Question:

  And now, back to your regularly scheduled programmming….. bite me Warren!

Go smoke a whitefish! — Warren Findley Remove (nospamZZ) to respond via email http://www.geocities.com/troutbum_mt/

Response:

fishing depends (at least in part) on thinking like a fish.  I’ve tried it. Makes my brain hurt.

My guess is that if we are thinking like a fish we would eat sticks and rocks. I keep finding them in the fish that I keep. Big Dale

Response:

Excellent synopsis Peter.  These types of discussions were what first attracted me to and later hooked me on ROFF.  My thanks to you, Willi, et all for the thought provoking insights/explanations.

And now, back to your regularly scheduled programmming….. bite me Warren!

Response:

I am a fairly new fly fisher and an even newer tier. I have been fortunate enough to have a few experienced hands tell me that I am far more picky about my flies than the fish. Also, worry about developing the tying skills and your flies will look more like the store flies as you get better. In the mean time, it’s pretty darn cool to catch a fish on something that you made by hand. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Even during hatches, not all the fish will be keyed into the same features on a fly. With some, wings may be important, others how high or low the fly floats, others size, others sparseness, other "action", others color, other orientation etc. etc.  Just like people, I think there are fish that look for certain "right" characteristics in a fly and are triggered by it, those that look for something wrong and if found will reject it, and those that just want something to eat. Individual fish have individual feeding habits and preferences. There is no magic fly. Being successful means finding a fly that appeals to the majority of fish and turns off few. Like most fly fishermen, I judge a fly by how it looks to me. But there is an added dimension to this that we tend to overlook. A fish is a species of animal that has more differences than commonality with man. It is impossible for us to perceive a fly as a fish perceives it, in a direct way. Color is an easy example. Trout and other fishes that live in shallow/clear water, perceive colors farther in both the shorter and longer wave lengths than people. This means that it is impossible to judge how a fish perceives the color of a fly using our eyes. What looks like a color match to us, may be completely off to a fish. Willi

Response:

<snipped a whole bunch for the Grand Poohbah   Often times a fish will demand a perfect size match, or wing or color etc. but will ignore that hunk of metal sticking out of the fly’s butt. If a fish can discriminate between a size twenty and a size twenty two fly, they definitely have the acuity to see the hook bend. Do they ignore it if enough other characteristics of the fly are "correct" or do they "not see it" because of the way their little brains interpret what the signals their eyes are sending?

Willi, I can’t remember if you were there when this happened during the clave or not.  We were fishing and saw a fish swallow a bunch of moss and then spit it out.  Perhaps there was a morsel of food in that bunch of moss and the fish separated it and then spit the moss back out.  It could be that the fish sees the hook as debris to filter out from the food and takes the fly anyways.  Just a thought. — Warren Findley Remove (nospamZZ) to respond via email http://www.geocities.com/troutbum_mt/

Response:

What a trout perceives is a problem amenable to experiment….and it’s been done.

Wolfgang, Like usual, I don’t know how to take what you say but did you mean the above? If so, I’d like to see it. Willi

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – As we all know, the trout’s brain is quite small and simple. Not to be a wise-ass, but we do?  I mean, I think you’re right, but to pull a Wolfgang (which ain’t easy, lemme tell ya), how do we know? Granted, we can measure it as far as physical size, and do some experiments as far as electric charges, etc., but how can we (at this point, anyway) really know what a fish is "thinking" or perceiving? It ain’t SUPPOSED to be easy!  Nevertheless, here’s a little tip: never try to get away with making two (or three) points look like one.

Well, thanks, but, basically, I was calling you fat…. A trout’s brain IS small and relatively simple.  We could go into all kinds of tedious detail about comparative neuroanatomy (and the literature is voluminous) but it’s late and I need to get to bed.

And so is the literature that says there is, or isn’t, a God or Gods, that Communism is the best thing since, well, others say it wasn’t, and with the advent of the Web, probably quite a bit claiming Elvis, JFK, and Marilyn Monroe are having a nightly GB at Bill Gates’ house. What a trout perceives is a problem amenable to experiment….and it’s been done.

Granted, we…well, ok, "we" implies the wrong thing, so – someone can likely get general info, like, "shine light, fish swims away" and "fish tries to eat this, but not that," but I’m dubious we can truly know what fish "think," perceive, or whatever you call it, i.e., knowing the fish "thinks" a particular thing is or isn’t, and more importantly, why.  For example, I’d run away from a group of people having a Beastie Boys marathon, but not because I’m scared of the people, music, or the Beastie Boys, but I don’t like them, either.  On the other hand, I might sit and listen with a group of gangbangers who happened to like, oh, say, Bobby Short, Bob Wills, or certain Jane’s Addiction cuts.   One reason I’m sure "we" haven’t discovered such information (past a certain superficial level, anyway) is because especially with things like fish, which leads to fishing, is that it would get exploited before the ink was dry on the reports.  I hate to sound cynical, but I think if "we" could truly and accurately figure out what makes fish "tick," or what they "think" (again, accurately is key), companies would be on it like, well, fish on scientifically-developed foolproof (the key) lures.  Moreover, even when the ability to vocally express how a creature is feeling is there, even that isn’t a completely accurate measure…look at women, for example…. We are all familiar with the adage that suggests success in fishing depends (at least in part) on thinking like a fish.  I’ve tried it. Makes my brain hurt.

Yeah, and it’s always made me laugh…why the hell would I want to think like the thing I’m trying to outsmart and catch.  For example, if a lion thought like a Tommy, would another lion get confused and eat him, or even more odd, would he get confused and die of exhaustion trying to outrun himself?  Heck, maybe he’d just have a crisis of conscience and run off and become a vegan and try to convert the pride.  Soon, he’d be smoking clove cigarettes, getting arrested with Al Sharpton, and whining about Nike factories and under-sized limos. Next thing you know, he’d be hanging out with Paul McCartney, and Lord knows what else…well, actually, I think the Lord did know, which is why lions don’t flit about trying to think like Tommies…..they just catch ‘em and eat ‘em….. TC, R – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Wolfgang

Response:

As we all know, the trout’s brain is quite small and simple. Not to be a wise-ass, but we do?  I mean, I think you’re right, but to pull a Wolfgang (which ain’t easy, lemme tell ya), how do we know? Granted, we can measure it as far as physical size, and do some experiments as far as electric charges, etc., but how can we (at this point, anyway) really know what a fish is "thinking" or perceiving?

It ain’t SUPPOSED to be easy!  Nevertheless, here’s a little tip: never try to get away with making two (or three) points look like one. A trout’s brain IS small and relatively simple.  We could go into all kinds of tedious detail about comparative neuroanatomy (and the literature is voluminous) but it’s late and I need to get to bed. What a trout perceives is a problem amenable to experiment….and it’s been done. We are all familiar with the adage that suggests success in fishing depends (at least in part) on thinking like a fish.  I’ve tried it. Makes my brain hurt. Wolfgang

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <Big Snip I’ll take dogs as an example, I know them pretty well after working with them for many years. If we try and understand how they smell things based on how we smell things, we couldn’t even begin to understand the complexity, importance and usefulness of smells in their life. Their sense of smell, how they interpret smells, and how they can use them is as alien to our sense of smell as our "intellect" is to theirs. If we used our sense of smell to try and understand theirs, our knowledge would be completely erroneous. Willi I told my wife about this post and tried to get her to conduct an experiment, but she wouldn’t do it. All I wanted her to do was let me get the video camera and shoot video of her sniffing our Basset Hound’s butt and then giving me her perceptions. Among "other" things, she said I’d been on this news group way too long. <g

Post of the week, great image!! Willi

Response:

[snip] What does a trout see when our dry passes overhead? – a protruding hook that is below the surface and produces no dimpling or halos

This is one of things that convinced me that a trout’s perception of a fly is very different from ours. In looking at the photos of underwater views of a fly, the bend of the hook and the barb is VERY prevalent. To my eye it is probably the most prevalent thing. However, a trout will overlook this but at times demand an exact match in terms of size, shape, color, etc. Willi

Response:

First off, the dimpling of the surface film has to look right, it’ll be the first thing the fish responds to.

   I believe this is often of major importance. When fishing with a dry fly, I often cast to spots I *know* hold fish, and I get no response because the fly is riding a little low in the water. After treating it with desiccant it will be riding on the very tips of the hackles; it just amazes me how this can trigger strikes from fish that weren’t the least bit interested in the same fly moments earlier.

Response:

First off, the dimpling of the surface film has to look right, it’ll be the first thing the fish responds to.    I believe this is often of major importance. When fishing with a dry fly, I often cast to spots I *know* hold fish, and I get no response because the fly is riding a little low in the water. After treating it with desiccant it will be riding on the very tips of the hackles; it just amazes me how this can trigger strikes from fish that weren’t the least bit interested in the same fly moments earlier.

(I noticed you use this technique on a fish that short struck the other day on the Big T) And sometimes the opposite is true, the fish will take a partly submerged fly after rejecting the same fly floating high and dry. This happened to me yesterday. Willi

Response:

This is one of things that convinced me that a trout’s perception of a fly is very different from ours. In looking at the photos of underwater views of a fly, the bend of the hook and the barb is VERY prevalent. To my eye it is probably the most prevalent thing. However, a trout will overlook this but at times demand an exact match in terms of size, shape, color, etc. Willi

I think that the most dominant visual feature is the light refracted through the dimpled surface film.  The fish first react to that and everything else is superfluous until it is an inch or so from the fly. At that point, colour, size, wing, etc. come into play. A partially drowned fly may work if the fish is keyed on emerging or drowned insects. Peter Visit The Streamer Page at http://members.home.net/pcharles/streamers/index.html

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – This is one of things that convinced me that a trout’s perception of a fly is very different from ours. In looking at the photos of underwater views of a fly, the bend of the hook and the barb is VERY prevalent. To my eye it is probably the most prevalent thing. However, a trout will overlook this but at times demand an exact match in terms of size, shape, color, etc. Willi I think that the most dominant visual feature is the light refracted through the dimpled surface film.  The fish first react to that and everything else is superfluous until it is an inch or so from the fly. At that point, colour, size, wing, etc. come into play.

That’s how the photos of dry flies from underwater appear to us. I question that they are perceived in the same manner by a trout. Often times a fish will demand a perfect size match, or wing or color etc. but will ignore that hunk of metal sticking out of the fly’s butt. If a fish can discriminate between a size twenty and a size twenty two fly, they definitely have the acuity to see the hook bend. Do they ignore it if enough other characteristics of the fly are "correct" or do they "not see it" because of the way their little brains interpret what the signals their eyes are sending? The point I’m trying to make is that when we use our vision to try and explain how a trout or any other animal uses their vision, I think that alot of the assumptions made are going to be erroneous. This is especially true if, like in the case of trout vision, there are demonstrative physical differences in vision components between that animal and ourselves. Also, vision is more than how the eye perceives something, it is how the brain interprets the signals that it receives from the eye.   I’ll take dogs as an example, I know them pretty well after working with them for many years. If we try and understand how they smell things based on how we smell things, we couldn’t even begin to understand the complexity, importance and usefulness of smells in their life. Their sense of smell, how they interpret smells, and how they can use them is as alien to our sense of smell as our "intellect" is to theirs. If we used our sense of smell to try and understand theirs, our knowledge would be completely erroneous. Willi

Response:

I’ll take dogs as an example, ….. ….. If we used our sense of smell to try and understand theirs, our knowledge would be completely erroneous.

True, but no more erroneous than if we *didn’t* use our sense of smell to try to understand theirs.  ;) I agree with everything you say about our sense of vision necessarily being different from a trout’s, but it’s really the closest thing we have to work with and base our guesses on.  Otherwise we’re reduced to throwing up our hands and relying on "conclusions" drawn from what are really small, highly variable samples (our own personal experiences).  AND we’d have less to BS about. JR

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I think that the most dominant visual feature is the light refracted through the dimpled surface film.  The fish first react to that and everything else is superfluous until it is an inch or so from the fly. At that point, colour, size, wing, etc. come into play. That’s how the photos of dry flies from underwater appear to us. I question that they are perceived in the same manner by a trout. Often times a fish will demand a perfect size match, or wing or color etc. but will ignore that hunk of metal sticking out of the fly’s butt. If a fish can discriminate between a size twenty and a size twenty two fly, they definitely have the acuity to see the hook bend. Do they ignore it if enough other characteristics of the fly are "correct" or do they "not see it" because of the way their little brains interpret what the signals their eyes are sending?

[snip] As we all know, the trout’s brain is quite small and simple.  It can only process so many visual cues.  If we make this process overly complex, I think we make it more difficult than it need be.  I believe that a trout processes the visual cues that say "food" and ignores those that suggest otherwise (e.g. the hook.)  After all, a trout’s world is full of drifting debris.  It has to have a simple, yet quick way to differentiate between a small stick and a nymph, for example. If your fly has the necessary cues, the trout takes it, despite the big, ugly hook.  This differentiation process is probably learned through repetition – the more bugs of a certain type that pass by a trout, the more likely it will fixate on them and begin to feed.  It probably has to learn what is good to eat, every time a major hatch occurs – this explains why the early part of a hatch may not engender much of response. It may well perceive colour, light refraction, etc. differently than us, but there is only a few cues we need to get right.  This is one of the reasons why I don’t like to stray too much from the original materials in an old recipe.  Skues talks about how certain materials have a special quality in the water and appear more like the natural when presented in the trout’s world.  I think if you get the hackle and tail, size, and colour right, you’ll fool trout more often than not. Peter Visit The Streamer Page at http://members.home.net/pcharles/streamers/index.html

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I think that the most dominant visual feature is the light refracted through the dimpled surface film.  The fish first react to that and everything else is superfluous until it is an inch or so from the fly. At that point, colour, size, wing, etc. come into play. That’s how the photos of dry flies from underwater appear to us. I question that they are perceived in the same manner by a trout. Often times a fish will demand a perfect size match, or wing or color etc. but will ignore that hunk of metal sticking out of the fly’s butt. If a fish can discriminate between a size twenty and a size twenty two fly, they definitely have the acuity to see the hook bend. Do they ignore it if enough other characteristics of the fly are "correct" or do they "not see it" because of the way their little brains interpret what the signals their eyes are sending? [snip] As we all know, the trout’s brain is quite small and simple.

Not to be a wise-ass, but we do?  I mean, I think you’re right, but to pull a Wolfgang (which ain’t easy, lemme tell ya), how do we know? Granted, we can measure it as far as physical size, and do some experiments as far as electric charges, etc., but how can we (at this point, anyway) really know what a fish is "thinking" or perceiving? It can only process so many visual cues.  If we make this process overly complex, I think we make it more difficult than it need be.  I believe that a trout processes the visual cues that say "food" and ignores those that suggest otherwise (e.g. the hook.)  After all, a trout’s world is full of drifting debris.  It has to have a simple, yet quick way to differentiate between a small stick and a nymph, for example. If your fly has the necessary cues, the trout takes it, despite the big, ugly hook.  

Maybe they just intend to eat what appears to be the bug and not what appears to be whatever the hook appears to be.  When one gets a club sandwich, one doesn’t think, "Hmm, this looks good, well, except for that frilly stick in it.  I wonder if I have to eat that, too?" so perhaps it simply looks like a fish’s frilly stick or parsley sprig or whatever, or maybe they see insects on or near actual sticks, and eat the bug and either not eat or spit out the stick – maybe they see a stick and a bug, and when they spit out the stick, to their surprise and your consternation, the whole thing goes.  Or maybe, just like most living creatures, including humans, close is good enough if you are hungry enough or the food looks good enough.  If simply looking odd or different prevented predation, we’d be up to our hat brims  in things like albinos, genetic appearance deformities (that had no health ramifications), etc. because they’d be no natural predators of such things (well, except man and a few other things), they’d gradually become more prevalent. This differentiation process is probably learned through repetition – the more bugs of a certain type that pass by a trout, the more likely it will fixate on them and begin to feed.  It probably has to learn what is good to eat, every time a major hatch occurs – this explains why the early part of a hatch may not engender much of response. It may well perceive colour, light refraction, etc. differently than us, but there is only a few cues we need to get right.  This is one of the reasons why I don’t like to stray too much from the original materials in an old recipe.  Skues talks about how certain materials have a special quality in the water and appear more like the natural when presented in the trout’s world.  I think if you get the hackle and tail, size, and colour right, you’ll fool trout more often than not.

If you look at writers of the beginnings of the "dry fly era of prominence" (say from about 1870 to Mary Orvis Marbury, etc., forward), you find that there are vast differences of opinion as to replication vs. stimulation vs. "tempting" vs. simple guessing vs. planned experimentation.  Many felt that "fooling" the fish by making them think the fly was a true natural was all but impossible, and the closer you tried to get, the more "unnatural" your imitator would appear.  Maybe it was a mirror of the Impressionists, but some seem to feel that "suggesters" were more effective than imitators.  FWIW, my view has always been (and admittedly, it is both acquired from others and self-discovery) that there is much more to it than accurate-to-us appearing imitators, but YMMV.  For example, how many have had beat-up, ratty, tattered old flies, lures, etc., that produced better than new, truly accurate imitators? As to the history of the subject, if anyone is interested, I have some pretty old volumes, and some do talk about this very subject, plus I’m sure there are many others with other works, so perhaps we can piece together a history of this aspect of the sport. TC, R

Response:

<Big Snip I’ll take dogs as an example, I know them pretty well after working with them for many years. If we try and understand how they smell things based on how we smell things, we couldn’t even begin to understand the complexity, importance and usefulness of smells in their life. Their sense of smell, how they interpret smells, and how they can use them is as alien to our sense of smell as our "intellect" is to theirs. If we used our sense of smell to try and understand theirs, our knowledge would be completely erroneous. Willi

I told my wife about this post and tried to get her to conduct an experiment, but she wouldn’t do it. All I wanted her to do was let me get the video camera and shoot video of her sniffing our Basset Hound’s butt and then giving me her perceptions. Among "other" things, she said I’d been on this news group way too long. <g

Response:

Excellent synopsis Peter.  These types of discussions were what first attracted me to and later hooked me on ROFF.  My thanks to you, Willi, et all for the thought provoking insights/explanations. — Warren Findley Remove (nospamZZ) to respond via email http://www.geocities.com/troutbum_mt/ – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – [snip] What does a trout see when our dry passes overhead? – a hackle dimpled surface film producing halos of light – a tail that also produces a dimpling along its length and the same light refraction – a protruding hook that is below the surface and produces no dimpling or halos – a body that for the most part is in shadow – the solid outline of a dun’s wings – all of this seen against a bright sky background First off, the dimpling of the surface film has to look right, it’ll be the first thing the fish responds to.  As she gets closer, the colour and wing start to become important.  A fish can focus on a fly less than an inch from its nose – its close range vision is excellent – so the rest of the details have to start to make sense, the wing, the body colour, the size, etc. Trout seem to take flies for a number of reasons – obviously hunger and it matches what she’s been eating for the last half hour, curiosity, aggression, and playfulness.  I mentioned in a much earlier post, being fooled by three little browns that raced around chasing Gray Foxes.  It’s not wise to take an anthropomorphic interpretation of their behaviour, however, had they simply been hungry, they could have sat in one of the many feeding lanes and sipped Gray Foxes all afternoon.  It’s difficult to interpret their pack chasing behaviour as anything other than playful competition.  They also keyed on moving Gray Foxes, a still natural or imitation didn’t get a look. To sum it up, the fly should sit right, producing the right halos, plus it should cast a shadow of approximately the right size, and finally, it’s details should be right to pass the close range examination. This applies to picky fish in slower water condition; brookies in fast water tend to slash at anything that looks like food.  So in my neck of the woods, flies that will catch brookies on the cascade section of the Credit, will be a complete bust on the slow glides of the Grand. There’s too much variation o attempt generalize much further than this. (Much of the above wisdom, courtesy of various books by Lafontaine, Skues, et al.) Peter Visit The Streamer Page at

http://members.home.net/pcharles/streamers/index.html

Response:

<snipped interesting speculations of an experienced fishtricker  They also keyed on moving Gray Foxes, a still natural or imitation didn’t get a look.

kinda like on penns creek when we were there…  the march browns had to quiver a bit and just right to interest most of those finicky browns …anything just floating motionless on the water generally wouldn’t be touched.  i saw dozens of fish nail the bug just as it was starting to take off from the surface, and several coming full-body out of the water like a salmon to grab the bug in the air.  that was one of those memory etchings i look forward to collecting more of…

Response:

Even during hatches, not all the fish will be keyed into the same features on a fly. With some, wings may be important, others how high or low the fly floats, others size, others sparseness, other "action", others color, other orientation etc. etc.  Just like people, I think there are fish that look for certain "right" characteristics in a fly and are triggered by it, those that look for something wrong and if found will reject it, and those that just want something to eat. Individual fish have individual feeding habits and preferences. There is no magic fly. Being successful means finding a fly that appeals to the majority of fish and turns off few. Like most fly fishermen, I judge a fly by how it looks to me. But there is an added dimension to this that we tend to overlook. A fish is a species of animal that has more differences than commonality with man. It is impossible for us to perceive a fly as a fish perceives it, in a direct way. Color is an easy example. Trout and other fishes that live in shallow/clear water, perceive colors farther in both the shorter and longer wave lengths than people. This means that it is impossible to judge how a fish perceives the color of a fly using our eyes. What looks like a color match to us, may be completely off to a fish. Willi

Response:

Just like people, I think there are fish that look for certain "right" characteristics in a fly and are triggered by it…

- "Hey, Jimmie, looks like we got a hotty floating by at three o’clock!" – "Woa, dude, check out the hackles on *that* one!" – "Hey, there, midge! Why doncha drift on over to *my* riffle, baby?" –Steve (if fish could talk)

Response:

Like most fly fishermen, I judge a fly by how it looks to me. But there is an added dimension to this that we tend to overlook. A fish is a species of animal that has more differences than commonality with man. It is impossible for us to perceive a fly as a fish perceives it, in a direct way. Color is an easy example. Trout and other fishes that live in shallow/clear water, perceive colors farther in both the shorter and longer wave lengths than people. This means that it is impossible to judge how a fish perceives the color of a fly using our eyes. What looks like a color match to us, may be completely off to a fish.

Not only do we merely perceive color differently than the fish (probably), we probably also overestimate color and underestimate behavior of the bug. This idea is explored in "What The Trout Said" and "Dry Fly: New Angles".

Response:

Like most fly fishermen, I judge a fly by how it looks to me. But there is an added dimension to this that we tend to overlook. A fish is a species of animal that has more differences than commonality with man. It is impossible for us to perceive a fly as a fish perceives it, in a direct way. Color is an easy example. Trout and other fishes that live in shallow/clear water, perceive colors farther in both the shorter and longer wave lengths than people. This means that it is impossible to judge how a fish perceives the color of a fly using our eyes. What looks like a color match to us, may be completely off to a fish.

And although it simply states the obvious, the fish views the fly from a completely different angle, and through a different medium, so even if they did see (eye construction- and placement-wise) in the same manner as people, their frame of reference is completely different. It’s unlikely that man and fish will ever see a fly the same, regardless of the difference in the eyes. Moreover, we can not know what differences would go ignored, which would be seen as different but "OK," and which were different and off-putting.  As a simple example, most people would recognize and accept Wendy’s square hamburger as just another burger variant and eat it if they wanted a burger (yeah, yeah, eyeball jokes, taste, etc., aside), but given a choice between a burger with, say, asparagus spears, raw oysters, and orange sherbet and a plain burger, most would likely choose the plain one (even if they’d eat all the items in other combinations).   But as Willi points out, fish seem to be like people in that they do have individual habits, and occasionally, just like kids drinking pickle juice over ice, a fish might try and eat something different.   Fish "dine" on what comes past or is within sight, they don’t seem to "plan" dinner – "Ooh, honey, doesn’t the Four Seasons sound good, and then, we can go by the Carlyle for drinks and a little Bobby…" or decide that the tacos at El Asadero sound better than the seafood at Costa Azul and head that way.  But they can sometimes be tempted by teasing them with something that looks "food-ish" enough AND different enough to tempt them into taking a chance, just like you do when the waiter suggests the entire tenderloin, rare, with Hollandaise and a large side of creamed spinach, or the dessert cart comes by with the Double Chocolate Drunken Fudge Cream Cake with Buttery-Sweet Ice Cream on top.  You know you shouldn’t, the better half is gonna bitch, but like a moth to a flame….or rather, a hog to a trough…. TC, R – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Willi

Response:

[snip] What does a trout see when our dry passes overhead? – a hackle dimpled surface film producing halos of light – a tail that also produces a dimpling along its length and the same light refraction – a protruding hook that is below the surface and produces no dimpling or halos – a body that for the most part is in shadow – the solid outline of a dun’s wings – all of this seen against a bright sky background First off, the dimpling of the surface film has to look right, it’ll be the first thing the fish responds to.  As she gets closer, the colour and wing start to become important.  A fish can focus on a fly less than an inch from its nose – its close range vision is excellent – so the rest of the details have to start to make sense, the wing, the body colour, the size, etc. Trout seem to take flies for a number of reasons – obviously hunger and it matches what she’s been eating for the last half hour, curiosity, aggression, and playfulness.  I mentioned in a much earlier post, being fooled by three little browns that raced around chasing Gray Foxes.  It’s not wise to take an anthropomorphic interpretation of their behaviour, however, had they simply been hungry, they could have sat in one of the many feeding lanes and sipped Gray Foxes all afternoon.  It’s difficult to interpret their pack chasing behaviour as anything other than playful competition.  They also keyed on moving Gray Foxes, a still natural or imitation didn’t get a look.   To sum it up, the fly should sit right, producing the right halos, plus it should cast a shadow of approximately the right size, and finally, it’s details should be right to pass the close range examination. This applies to picky fish in slower water condition; brookies in fast water tend to slash at anything that looks like food.  So in my neck of the woods, flies that will catch brookies on the cascade section of the Credit, will be a complete bust on the slow glides of the Grand. There’s too much variation o attempt generalize much further than this. (Much of the above wisdom, courtesy of various books by Lafontaine, Skues, et al.) Peter Visit The Streamer Page at http://members.home.net/pcharles/streamers/index.html

Response:

Question:

Hmmm, wandered the desert on LSD??  Interesting… I could never seem to get beyond the wood grain on the legs of my coffe table….now, maybe I wasn’t getting the good shit ?!?! <g…. YMMV. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Not fishing related, but I knew a guy who dropped acid on Easter Sunday and wandered around the desert madly scribbling his deep thoughts. The next morning, he woke up in his sleeping bag and eagerly grabbed the notebook to see what his brilliance had rendered. The entire thing read: "I hate bugs. I need wind."

Response:

Not fishing related, but I knew a guy who dropped acid on Easter Sunday and wandered around the desert madly scribbling his deep thoughts. The next morning, he woke up in his sleeping bag and eagerly grabbed the notebook to see what his brilliance had rendered. The entire thing read: "I hate bugs. I need wind."

Obviously not a fly fisher.  Should have read:  "I need bugs".  "I hate wind".

Response:

That response is so brilliant I’m going to try to track him down (been 20 years) and send it to him!

Response:

Not fishing related, but I knew a guy who dropped acid on Easter Sunday and wandered around the desert madly scribbling his deep thoughts. The next morning, he woke up in his sleeping bag and eagerly grabbed the notebook to see what his brilliance had rendered. The entire thing read: "I hate bugs. I need wind."

Response:

Not fishing related, but I knew a guy who dropped acid on Easter Sunday and wandered around the desert madly scribbling his deep thoughts. The next morning, he woke up in his sleeping bag and eagerly grabbed the notebook to see what his brilliance had rendered. The entire thing read: "I hate bugs. I need wind."

 Neat set of friends you hang with Harry Mason www.troutflies.com

Response:

Not fishing related, but I knew a guy who dropped acid on Easter Sunday and wandered around the desert madly scribbling his deep thoughts. The next morning, he woke up in his sleeping bag and eagerly grabbed the notebook to see what his brilliance had rendered. The entire thing read: "I hate bugs. I need wind."

Tell him I know exactly what he means.

Response:

Question:

I got hooked on it this summer and I recommend that you check out www.kayakfishing.com  Spike is really knowledgeable and I know that you will find what advice you need there.  I got a Malibu 2 (Ocean Kayak) and love it all the way.  i have boated some very large fish from this thing and am now really confident that the sit-on-tops are the way to go. Fish-on I spent quite a bit of time fishing from a canoe, but think I’d like to try a kayak, particularly for carrying in relatively short distances to lakes without boat ramps.  I think I’d prefer an open cockpit, or sit-on type.  Someone suggested I look into the "Pungo".  Does anyone have any experience with the Pungo, or ideas about other types I should be considering?  Thanks much. chuck

– MZ

Response:

I saw someone fly fishing from a kayak this past weekend.  It was quite the site!  I think they were in a Perception Carolina? My Old Town Heron has a large cockpit area but its heavy (50lbs or so) so its not easy to carry long distances.  You ought to look at Dagger’s Atlantis, its a large cockpit and its a pretty light boat. — http://www.ncseakayak.com North Carolina’s Headquarters for Sea Kayakers! Before you buy.

Response:

Ifly fish about 4 days a week, from my kayak’s mostly. I’ve migrated to dagger’s delta & bayou models. Their stable & stealth I can park them anywhere with low profile they get little wind drift. I use a 2 ft. hand paddle to position boat  from place to place as i fish. my wife claims I’ve become obsesed,I think i’ve finialy discovered the ultimate fly fishing vehicle.  good luck& enjoy

Response:

I spent quite a bit of time fishing from a canoe, but think I’d like to try a kayak, particularly for carrying in relatively short distances to lakes without boat ramps.  I think I’d prefer an open cockpit, or sit-on type.  Someone suggested I look into the "Pungo".  Does anyone have any experience with the Pungo, or ideas about other types I should be considering?  Thanks much. chuck

Response:

I spent quite a bit of time fishing from a canoe, but think I’d like to try a kayak, particularly for carrying in relatively short distances to lakes without boat ramps.  I think I’d prefer an open cockpit, or sit-on type.  Someone suggested I look into the "Pungo".  Does anyone have any experience with the Pungo, or ideas about other types I should be considering?  Thanks much.

The Pungo seems to be a big seller in the Atlanta area, but I like my Ride (also by Wilderness Systems). The Ride is a sit-on-top as opposed to an open cockpit, and if keeping your butt dry is important it’s probably not for you<g. The Ride is also probably more awkward to carry than the Pungo, I got a set of wheels that slip on the back of a kayak or canoe to use on mine. — Charlie…

Response:

Chuck, I use to fish from a small boat I owned and sometimes from canoes I rented. I sold the boat and didn’t fish for many years. This past summer I decided to fish again and thought to buy a canoe but ended up buying a kayak. I’ll share the details – maybe it will be of help in some way. – canoes were more expensive than I thought and the   idea of using a kayak came to mind. I had no idea what kayaks cost – thought they might be cheaper. I had never heard of anyone fishing from a kayak but thought maybe it would work. – I wanted something small enough to store in my garage.  I did some research online. I was surprised at how long and how expensive some kayaks are. I identified the major companies and the smaller, less expensive models. I narrowed my search to about 3 kayaks. Only one of them had a distributer close by (20 miles away). They had a website and I got the basic info from that. I called and made arrangements to come look at the model of interest – an Old Town – Otter – they had to bring it in from their warehouse several miles away. They had a ‘Loon’ – a more expensive and longer model in stock that was nice but I bought the Otter for just over $300. – the otter is 9′ 6" long and fits just perfect on top of my car, it has a large open cockpit easy to enter/exit, it is not built to ‘roll’ – which having never ridden in a kayak I didn’t know how to do, and I’m not sure ‘rolling’ and fishing go together anyway! It fits nicely in my garage. It weighs 39 pounds – about as light as I could find- and is easy to carry. – I knew nothing about tracking, speed, compounds etc when I bought it but I think all that turned out ok with what I got and the casual fishing I’m doing. – I didn’t know if there would be enough room to fish comfortably from a kayak but it turned out there is – for me. All my ‘gear’ goes in my small backpack – the other items are a paddle and a ‘life jacket’ and one fishing rod. I have a bow line and a stern line tied to the kayak – they are used to tie the kayak to the car. When I launch – I tie the bow line to my paddle and the stern line to my pack – in case I ever flip. I rest my legs on the pack – it’s right in front of me with easy access to my lures etc. I’ve learned to rest the paddle across the kayak when not in use and to ‘fish around it’. I’ve never had a problem  landing a fish because the paddle got in the way. – I don’t know if other styles of kayaks such as those you ’sit on top’ would work better or not – I’ve never tried one. I have made trips of up to 3-4 hrs without getting out of the kayak – I can shift my seating position a little and that helps- but you can’t move around much. -kayak fishing isn’t for everyone, but I like it. I’m small (5′ 8"), a good swimmer (also scuba certified), very comfortable in and around the water, comfortable in confined spaces (use to do some cave exploring). I like being low on the water while I fish – and the way I’m able to move the kayak into places larger craft don’t go – in and around the bank / stumps etc – and it’s so peaceful and quiet – I can come up on fish very quietly – some even swim over to check me out. I think I enjoyed my past canoe trips because it ‘put me close to nature’ – and with the kayak I feel even closer. – the places I fish have boat ramps, but once I went where there was no ramp. I had to carry the kayak down a hill about 50 feet. It was not a problem – but it did take more effort than I thought it would. I wouldn’t want to carry it a hundred yards! – as for negatives, the kayak tips over relatively easy – (that hasn’t been a problem for me), it’s sensitive to the wind – this can be a challenge while trying to fish – sometimes I can take advantage by drifting, depending on shoreline location or even doing some trolling. – I’ll be happy to share other info or answer questions. -larry

Response:

You should look into the Old Towne Loon series.  They have a large open cockpit and are very stable. Bill Bernhardt

Response:

Does anyone have any experience with the Pungo, or ideas about other types I should be considering?

The Pungo would be a great choice – stable, roomy, relatively fast for its size, not too heavy to cart around.

Response:

Here are two sites to try: http://www.waldenkayak.com/models.html ( scroll down to the Walden Scout ) and http://www.otccanoe.com/loon138.html check out the Old Town Loon 138

Response:

Hey Chuck, I do alot of fishing from a sit on top out here in the Pacific ocean. I have an ocean kayak scupper classic. This is a popular boat out here for fishing from. It is about 14 feet long, fairly stable, and has two big hatches so you can store gear inside the kayak. It doesn’t roll, you will fall off before you roll it…but the best thing that I have found is to sit sideways, with your feet in the water when fishing. This makes the boat very stable, I have never even come close to feeling like I was going to tip, when sitting sideways. Its also really comfortable that way. Necky also makes some nice models for fishing and so does Perception. Our company makes some wheels which use the drain holes on many sit on tops as mounting points,(that way the cart can’t slip off the back of the kayak when going over curbs, rocks, roots, etc.) they collapse so you can fit them inside the hatches on the kayak. This is really handy, because once you get to the water, you just disassemble the wheels and take them with you instead of having to take them back to the car. You can make some pole holders out of pvc pipe, or mount some of the holders available at tackle stores to the deck of the kayak, which is really handy. We put sonar on our kayaks too, once you outfit the kayak you have a great fishing machine…This might be more info than you asked for, but what can I say, Im enthusiastic about the sport. Good luck E Scary Sports http://www.scarysports.com

Response:

I spent quite a bit of time fishing from a canoe, but think I’d like to try a kayak, particularly for carrying in relatively short distances to lakes without boat ramps.  I think I’d prefer an open cockpit, or sit-on type. Someone suggested I look into the "Pungo".  Does anyone have any experience with the Pungo, or ideas about other types I should be considering?  Thanks much. chuck

Chuck, look at this site before you do anything: http://www.kayakfishing.com/ Also, make sure you look at all the different boats that might suit your purpose (lake, river, or ocean fishing). In recent years, there have been many innovations, especially in plastic sitontop boats, so give them a try before settling for a more "traditional" solution. For example, Ocean Kayaks, Perception, and Cobra all have models that come with decks molded to accept small coolers, SCUBA tanks, dry bags, caught fish, etc., that are instantly accessible from the seat. Some have hatches that open into compartments that can be used as live bait or fish wells, and can even be equipped with areators. These kayaks can also be outfitted with small anchors or sea drogues to help with drifting, clips to hold spare paddles and rods, rod holders, etc. Perception sells "outback" models of a couple of its boats that are fully geared up for the "outdoorsman," with many of the options I mentioned above. Have fun! Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.

Response:

Get the Pungo.  It’s a GREAT fishing kayak!! Courtney Rapid Adventures

Response:

I spent quite a bit of time fishing from a canoe, but think I’d like to try a kayak,

The Perception Axess comes in two styles, one style is specificly designed and outfitted for fishing. The boat is a "closed" cockpit type but can easily be paddled without a skirt on flat water and the front of the cockpit area is equipped with little tackle trays and such goodies. It is a very stable boat and a lot of thought went into the bow hull design to reduce the "slapping" of the water that spooks fish. The fishing version of this boat comes in subdued colors, and as far as I know, it is the only boat of its kind anywhere at any price. The whitewater variant is a full-on creek boat and the only real differences are in color, cockpit design and outfitting. The fishing axess has a pretty cool rod holder built in as well. Its a nice nice boat, and yes, I have paddled it. take care have fun go fishing :wq Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.

Response:

Question:

I’ve got Chesapeake Light Craft Boats and Pygmy Boats Inc. Does anyone have other kit makers for wood/fiberclass ocean boats? Any experiences good or bad with building a wood boat? Annie Oakley’s Casting & Blasting Page, shooting and fly fishing links: http://members.tripod.com/~AnnieOakley/CastAndBlast.html "Web Poison"–FREE anti-spam software:http://www.e-scrub.com/wpoison/ Phoney Spam-Bot Link: http://www.e-scrub.com/cgi-bin/wpoison/wpoison.cgi

Response:

Nomad Sea Kayaks.  I have been told they make a good kit. http://www.clic.net/~nomad/ Mark

Response:

Nomad Sea Kayaks.  I have been told they make a good kit. http://www.clic.net/~nomad/

I was considering one when I bought my kayak but couldn’t find anyone that knew anything about them. They are also fiberglass only, not wood/fiberglass.   The Guillemott boats (wood) look interesting as well: http://www.guillemot-kayaks.com/ I saw a boat in shop in Duck, NC (outer banks) a couple of weeks ago.  It had a fiberglass hull with a wood deck with wood hatch covers.  I have no idea what kind of kit it was built from but the owner of the shop built it and was selling it for $450. Seemed like a real good deal. John Fereira

Response:

Question:

How does the action of these two rods compare? Any opinions? The Sage sure looks nicer.                                 Bob

Hi Bob For my casting style I prefer the the Sage RPL. To me the Loomis feels a bit non responsive compared to the Sage — the Loomis feels dead and the Sage feels alive putting it another way. I’m sure there are those who disagree but that’s why there are different rod manufacturers. Any way, Take care & … — Tight Lines ….. Al Beatty BT’s Fly Fishing Products On line catalog – tips & tricks at: http://www.btsflyfishing.com

Response:

How does the action of these two rods compare? Any opinions? The Sage sure looks nicer.                                 Bob

Response:

How does the action of these two rods compare? Any opinions? The Sage sure looks nicer.                            Bob

Hello Bob         I can’t speak for the RPL. I can give you my opinion on the IMX. I had a 10′ IMX made for me recently.  It has action that is a little on the stiff side of medium. IMHO it is the best rod I have ever cast a line with. It takes less wrist effort to cast 50′ of line than it does to stir my coffee in the morning         Did have a chance to try a friends Sage on the weekend. It was not an RPL though. It was nice enough, but I still prefer mine. Take Care and Smash Barbs Joel Sampson Micro Computer Co-ordinator Computer Services Saint Mary’s University 923 Robie Street Halifax, Nova Scotia (p) (902) 420-5880 (f) (902) 496-8103

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If you’re looking to buy an IMX be aware that Loomis no longer makes this blank.  It has been replaced by the GL4.  I was told (can anyone out there confirm?) that the reason they ditched the IMX was because of the number of breakages that model line had. One other thing: Sage does offer an unconditional warranty on their rods. Loomis does not.  Someone that I sold a Loomis blank to recently told me it cost him $40 to get the tip section replaced, in addition to the shipping costs.  I’ve broken two Sage rods in the last 3 years, and both times they charged me only for shipping. How does the action of these two rods compare? Any opinions? The Sage sure looks nicer.                               Bob

Hi Bob I blew up three IMX rods, one while casting and two while fighting fish. I don’t know if I was just unlucky or not but was given a Sage to try in that same time frame and have not fished a Loomis since. Take care & … — Tight Lines ….. Al Beatty BT’s Fly Fishing Products On line catalog – tips & tricks at: http://www.btsflyfishing.com

Response:

If you’re looking to buy an IMX be aware that Loomis no longer makes this blank.  It has been replaced by the GL4.  I was told (can anyone out there confirm?) that the reason they ditched the IMX was because of the number of breakages that model line had. One other thing: Sage does offer an unconditional warranty on their rods. Loomis does not.  Someone that I sold a Loomis blank to recently told me it cost him $40 to get the tip section replaced, in addition to the shipping costs.  I’ve broken two Sage rods in the last 3 years, and both times they charged me only for shipping. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – How does the action of these two rods compare? Any opinions? The Sage sure looks nicer.                            Bob

Response:

Easy. One has a lifetime,unconditional warranty, the other spends gazillions on beautiful magazine ads instead.

Response:

  I have several Loomis rods.  My first IMX, a 6# purchased shortly after they were released, broke repeatedly and was replaced without charge other than my shipping it back to them.  It took three trys but has now been solid for three years.   I believe the top of the line is now the GMX (if I have my alphabet straight).  It has a softer tip than the older IMX and is a very sweet rod in the four piece #4 and #6 sizes.   Most Loomis rods have a dull gray finish.  I happen to like the look, but the important question is whether it’s less visable to the trout when waved over the water on a sunny day. — Lloyd Fortney http://www.phy.duke.edu/~fortney/ has links to my garden, flower, flyfishing, and travel JPEG images as well as teaching, research, and stuff like that

Response:

: Easy. One has a lifetime,unconditional warranty, the other spends : gazillions on beautiful magazine ads instead. I don’t know about this… The Sage posters are among the prettiest photos of fly fishing I have seen.  Must cost a pretty big coin. And what’s the real deal on those posters… just about every fly shop I’ve visited in the West claims the owner is the fisherman in the photo on the wall. — Rick T. Rick Fletcher   –   http://www.chem.uidaho.edu/~fletcher/ Associate professor of chemistry  |  That’s Idaho, not Iowa.    | ad hominem University of Idaho               |  Upper Left Hand Corner.    | ad hominem Moscow, ID 83844-2343             |  No, I don’t grow potatoes. | ad hominem

Response:

: Easy. One has a lifetime,unconditional warranty, the other spends : gazillions on beautiful magazine ads instead. I don’t know about this… The Sage posters are among the prettiest photos of fly fishing I have seen.  Must cost a pretty big coin.

The Sage ads usually have some real nice photos as do the Winston ads.  Personally, I like the Scott "lifting power" ad with the jet skier and the one with the guy practicing his flycasting from atop a building in Manhatten. John Fereira

Response:

If you’re looking to buy an IMX be aware that Loomis no longer makes this blank.  It has been replaced by the GL4.  I was told (can anyone out there confirm?) that the reason they ditched the IMX was because of the number of breakages that model line had. One other thing: Sage does offer an unconditional warranty on their rods. Loomis does not.  Someone that I sold a Loomis blank to recently told me it cost him $40 to get the tip section replaced, in addition to the shipping costs.  I’ve broken two Sage rods in the last 3 years, and both times they charged me only for shipping.

Catch, How’d you break your Sages? I also had heard of very high breakage rates but that was years ago when several manufacturers, of which Loomis was one, were racing to gain market share by bringing out rods made with new materials. I was under the impression that the bulk of their problems had been solved although over the years I have talked to only one angler astream using Loomis (I live in the east where they have a smaller presence) and he fished it as if it was made of crystal instead of graphite because of a previous fishing breakage and the feeling after talking to Loomis that they would not replace it again. It did not appear to be a very enjoyable fishing experience for him. The original post related to casting rather than durability and from comparative reviews I have seen the Loomis does offer a different casting experience due to its stiffness. I know there are those who "Love my Loomis" or "Wouldn’t trade my Sage for anything" but is there anyone here who has used both and is willing to offer up an opinion, hopefully unbiased with thoughts, on the casting merits of both? I have a pre-new materials war Sage closet rod (or more charitably – a nymphing rod) and finances permitting, am interested in upgrading it to a stream rod but would like to hear about the casting virtues and vices of the newer rods. Thanks Tim

Response:

Among other rods, I own a Loomis 10′ 6wt IMX and a Sage 9′6" RPL 6wt. These are my steelheading rods. The Loomis just happens to fit my casting style better than the Sage, but the Sage (which I built from a blem blank) was needed as a backup since the Loomis was very brittle and I broke it more times than I like to admit.   Except for one time when I broke it by accidentally hitting a branch with the tip while casting and one time catching it in the door to my PU canopy, all the other breaks seemed to be the result of overstressing the rod during casting. Regardless of the reason, which I always disclosed, Loomis always replaced the rod with no questions asked and at no cost – even shipping. The last time it broke,the turn around time was only three days. I think that the last one they sent me is a slightly different composition, not that it casts any differently, but it has endured 2 1/2 years of heavy fishing without breaking ( a new personal record ). Most knowledgeable casters who have watched me cast ( for steelhead on big waters) tell me that my style seems to overstress the rod. Bob Weinberger – La Grande, OR —

Response:

Among other rods, I own a Loomis 10′ 6wt IMX and a Sage 9′6" RPL 6wt. These are my steelheading rods. The Loomis just happens to fit my casting style better than the Sage, but the Sage (which I built from a blem blank) was needed as a backup since the Loomis was very brittle and I broke it more times than I like to admit. Bob Weinberger – La Grande, OR —

I have a 9′6" 6 wgt RPL which has seen better years.  After two sets of guides and reworking of the handle, I decided that it was time to build a new one.  To my great regret, I discovered that they no longer make the 9′6" RPL blank.  The RPL-X is vile.   I gnash my teeth… This is a great steelhead and searun rod.  Good float tubing rod as well. Too bad you can’t get one anymore.

Response:

I have a 3 wt IMX and a 5 wt Sage RPL. Although I grab the Sage first when going to the stream, I use the IMX often enough to like it as a distance casting rod although I use a 4 wt line. It dosen’t have the line speed that the RPL has but it takes very little effort to cast. On a 2+ day trip I take both but I only use the 3 wt for dry fly. If push came to shove, it would be the Sage. — "The true Angler is content to fish alone" Brian Di Carlo – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If you’re looking to buy an IMX be aware that Loomis no longer makes this blank.  It has been replaced by the GL4.  I was told (can anyone out there confirm?) that the reason they ditched the IMX was because of the number of breakages that model line had. One other thing: Sage does offer an unconditional warranty on their rods. Loomis does not.  Someone that I sold a Loomis blank to recently told me it cost him $40 to get the tip section replaced, in addition to the shipping costs.  I’ve broken two Sage rods in the last 3 years, and both times they charged me only for shipping. Catch, How’d you break your Sages? I also had heard of very high breakage rates but that was years ago when several manufacturers, of which Loomis was one, were racing to gain market share by bringing out rods made with new materials. I was under the impression that the bulk of their problems had been solved although over the years I have talked to only one angler astream using Loomis (I live in the east where they have a smaller presence) and he fished it as if it was made of crystal instead of graphite because of a previous fishing breakage and the feeling after talking to Loomis that they would not replace it again. It did not appear to be a very enjoyable fishing experience for him. The original post related to casting rather than durability and from comparative reviews I have seen the Loomis does offer a different casting experience due to its stiffness. I know there are those who "Love my Loomis" or "Wouldn’t trade my Sage for anything" but is there anyone here who has used both and is willing to offer up an opinion, hopefully unbiased with thoughts, on the casting merits of both? I have a pre-new materials war Sage closet rod (or more charitably – a nymphing rod) and finances permitting, am interested in upgrading it to a stream rod but would like to hear about the casting virtues and vices of the newer rods. Thanks Tim

Response:

I know there are those who "Love my Loomis" or "Wouldn’t trade my Sage for anything" but is there anyone here who has used both and is willing to offer up an opinion, hopefully unbiased with thoughts, on the casting merits of both? I have

I can’t comment on the IMX.  My old beat-up RPL is great for shooting line half way accross a lake, but when it comes to laying down a gentle cast to spooky fish in shallow water, forget it.  The harder I try to be delicate, the harder it slaps the water.  Still, I like the rod. — -Wayne Trzyna

Response:

<<The harder I try to be delicate, the harder it slaps the water. The reason it slaps the water is because you are putting the power in too late.  Try pushing your thumb towards something on the far bank when you cast, so that the whole thing turns over before it touches down.  I also suspect you are overpowering the rod.  Get your timing right and you should be able to throw the whole flyline without hearing the rod "swish" at all. Hope this helps. William Daniel

Response:

<<I know there are those who "Love my Loomis" or "Wouldn’t trade my Sage for anything" but is there anyone here who has used both and is willing to offer up an opinion, hopefully unbiased with thoughts, on the casting merits of

both? You’ve picked the 2 best brands, IMO.  The old RPL’s are not as quick as the Loomis IMX, but these are being phased out as the new RPL+ rods come in – these are very fast, if that’s what you are after.  Frankly you pays your money and takes your choice.  I go for the Sages myself. William Daniel

Response:

<<I know there are those who "Love my Loomis" or "Wouldn’t trade my Sage for anything" but is there anyone here who has used both and is willing to offer up an opinion, hopefully unbiased with thoughts, on the casting merits of

both? Perhaps a better route would be for you to go cast the models that are suited for your needs and decide for yourself. I tried a Sage RPL for a 4 when they first came out. Caught a 7-1/2 lb rainbow on a #22 h.e. emerger on it. Sent the rod back because I didn’t care for it’s casting capabilities in close (under 30 ft). Ordered a Scott and have never looked back. Casts way better in close and is just fine for distance. Does that make the Scott better? Of course not. It’s better for me and the way I cast. Suggest you find a shop that carries the rods you’re interested in, describe your needs.  I suspect they will let you try out the rods. If the owner is really knowledgeable, stocks a variety of rods, and is a good listener (Harry Murray of Murray’s Fly Shop in Edinburgh, Va comes to mind.), it will be a short process. As for cost be sensible. If you make the right choice, you’ll be fishing it for many many years. A few bucks more for the rod you like could be well worth it over a decade or two or three. If you make the wrong one, it really doesn’t matter what the rod cost. Good luck. BP

Response:

Question:

My family is planning a trip to Canada in early June and I am looking for information on fishing resorts and guides.  Any information is appreciated and should be sent to me by e-mail.  Here are some of the conditions for our vacation. The resort should be accessable by car, within an 8 to 10 hour drive from Thunder Bay, Canada.  We plan to visit Thunder Bay during the first part of the vacation. Fishing guides are required. Fishing preferences are artificials and live bait (no fly fishing).  I am open to a variety of fish species, especially: lake trout, walleye and northern pike. — Kevin S. McDowell Customer Service Consultant/Management Analyst Minnesota Department of Economic Security http://mn.jobsearch.org Author of Creative Job Search Internet resources: http://mn.jobsearch.org/cjs/cjs_site/cjs-home.htm

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – My family is planning a trip to Canada in early June and I am looking for information on fishing resorts and guides.  Any information is appreciated and should be sent to me by e-mail.  Here are some of the conditions for our vacation. The resort should be accessable by car, within an 8 to 10 hour drive from Thunder Bay, Canada.  We plan to visit Thunder Bay during the first part of the vacation. Fishing guides are required. Fishing preferences are artificials and live bait (no fly fishing).  I am open to a variety of fish species, especially: lake trout, walleye and northern pike. — Kevin S. McDowell Customer Service Consultant/Management Analyst Minnesota Department of Economic Security http://mn.jobsearch.org Author of Creative Job Search Internet resources: http://mn.jobsearch.org/cjs/cjs_site/cjs-home.htm

Hi Kevin. There is lots on our website that I think will interest you. Perhaps the best place to start is with the Northwest Ontario’s Sunset Country Travel Association’s website at http://ontariossunsetcountry.ca . This organisation represents over 250 lodges and resorts in Northwestern Ontario. Also have a look at the Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters at http://www.virtualnorth.com/noto/ . NOTO represents about 600 outdoor operators across Northern Ontario. You’ll find at both sites a members directory and online forms to request more information including vacation guides. Enjoy! Dan Good Virtual North

Response:

Question:

Can anyone give me some advice on what rivers to hit while in Jackson hole?  I’m going to drive through the area on my way to Seattle and i would like to spend a day fishing.  I have never beenm, hell i have never been to Wyoming, so if anyone can help me out i would really appreciate it. o’ yeah make it quick, cause im moving in about 2 to 3 days. Jeremy Tittle

If you want to drift fish with guide stay away from Snake, do the S. Fork or go over to Henry’s Ford in Idaho. If wade fishing you can do lots of area’s but the water conditions (clarity) and swiftness dictates, this time of year it should be muddy from runoff. You might want to push on and try the Gallatin in the park outside of W. Yellowstone.

Response:

Can anyone give me some advice on what rivers to hit while in Jackson hole?  I’m going to drive through the area on my way to Seattle and i would like to spend a day fishing.  I have never beenm, hell i have never been to Wyoming, so if anyone can help me out i would really appreciate it. o’ yeah make it quick, cause im moving in about 2 to 3 days. Jeremy Tittle

Response:

Can anyone give me some advice on what rivers to hit while in Jackson hole?

Hi Jeremy, If a day is all you have I suggest fishing the Snake river below the dam on Jackson Lake. There is a lot of water to cover and should provide some excellent fishing. Attractor patterns (Humpies, Wulff, EHC etc), nymphs like GRHE, and of course an assortment of Bead Headed whatevers (GRHE, Prince, etc.). Have a good trip.  Tight Lines Al Beatty BT’s Fly Fishing Products Bozeman, MT (96 catalog)

Response:

Question:

: Most people laugh when they see my "go to" fly, but it : has worked when nothing else has. It’s what I call a : Royal Gnat. It looks like a Griffith’s Gnat, but it Stuff deleted : fly fishing. I have caught 19 brown trout in 2 1/2 hours : with this fly (largest one was 14 in.).                                  ^^^^^^ Boy, that’s one big fly! : Darryl Charley

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Re: Dry flies.
My favorite patterns are similar – elk hair caddis, lt cahill, griffin gnat
renegade, adams.  But, and I am a bit ashamed to admit this — I have caught more trout and larger trout on a #16 royal wulff than any other.  There, I said
it.  This fly has seemed to go out of favor, and I wonder why.  Am I the only
one that ties this on when nothing is working???
–
MGC Top Down Design Support

Most people laugh when they see my "go to" fly, but it has worked when nothing else has. It’s what I call a Royal Gnat. It looks like a Griffith’s Gnat, but it has a floss mid-section just like a Royal Coachman. Red floss works well, but I have caught quite a few on green and yellow also. Sizes from 16 to 20. It’s been my experience that even when the fish aren’t rising, that if you drift one of these through a riffle around a dozen times, (if there are any fish) they start coming to the surface to take a look. I know I’m going to get a lot of disbelief on this, thats why I have hesitated writing, but the last time out with a buddy, I gave him a few and told him how to fish them, and he had the best day he ever had fly fishing. I have caught 19 brown trout in 2 1/2 hours with this fly (largest one was 14 in.). Darryl

Response:

Lets see who has caught lots of fish on what flies and where? My most productive rivertrout fly is the #14 Elk hair Caddis, and the #14 Light Cahill. The biggest fish I have caught on a dry in my one and a half years of fishing is a 16 in Rainbow on HAt creek in CA. How about all of you guys. I want poeple to talk about fishing not yuppies, Thanks.

Response:

Lets see who has caught lots of fish on what flies and where? My most productive rivertrout fly is the #14 Elk hair Caddis, and the #14 Light Cahill. The biggest fish I have caught on a dry in my one and a half years of fishing is a 16 in Rainbow on HAt creek in CA. How about all of you

The most productive pattern over the last two years has been the Micro Worm (a variation on the San Juan worm). Most satisfying experience was last year when we took out a young fellow new to the sport. It was slow fishing but he hooked the first fish of the day, and the last. The last was a twenty five inch Brown. The huge grin that he was sporting is not something that will be soon forgotten. Sort of puts it all back in perspective. Flyfishing is supposed to be fun for all involved. Jim

Response:

A list of favorite patterns would have to include the Tom Thumb, pheasant tail nymph, serendipity(?), comparadun, Werners nymph. I have by best luck on the BlackWater River in B.C. and on the Deschutes in Oregon.

Response:

: Lets see who has caught lots of fish on what flies and where? My most : productive rivertrout fly is the #14 Elk hair Caddis, and the #14 Light : Cahill. The biggest fish I have caught on a dry in my one and a half years : of fishing is a 16 in Rainbow on HAt creek in CA. How about all of you : guys. I want poeple to talk about fishing not yuppies, Thanks. My best luck on dry flies comes with a #22 griffith’s gnat, #20 light cahill (both on the swift river), and #16-18 elk hair or poly wing caddis of the appropriate color (on the deerfield river).  The adams can’t be beat for a standard search pattern or as a reasonable facsimile of most hatches.

Response:

For both here in Upper Michigan and Alaska, I like the Humpy.  Great floatability in the fast waters I fish.  I went through no less than forty of them here in the U.P. last year.  My second favorite is the elk hair caddis.      Steve Kernosky   *         Accept me for what I am, Michigan Tech. Univ.  *         completely unacceptable.

Response:

Lets see who has caught lots of fish on what flies and where? My most productive rivertrout fly is the #14 Elk hair Caddis, and the #14 Light Cahill. The biggest fish I have caught on a dry in my one and a half years of fishing is a 16 in Rainbow on HAt creek in CA. How about all of you guys. I want poeple to talk about fishing not yuppies, Thanks.

My favorite pattern, the one I find myself digging for again and again is a #20-22 blond elk-hair caddis.  Caught the most on these boys. (central and southern Missouri) My biggist fish (20 1/2"  #4 3/4 Brown) was on a #6 McSalmon on the Madison. Kevin Franden                                   Informix Software, Inc.                                                 16011 College Blvd uunet!infmx!kevinf #include <patchlevel.h fprintf(DISCLAIMER,"I said what I said.n");       You only live once but if you do it right, once is enough                               Carpe Diem

Response:

Lets see who has caught lots of fish on what flies and where? My most productive rivertrout fly is the #14 Elk hair Caddis, and the #14 Light Cahill. The biggest fish I have caught on a dry in my one and a half years of fishing is a 16 in Rainbow on HAt creek in CA. How about all of you guys. I want poeple to talk about fishing not yuppies, Thanks.

I carry lots of  flys but give me a Pheasant Tail Nymph, a Prince Nymph, and an assortment of  Elk Hair caddis and Para-duns and  I’ll be happy 90% of  the time. Here are my favorite patterns Nymphs & wet flys: Pheasant Tail Nymph ( Al Troth version)   Prince Nymph Zug Bug           Jay’s Stone ( my own ) March Brown Spider   Mini Leech                 Wooly Bugger               Dry Flys: Elk Hair Caddis Para-Dun Mac Salmon Dave’s Hopper Black Ant Griffiths Gnat Humpy Old Standbys: Adams Black Gnat Light Cahill Royal Wulff Muddler Minnow Ive done most of my fly fishing in Oregon and I have had the best fishing in these streams and some high lakes: Lower Deschutes Crooked River Metolius Wood Williamson Klamath

Response:

My favorite has to be the Humpie. It’s produced many memorable days. Second is the Parachute Adams or  a similiar fly tied in brown. Biggest was a 24"  Rainbow( really) on a floating foam chrionomid. Bead head hairs ears are the favorite nymph- while maybe the Prince should be number one.

Response:

Re: Dry flies. My favorite patterns are similar – elk hair caddis, lt cahill, griffin gnat renegade, adams.  But, and I am a bit ashamed to admit this — I have caught more trout and larger trout on a #16 royal wulff than any other.  There, I said it.  This fly has seemed to go out of favor, and I wonder why.  Am I the only one that ties this on when nothing is working??? — MGC Top Down Design Support

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Re: Dry flies. My favorite patterns are similar – elk hair caddis, lt cahill, griffin gnat renegade, adams.  But, and I am a bit ashamed to admit this — I have caught more trout and larger trout on a #16 royal wulff than any other.  There, I said it.  This fly has seemed to go out of favor, and I wonder why.  Am I the only one that ties this on when nothing is working??? — MGC Top Down Design Support Most people laugh when they see my "go to" fly, but it has worked when nothing else has. It’s what I call a Royal Gnat. It looks like a Griffith’s Gnat, but it has a floss mid-section just like a Royal Coachman. Red floss works well, but I have caught quite a few on green and yellow also. Sizes from 16 to 20.

This sounds a lot like a "Sierra Bright Dot". It has grizzly hackle at the head and butt of the fly and *bright* orange floss in the middle.  I’ve done real well with them on some high country Sierra Nevada lakes. — John Fereira   "Guru of Miscellany" Pleasanton, CA Viacom Cable Division

Response:

Question:

The annual N. California fly fishing conclave is coming up at the end of September.  Three days of tying speakers and displays.  Gary LaFontaine is the headline speaker, along with Lani Waller, Mel Krieger and lots of others.  Its held at the N. Lake Tahoe convention center in Kings Beach on the North shore of Lake Tahoe.  There is also good fishing in the area at this time of year.  The event is sponsored by the Northern California Council, Federation of Fly Fishers.  Contact Dave Duffy, (209)-824-2346 for details.

Response:

(DaveF17965) writes:

Is there any similar event held in Southern California?

Response:

Question:

: The caddis fly is of the order Trichoptera.  The May fly is of the order : Ephemeroptera.  They aint the same bug.  So somebody better get his story : straight. Of course they are different bugs…and these are brachycentrus. They are ALSO Grannoms, Sedges, Little Brown Buggies, Mothies etc. etc. The fact is, the hatch does happen in May. Therefore, for the locals to call ‘em the may-flies is ok by me…the biologist was probably also the barber who is also the sherrif on friday nights. Tim Walker

Response:

Absolutely correct.  It is primarily a communication/context issue, and we should be intelligent and flexible enough to adapt. This leads to an adaptation of an old Stve Martin joke, which might go like this: Up in Canada, "Pickerel" means "Walleye". "Brewskie" means "Beer". Those darn canucks have a different word for ust about everything! (and in Quebec, they call walleye/pickerel – dore – pronounced door-ray!) : — : # Forestry Canada                                                       # : # Petawawa National Forestry Institute                Voice:  (613)-589-3033    # : # Box 2000, Chalk River, Ontario              FAX:    (613)-589-2275    # : # K0J 1J0 CANADA                                                        # — |     Bob Lundy                   | |     Mississauga, ON, Canada     |

Response:

The Stripped Bass is only known as "Rockfish" in the Cheasapeak bay. Once they enter the Atlantic they mysteriously become Stripped Bass. It appears that they are in fact actually making it into the Atlantic again now after the Rockfish moritorium of a few years ago. —      _______   o  |  Gone fish’n in KoKoMo |_/ ——   o |  Carl Traenkner, Lead Software Engineer  

Response:

Hey, they also call ‘em "waugers" here…more confusing is the "striper" (white bass), rockfish (imported saltwater striper), and hybrids (cross ‘tween white bass and rockfish)…

Just to throw more fuel on the fire, "rockfish" is the proper name for a common class of deep-ocean saltwater fish.  "Rockfish" referring to saltwater striped bass is a regional name used in the NE U.S.  True rockfish are often called rock cod, even though they’re not cod… Hey did I tell you about the rainbow trout not really being a trout yet?

Response:

Just to make things more confusing, we now have a hybrid species that’s a cross between a walleye and a sauger.  It’s called a "saugeye" and it’s becoming a very popular sport fish here in Oklahoma.

Hey, they also call ‘em "waugers" here…more confusing is the "striper" (white bass), rockfish (imported saltwater striper), and hybrids (cross ‘tween white bass and rockfish)…  Mac McDougald            *   Any opinions expressed herein are  The Photography Center   *   not necessarily (actually, are  UNIV of TN, Knoxville    *   almost CERTAINLY NOT) those of UTK.  (615-974-3449)           *    than they’ve ever been before."    

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Newsgroups: rec.outdoors.fishing Path: darkside!constellation!osuunx.ucc.okstate.edu!newsfeed.ksu.ksu.edu!moe.ksu .ksu.e du!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!utnut!nott!p nfi!sj oyce Organization: Canadian Forest Service – Petawawa National Forestry Institute Distribution: rec Lines: 44 By far, a much bigger problem is fish misidentification, and misinformation in general.  When we argue over pickerel/walleye, at least we are referring to the same tasty, toothy fish.  I came across some ice fishermen a few years ago with a pile of fingerling lake trout on the ice and asked them how the fishing was: "No lakers, but a few o’ dem speckles inna some margerine will be damn good". (he thought they were speckled trout or brook trout which grow to a smaller size).  Another time I came across a guy fishing for walleye in Alberta.  He remarked that he had caught "some of those f*ing dark ones" and tossed them on the bank.  They were sauger which are just as tasty. I’m off to go pickerel fishing. oops I mean walleye. Cheers, SPJ

Just to make things more confusing, we now have a hybrid species that’s a cross between a walleye and a sauger.  It’s called a "saugeye" and it’s becoming a very popular sport fish here in Oklahoma.  I haven’t caught one yet, but I look foreward to it. Richard

Response:

Here in colorado, around the beginning of may, the caddis hatch in blizzards. Tan snow. Anyway, the locals say the "May Flies" have hatched. Last year, the Glenwood Post had a biologist on page one who said thet "These are definately mayflies and NOT caddis, as some people beleive." I about had a seizure. Any flyfisherman worth his 5X knows a caddis, on the wing even. But, the local name and affection is kinda cute, so i’m not too smug and i think i know when to call ‘em mayflies too… Tim Walker

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Newsgroups: rec.outdoors.fishing Path: darkside!constellation!convex!insosf1.infonet.net!yeshua.marcam.com!news.k ei.com !eff!news.umbc.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio- state. edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!csn!twalker Nntp-Posting-Host: teal.csn.org Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc. X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1] Distribution: rec Lines: 12 Here in colorado, around the beginning of may, the caddis hatch in blizzards. Tan snow. Anyway, the locals say the "May Flies" have hatched. Last year, the Glenwood Post had a biologist on page one who said thet "These are definately mayflies and NOT caddis, as some people beleive." I about had a seizure. Any flyfisherman worth his 5X knows a caddis, on the wing even. But, the local name and affection is kinda cute, so i’m not too smug and i think i know when to call ‘em mayflies too… Tim Walker

The caddis fly is of the order Trichoptera.  The May fly is of the order Ephemeroptera.  They aint the same bug.  So somebody better get his story straight. Richard

Response:

It seems a bit ridiculous to be having arguments about common names of fish when they are just that; "common names".  As such, they are regional by nature, language specific, and vary widely across the country and across borders (i.e. Walleye, Pickerel, Dore, walleyed pike, yellow pickerel etc.). You can find "official" literature in different areas that list different common names for exactly the same fish.  They not only vary by region, they vary sometimes according to fish size or life stage (Chinook, King, Spring, Tyee).  They can even vary according to how the fish is caught or marketed (Lake Herring, Ciscoe, Tulibee).  And I’ve also noticed the uglier the fish is, the more common names it will have (Ling, Burbot, Eelpout, Lawyer, freshwater cod,…snake?).  If you want an unabiguous label for a fish species, you have to use the latin or scientific name. To me, common names have never been a problem.  Just learn as much as you can about fish species in the areas you fish, and the common names in those areas.  I think there can be some confusion if the same common name refers to a different fish in different areas but that’s rare.  When you ask the locals where the fish are biting, you will get a lot farther by using the local fish names! . By far, a much bigger problem is fish misidentification, and misinformation in general.  When we argue over pickerel/walleye, at least we are referring to the same tasty, toothy fish.  I came across some ice fishermen a few years ago with a pile of fingerling lake trout on the ice and asked them how the fishing was: "No lakers, but a few o’ dem speckles inna some margerine will be damn good". (he thought they were speckled trout or brook trout which grow to a smaller size).  Another time I came across a guy fishing for walleye in Alberta.  He remarked that he had caught "some of those f*ing dark ones" and tossed them on the bank.  They were sauger which are just as tasty. I’m off to go pickerel fishing. oops I mean walleye. Cheers, SPJ — # Forestry Canada                                                         # # Petawawa National Forestry Institute          Voice:  (613)-589-3033    # # Box 2000, Chalk River, Ontario                FAX:    (613)-589-2275    # # K0J 1J0 CANADA                                                          #

Response: