y average users a piece, z% of their users read usenet and then look at the posting amounts of each newsgroup to get some idea of the popularity of various group’s readers. It’s probably a good estimate +-40-50%.      - Ken —     "I was gratified to be able to answer promptly,       and I did.  I said I didn’t know."     — Mark Twain

Response:

Someone with time on their hands might cruise the news.* groups to see if they still post such results. I found: http://metalab.unc.edu/usenetb-bin/to-group.pl?rec.outdoors.fishing.fly

Thanks.  On that site I found their explanation on how the readership is estimated… "Readers      Estimated total number of people who read this group, worldwide      There are two sources of error in this number. The number is      computed by multiplying the number of people in the sample who      actually read the group by the ratio of estimated network size to      sample size. The estimated total can therefore be biased by errors in      the network size estimate (see above) and also by errors in the      determination of whether or not someone reads a group. Assuming that      "reading a group" is roughly the same as "thumbing through a      magazine", in that you don’t necessarily have to read anything, but      you have to browse through it and see what is there, then the      measurement error will come primarily from inability to locate .newsrc      files, which can either be protected or moved out of root directories.      There is no way of measuring the effect on the measurements from      unlocated .newsrc files, but it is not likely to be more than a few      percent of the total news readers. "      - Ken —     "I was gratified to be able to answer promptly,       and I did.  I said I didn’t know."     — Mark Twain

Response:

Someone with time on their hands might cruise the news.* groups to see if they still post such results. I found: http://metalab.unc.edu/usenetb-bin/to-group.pl?rec.outdoors.fishing.fly Not that I have time on my hands you understand<g. — Charlie…

    chocolat, you da king uh da world!  and the source is located in a unc.edu file–unfreaking impeachable! wayno

Response:

Question:

Hi Mike, Here in northern California our #1 selling fly rod is a 9′ #5 and our second is a 9′ #6. I think that an 8′6" or 9′ #4 is a distant third. If you just fish small streams, I would go for a #4, for all around trout, lakes and streams, I would try a #5, but for trout in lakes and warm water fishing a #6 is very vestal. Also, for those who are unaware of the slow change in the industry, multi-piece rods are taking a bigger part of the market place.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m going to visit my son in Phoenix in February and would like to buy a 4-piece graphite travel rod.  We will probably fish for trout in the mountains, but I would like an all purpose rod I can use back home.  A six weight seems most versatile. Any suggestions from ROFF readers? Mike

Response:

Sage has discontinued the RPL – I’m not sure about the RPL+.  They have, however, brought back some of the RPL models as the new VPS series.  The 690 (9′-0" 6wt) is available in a 4 piece blank or rod, and is my rod of choice for large waters.                                 Michael   – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Mike, there are brands and models to suit almost all budgets. Most importantly, you should find a good shop and cast a few to see which suit your style. Personally I can vouch for Sage RPL (now RPL+ series), I have had a 4pc RPL 5wt for 5 or 6 years. It is very strong (though heavy) and has survived many trips, falls, knocks and even being trodden on a few times. Cheers JK

Response:

Steve, the 5/6 designation means the rod is spined for a 5 weight forward or a 6 double taper.  Kerry Evans

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – You didn’t say what price range you would be interested in Mike, but I will recommend the one I use, from St. Croix.  A  9′ 6 wt 4 pc (medium action) for $160. Worldwaters (www.worldwaters.com) has the st croix imperial 8′6" 5/6 weight on sale for $99.  I’m not affiliated with them; just a satisfied customer. Steve PS: If anyone else out there has this rod, do you recommend a 5 or 6 weight line with it (for a beginner)?

Response:

You didn’t say what price range you would be interested in Mike, but I will recommend the one I use, from St. Croix.  A  9′ 6 wt 4 pc (medium action) for $160. Worldwaters (www.worldwaters.com) has the st croix imperial 8′6" 5/6 weight on sale for $99.  I’m not affiliated with them; just a satisfied customer. Steve PS: If anyone else out there has this rod, do you recommend a 5 or 6 weight line with it (for a beginner)?

Steve,   I have an Imperial, 4 piece 5/6 weight rod.  This was my first graphite fly rod which replaced my fiberglass, Fenwick.  I think it’s a fine rod.  I use #6 WF and DT on this rod and haven’t tried a #5 line. Sometimes, when I have a lot of line out, I feel that the #6 lines are overloading the rod a bit.  Might pay to try it with #5 line before you purchase line.  At $99, this rod represents a good value.   This last season, I fished 99% of the time with an Ultra Ledgend, 4 piece, 4 weight and now take the 6 weight along as a spare.  For lake fishing or when there are strong winds, the 6 weight works a bit better but I sure like the Ultra. Bob Skinner   Buffalo, WY —

Response:

Mike, there are brands and models to suit almost all budgets. Most importantly, you should find a good shop and cast a few to see which suit your style. Personally I can vouch for Sage RPL (now RPL+ series), I have had a 4pc RPL 5wt for 5 or 6 years. It is very strong (though heavy) and has survived many trips, falls, knocks and even being trodden on a few times. Cheers JK

Response:

Mike, there are brands and models to suit almost all budgets. Most importantly, you should find a good shop and cast a few to see which suit your style. Personally I can vouch for Sage RPL (now RPL+ series), I have had a 4pc RPL 5wt for 5 or 6 years. It is very strong (though heavy) and has survived many trips, falls, knocks and even being trodden on a few times. Cheers JK

I will second that.  I purchased a Sage 4-piece 5-wt. RPL+ for a trip to the western Aleutians, and liked it so much that it is now my primary rod for bigger streams and lakes.

Response:

You didn’t say what price range you would be interested in Mike, but I will recommend the one I use, from St. Croix.  A  9′ 6 wt 4 pc (medium action) for $160.

Worldwaters (www.worldwaters.com) has the st croix imperial 8′6" 5/6 weight on sale for $99.  I’m not affiliated with them; just a satisfied customer. Steve PS: If anyone else out there has this rod, do you recommend a 5 or 6 weight line with it (for a beginner)?

Response:

on sale when I’m ready to buy? :-/) Steve, I believe the 5/6 designation is the manufacturers way of saying for a DT line, use a #5.  If you’re using WF line go for the #6 weight. Also, for a beginner, I feel the heavier line will help you feel the rod load on the backcast.  This particular rod is a moderate action and will handle a 6wt line just fine.  FWIW. Frank Church Elkhart, IN USAF RETIRED – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – You didn’t say what price range you would be interested in Mike, but I will recommend the one I use, from St. Croix.  A  9′ 6 wt 4 pc (medium action) for $160. Worldwaters (www.worldwaters.com) has the st croix imperial 8′6" 5/6 weight on sale for $99.  I’m not affiliated with them; just a satisfied customer. Steve PS: If anyone else out there has this rod, do you recommend a 5 or 6 weight line with it (for a beginner)?

Response:

I’m going to visit my son in Phoenix in February and would like to buy a 4-piece graphite travel rod.  We will probably fish for trout in the mountains, but I would like an all purpose rod I can use back home.  A six weight seems most versatile. Any suggestions from ROFF readers? Mike

Response:

You didn’t say what price range you would be interested in Mike, but I will recommend the one I use, from St. Croix.  A  9′ 6 wt 4 pc (medium action) for $160.  Probably the best buy out there for the price.  Go to www.stcroixrods.com and check out their online catalog.  Now, on the low end of the scale, if you don’t want to spend alot of money, check out Cabela’s 3 Forks combo rods.  They have an 8′6" 6 wt (slow to medium action) rod for a paltry $39.99 (rod only)  Don’t let the low price scare you off.  I have their 3 and 5 wt 3 Forks rods, and they are a surprisingly decent rod. @ $59.95 but you can order the rod only….and take a look at their new 5 pc rod for about 70 bucks.  Hope this helps. Frank Church Elkhart, IN USAF RETIRED – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m going to visit my son in Phoenix in February and would like to buy a 4-piece graphite travel rod.  We will probably fish for trout in the mountains, but I would like an all purpose rod I can use back home.  A six weight seems most versatile. Any suggestions from ROFF readers? Mike

Response:

Question:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – says… : Alagnak 1998 I will not be jealous. I will not be jealous. I will not be jealous. JonCook. Easier for you to say than I! (I *am* jealous. I AM jealous. I am SOOOOO jealous! ;^) Great story, Andrew! /daytripper I agree, i’m so damn jealous my skin’s a turnin’ green. great report…. –Wataugan Walt

I betcha he never left his house.  I betcha he invented all of this just to piss us off. . . .    It’s working, it’s working, I’m pissed.   Great trip, Andrew.  We all desreve at least one of these per lifetime. Peter Peter        Merry Christmas

Response:

I betcha he never left his house.  I betcha he invented all of this just to piss us off. . . .    It’s working, it’s working, I’m pissed.   Great trip, Andrew.  We all desreve at least one of these per lifetime. Peter

I just want to say, right here, right now, that I have the best wife in the world, not least because she lets me do this more than once in a lifetime.   Now, about that "Betcha he never left the house" stuff, try these on for size…  http://www.aa.net/~andrewbr/alagnak/ The jpegs are a little big, so it’s kinda slow to load, but it’ll give you a nice sense of what the trip was like.   Lest any of you think this was some big bucks, Gucci trip,  this cost us less than $600/apiece, not counting airfare to King Salmon and malt beverages.  Start saving your pennies, men. — Andrew Brunette

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -I just want to say, right here, right now, that I have the best wife in the world, not least because she lets me do this more than once in a lifetime.   Now, about that "Betcha he never left the house" stuff, try these on for size…  http://www.aa.net/~andrewbr/alagnak/ The jpegs are a little big, so it’s kinda slow to load, but it’ll give you a nice sense of what the trip was like.   Lest any of you think this was some big bucks, Gucci trip,  this cost us less than $600/apiece, not counting airfare to King Salmon and malt beverages.  Start saving your pennies, men. — Andrew Brunette

Andrew Nice site and pix.  Actually this is a great idea as we all like to talk about our trips and stuff.  Building a simple site combines the pix with the text for a better story.   Looks like some of us (me) will have to brush up on our HTML skills. Peter Peter        Merry Christmas

Response:

: : Now, about that "Betcha he never left the house" stuff, try these on for : size…  http://www.aa.net/~andrewbr/alagnak/ Andrew, please let me know where you bought those pictures, I’d like to see if they’ll put together a "saltwater flats" trip for me…

Rite-Aid photo counter.  They have the plastic bushes, blow up fish, everything.  They even told me, "you don’t look like a good enough fisherman to use the big fish dummies, use these middlesized ones instead."   Didn’t even charge me more than the normal 6.95 a roll for the Pix.  Is it great living in the age of the service economy or what? — Andrew Brunette

Response:

Alagnak 1998 It was a hot, buggy afternoon when we landed in King Salmon.  One of our party was already missing, having been marooned in a hostile check-in line in Anchorage.  We had stopped there to see some friends, pick up licenses and stimulate the late summer business of the local fly shop economy.  

Hi Andrew, This reminded me of my first AK trip. I floated the Togiak River with Bus Bergman, Jim and Kitty Vincent (Rio Line Company) and my cousin in 1976. It was a wonderful trip and was the real AK experience. Float trips are great. Bill Kiene Kiene’s Fly Shop Sacramento,CA,USA 800/4000FLY www.kiene.com

Response:

says… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – : Alagnak 1998 I will not be jealous. I will not be jealous. I will not be jealous. JonCook. Easier for you to say than I! (I *am* jealous. I AM jealous. I am SOOOOO jealous! ;^) Great story, Andrew! /daytripper

I agree, i’m so damn jealous my skin’s a turnin’ green. great report…. –Wataugan Walt

Response:

Great report Andrew … thanks for the post.

Response:

: Alagnak 1998 I will not be jealous. I will not be jealous. I will not be jealous. JonCook.

Easier for you to say than I! (I *am* jealous. I AM jealous. I am SOOOOO jealous! ;^) Great story, Andrew! /daytripper

Response:

Great report – thanks. Thomas Gilg

Response:

: Alagnak 1998 I will not be jealous. I will not be jealous. I will not be jealous. JonCook.

Response:

Alagnak 1998 It was a hot, buggy afternoon when we landed in King Salmon.  One of our party was already missing, having been marooned in a hostile check-in line in Anchorage.  We had stopped there to see some friends, pick up licenses and stimulate the late summer business of the local fly shop economy.   After trying to locate the bush carrier that we were to use, we found out that we had a couple of hours to kill, so while waiting for Dave, we loaded up on the supplies that were too heavy to fly in from Seattle, notably Milwaukee

Question:

<SNIP But who cares what of it is true and what isn’t, or who was "in on it" or who wasn’t?

Quite a few people care what is true, and what is not. Nobody on this group was "in" on anything. There was no collusion of any kind. I had no contact whatsoever with anybody else on this group regarding my actions. People who know me figured out pretty quickly that I was behaving at least oddly, and formed their own opinions. For somebody who does not care at all what other people think, you sure are curious. As Mr. LaCourse more than fairly observed. He also thought I was behaving like a loony, but he was prepared to forgive and forget based on past experience. I am also most grateful to him for his fairness in this regard. My arrival "out of the blue" as you put it, was the result of a person attributing opinions to me, which I have never averred, and do not hold. To whit, that "Gink is worse than spent nuclear fuel". This was e-mailed to me, and as a consequence, I responded to the post on ROFF.  The result was a personal attack, with no regard whatever for the truth of the matter. I responded in kind. Thus began the whole episode. MC

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <SNIP I’m not sure how the people that Mike has been "arguing" with are supposed to know this. If this IS true, he is doing it at other’s expense and it has really gotten old. If it’s just a typical ROFF argument, like I think it is, so be it. People will look at the two sides as they will. There are always two sides to these things. Willi Willi, I fear you err in this respect. I was not arguing, there would be no point in arguing against a personal attack. You basically have two choices in such a case, either you ignore it, and hope everybody else does, or you defend yourself as best you can. It is not necessary to "know"  why you are being attacked, it is sufficient that this is indeed the case.  I limited my "attacks" to those who attacked me. All attacks of this nature are done at somebody else

Question:

Hello! I tried fly fishing in the beautiful mountains of Lake Tahoe and found it a wonderful experience! I now live in Portland, Oregon and would like to take it up. I hear Oregon is a good spot for fly fishing. If anyone has any advise on how to get started, I would be very grateful… My children (2 girls) are 4 and 6 years old. I now have the opportunity to take a weekend and try this wonderful sport. I am looking for advise on: 1. Equipment to get started with (beginner stuff) 2. Places close to Portland to go and try this, without annoying the experts :^) 3. The times of year to go 4. Anyone who would like to have me tag along on a day trip… I am 29 and in good shape (for hiking into those "great spots"). The first time I tried it, I think I did fairly well (picking up on the motions). But I definitely need some pointers on what I might be doing incorrectly… Thanks! –Mike

Response:

check out http://www.csport.com site for countrysport fly fishing shop, downtown Portland. Very helpful and they hold classes for different levels on the Crooked River in central Oregon. Drop in and se them or give them a call. Don Beaverton

Response:

Have a look at the Oregon section of the Anadromous page http://www.scotangling.com/oregon/reports.htm Lots of useful info and people to contact.

Response:

Question:

Eventually inevitable aspect of all forms of fishing, including dry fly. Chuck it back and fish on…clip your leader if you want, but if the fish is really bleeding you might as well save it (the fly that is).  If the fish is a wild brookie and legal, cook it like a marshmallow on the spot with a small twig fire…Oh man… I think I’d stop fishing this spot with small flies and start pulling a big streamer through the waters and see if old Ms. Brown isn’t around somewhere. TimW

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Recently went fishing with a friend on a small but productive stream.   The average trout was probably 5 inches.  With barbless hooks, I was able to release many of the fish successfully.  However, two small ones really sucked down the fly [size 14 adams].  For the first one, I tried to use my pliers to pull it out, but no success. The fish didn’t make it.  I catch and release all fish, so I was bothered that this happened.  The second fish took the fly through the gills and it was deeper in its small mouth that the first fish.  I knew I couldn’t have got the fly without doing lethal damage to the fish.  After a short struggle, I decided to cut the line and swim the fish back to life.  I did so and it took off, with a size 14 in its throat.  I have a feeling that fish might be a goner too.  Then again, I have heard that fish have some kind of biological mechanism that pushes hooks out over time.  Is that true?  Is there anything I could have done differently?  Or, should I just have recognized the inevitable and kept these non-keepers for the cats?

if you encounter such a situation again, your best bet is to snip off the fly and release the fish…fish (and most other animals) have a remarkable ability of ridding themselves of foreign objects.  In any case, the fish’s chances are much better than if you try to worry or twist the hook out. tight lines

A recent Field & Stream article(June ‘96, Conservation by George Reiger) reports that this is not quite the case. 1) Most importantly is returning the fish to the water immediately. It stated that a recetn study showed for trout every *second* counts. Especially for fish played to exhaustion on light lines. Although it makes a great story to play a fish for 45 minutes until it makes that final flop and submits to capture, it is not likely to be healthy for the fish. Fish kept of of water just 30 seconds faired worse than exhausted fish left in the water. Fish held ot of water for 60 seconds were likely to die within 3 days(72% died). 2) Swallowed hooks lodging in the lower throat are likely to kill the fish. It was stated that this area contains the vital organs including heart, liver and head kidney. 3) Hooks left in can cause problems. Fish naturally form a cystlike scar, just as they would if naturally injured by prey. This can make the fish more susceptible to decline or death if conditions(food, stream temps) become adverse. This article made me think. Even releasing fish is no good if you lay them out on the bank and measure, photo, admire or whatever for a period of time. I have been guilty of this. I thought I was doing okay by releasing fish. I wish that these findings were posted in regs or on streams. Be sure to use barbless hooks, find a good, quick hook dislodger(let me know if you find a good solution!). regards, Joe Webb Atlanta Mac User Group (AMUG)

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Recently went fishing with a friend on a small but productive stream.   The average trout was probably 5 inches.  With barbless hooks, I was able to release many of the fish successfully.  However, two small ones really sucked down the fly [size 14 adams].  For the first one, I tried to use my pliers to pull it out, but no success. The fish didn’t make it.  I catch and release all fish, so I was bothered that this happened.  The second fish took the fly through the gills and it was deeper in its small mouth that the first fish.  I knew I couldn’t have got the fly without doing lethal damage to the fish.  After a short struggle, I decided to cut the line and swim the fish back to life.  I did so and it took off, with a size 14 in its throat.  I have a feeling that fish might be a goner too.  Then again, I have heard that fish have some kind of biological mechanism that pushes hooks out over time.  Is that true?  Is there anything I could have done differently?  Or, should I just have recognized the inevitable and kept these non-keepers for the cats? Thanks — Aaron Wyatt Mark Morris High School English Department http://www.teleport.com/~awyatt if you encounter such a situation again, your best bet is to snip off

the fly and release the fish…fish (and most other animals) have a remarkable ability of ridding themselves of foreign objects.  In any case, the fish’s chances are much better than if you try to worry or twist the hook out. tight lines

Response:

Recently went fishing with a friend on a small but productive stream.   The average trout was probably 5 inches.  With barbless hooks, I was able to release many of the fish successfully.  However, two small ones really sucked down the fly [size 14 adams].  For the first one, I tried to use my pliers to pull it out, but no success. The fish didn’t make it.  I catch and release all fish, so I was bothered that this happened.  The second fish took the fly through the gills and it was deeper in its small mouth that the first fish.  I knew I couldn’t have got the fly without doing lethal damage to the fish.  After a short struggle, I decided to cut the line and swim the fish back to life.  I did so and it took off, with a size 14 in its throat.  I have a feeling that fish might be a goner too.  Then again, I have heard that fish have some kind of biological mechanism that pushes hooks out over time.  Is that true?  Is there anything I could have done differently?  Or, should I just have recognized the inevitable and kept these non-keepers for the cats? Thanks — Aaron Wyatt Mark Morris High School English Department http://www.teleport.com/~awyatt

Response: