Question:

Hello Fred Bringman I recently got a good deal on several spools of WF-7-F Orvis Drift Boat Fly Line.  The problem is the flyline is a very bright fluorescent Orange. Can flyline be dyed?  If so can anyone give me some guidance on how to dye the line to get a much softer color.

Found this scroll to the bottom of the page http://www.greensboro.com/flyfish/news/1999_10.htm Thank you in advance.

you are welcome. Fred

– Don’t Worry, Be Happy! IRC Sandyb in #Rabble uk1.arcnet.vapor.com port:6667 Sandy (http://www.ftscotland.co.uk)

Response:

I recently got a good deal on several spools of WF-7-F Orvis Drift Boat Fly Line.  The problem is the flyline is a very bright fluorescent Orange.

OK, someone give me a clue: WTF makes a line a "drift boat fly line"? /daytripper (um…with a collection of…um…"non-drift boat fly lines"…)

Response:

I recently got a good deal on several spools of WF-7-F Orvis Drift Boat Fly Line.  The problem is the flyline is a very bright fluorescent Orange. OK, someone give me a clue: WTF makes a line a "drift boat fly line"? /daytripper (um…with a collection of…um…"non-drift boat fly lines"…)

Because it’s orange (gotta tell this guy everything – sheesh.) Peter Visit The Streamer Page at http://home.cogeco.ca/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Fly lines dye particularly easily, much easier than it would seem. Here in New Zealand we use subdued colored lines and are used to dieing fly-lines of visiting U.S. anglers. We do about 3 a week at the lodge I am with. A standard Ritt dye in Dark Olive is usually pretty effective and gives a nice finish. The dye is mixed in a largish pot and brought to boiling point, then it is left to cool until you can just tolerate putting your finger in (Careful with this bit, of all the lines we’ve done we’ve never damaged one but a couple of fingers have been The line is then put into the dye in loose coils and weighted down so it’s submerged. it’s then left over night. In the morning a rinse is all that’s required to have the line ready for use. As a rule we usually only do the last 20 or so feet of line, but there’s no reason not to dye the whole thing. I know it would appear that the heat would destroy the plastic. The reality is, it doesn’t.

And this works, or seems to, for all line types, without apparent lessening of any factor?  The reason I’m curious is that it would seem that if it readily absorbs the dye, it would seem to readily absorb water.  I also have to wonder (really "wonder," not sarcastically "gotta wonder ’bout that" – I have no idea what chemicals are present, and so, have no idea of the possible effects) if the dye causes any ill-effects to the line, coating, etc.  And something else just occurred to me: if the water-based dye penetrates to the braid, what about the weight of the dye, and how long do you have to wait for the water to evaporate out – it seems simply rinsing and going would be using a "water- and dye-logged" line, but ??? My "cowboy logic" tells me that if this were both a good idea and readily-workable as "SOP," that someone would have marketed a white line with dyes available, given all the falderall over line color.  Of course, perhaps someone does, and I just don’t know about it <G… I’d like to hear more about this, please. TC R – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Hope that helps. Clark

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hello Fred Bringman I recently got a good deal on several spools of WF-7-F Orvis Drift Boat Fly Line.  The problem is the flyline is a very bright fluorescent Orange. Can flyline be dyed?  If so can anyone give me some guidance on how to dye the line to get a much softer color. Found this scroll to the bottom of the page http://www.greensboro.com/flyfish/news/1999_10.htm Thank you in advance. you are welcome. Fred

One note of caution for Airflo fans.  Their lines are polyurethane not PVC and melt at  much lower temperature.  I just found out the hard way when I used a heat gun to tighten some heat shrink tubing.   Peter Visit The Streamer Page at http://home.cogeco.ca/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

Response:

And this works, or seems to, for all line types, without apparent lessening of any factor?  The reason I’m curious is that it would seem that if it readily absorbs the dye, it would seem to readily absorb water.

Not necessarily.  I’m no dye expert, but I do a lot of tissue staining in my day job, and I suspect that much of the chemistry is very similar.  The fact that a dye is in aqueous solution and that the dye is capable of penetrating a given material doesn’t necessarily mean that the water will be carried along into that material.  Remember that while a plactic may be hydrophobic, it cannot avoid coming into close contact with water it is immersed in. This, obviously, also brings dyes molecules into contact.  The individual dye molecules may or may not pass directly from the water into the surface of the plastic depending on the chemistry involved, and may also penetrate to some depth, again, without carrying any of the water. I also have to wonder (really "wonder," not sarcastically "gotta wonder ’bout that" – I have no idea what chemicals are present, and so, have no idea of the possible effects) if the dye causes any ill-effects to the line, coating, etc.

There is a wide range of chemical reactions which may take place in dyeing. Some of them can be very destructive to either the dyes or the substrates, or both, depending on their chemical and physical properties.  The addition of mordants or other adjuncts can also complicate matters.  That said, it is also obvious that dyeing is a hugely successful and pretty well understood practice.  There are doubtless all kinds of good references which would help one determine in advance whether a particular application is safe and effective for a given material, but they can be hard to ferret out.  It’s best to find out from manufacturers (if possible) what their recommendations are.  If that isn’t possible or practical, testing on scraps is the next best thing.  But, on the face of it, the mere fact that a dye penetrates into a material is no reason to be concerned that it reacts in any harmful way.  The bad news is that when damage DOES occur, it is not necessarily immediately obvious.  Some problems take a while to develop to the point where they are noticeable.  Meanwhile, if others have had success in using a given brand and color of dye on a particular line, I’m inclined to believe that it’s safe enough, but this does NOT mean that any dye will be effective and safe with any line.  Still best to err on the side of caution. And something else just occurred to me: if the water-based dye penetrates to the braid, what about the weight of the dye, and how long do you have to wait for the water to evaporate out – it seems simply rinsing and going would be using a "water- and dye-logged" line, but ???

All of the above notwithstanding, it IS possible that something in a dye will react with a line coating to reduce it’s hydrophobic qualities.  If this does happen, the ultimate result is questionable, but I suspect that the damage will likely be permanent and the line destroyed.  The problem is that some sort of chemical reaction has taken place and the odds that it will be reversed on drying are vanishingly small. My "cowboy logic" tells me that if this were both a good idea and readily-workable as "SOP," that someone would have marketed a white line with dyes available, given all the falderall over line color.

Much more profitable to sell someone another line, I should think. Of course, perhaps someone does, and I just don’t know about it <G…

I’ve never heard of any such either. I’d like to hear more about this, please.

Even more than this?     Wolfgang

Response:

See articles on dyeing fly-lines here; http://www.flugfiskesidan.com/magazine/uk/current.asp http://www.greensboro.com/flyfish/news/1999_10.htm  ( Scroll down) http://www.steelheadsite.com/rigging/messages/2606.shtml http://www.iffa.org.uk/dyinglines.htm TL MC

Response:

As you will see if you read the articles. At least one author says that dyeing the lines reduces their useful life up to 30%. My own experiments along these lines, ( sorry!), suggest that the dyeing process leaches out quite a lot of the PVC softeners, and there may also be some chemical reactions, which cause the lines to crack prematurely. I have dyed quite a few lines in the past, but don

Question:

Thanks for the help, guys…. SpEEdo… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – He’s asking 17,500 on the side of it.  It’s a helluva deal with that big tuna tower and all the fishing rigging.  However, I’ve talked to 8 long-time sport fishermen about it and they told me Pacemaker had some I had one of these (1973) for sale two years ago.  It is great for near coastal cruising.. It has a relatively low center of gravity making it very stable.  It isn’t a full V hull as it is very flat in the stern.  This allows it acess to shallower water, but makes it pound more in the steep chop.  The flying bridge is fairly small. but adequate.  The fellow who bought it uses it in the L.I. sound regularly, and loves it.  There was no problem with blisters or delaminations. I think the $17,000 is a little high even rigged for offshore.  I sold the one at my place for $12,000 with two near new engines.  No fishing equiptment though. Boatbasin http://www.boatbasin.com

Response:

<snip However, I’ve talked to 8 long-time sport fishermen about it and they told me Pacemaker had some AWFUL problems with blisters, delaminations and other ugly things that put the company out of business…..yecch.

What years were the eight?  An old-time marine surveyor told me that boats made before the Arab oil embargo of the mid-seventies had few if any problems with blisters.  Only after the embargo hit and oil prices went sky-high did manufacturers start tampering with resin formulations and unknowingly create blister city.  The boat in question is a ‘72 model and may be perfectly blister-free. Bill, W7TI

Response:

He’s asking 17,500 on the side of it.  It’s a helluva deal with that big tuna tower and all the fishing rigging.  However, I’ve talked to 8 long-time sport fishermen about it and they told me Pacemaker had some

I had one of these (1973) for sale two years ago.  It is great for near coastal cruising.. It has a relatively low center of gravity making it very stable.  It isn’t a full V hull as it is very flat in the stern.  This allows it acess to shallower water, but makes it pound more in the steep chop.  The flying bridge is fairly small. but adequate.  The fellow who bought it uses it in the L.I. sound regularly, and loves it.  There was no problem with blisters or delaminations. I think the $17,000 is a little high even rigged for offshore.  I sold the one at my place for $12,000 with two near new engines.  No fishing equiptment though. Boatbasin http://www.boatbasin.com

Response:

There’s one for sale in Charleston I have to walk by every time I go to my bud’s sailboat.  It had a little smoke damage from a fire in a home air conditioner he used but has been completely restored inside. It has radar/sonar/GPS/tv/microwave/Loran/2 alarms/lights/water/well, you get the idea. He’s asking 17,500 on the side of it.  It’s a helluva deal with that big tuna tower and all the fishing rigging.  However, I’ve talked to 8 long-time sport fishermen about it and they told me Pacemaker had some AWFUL problems with blisters, delaminations and other ugly things that put the company out of business…..yecch. Sure is tempting….it’s still floating, the new AC/heat pump is pumping and I see lights inside the stained-glass windows….(c; SpEEdo – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I am considering a 30′ Pacemaker – 1972. The owner says the model is Sportfish, but it sure has a small cockpit. It has a fly bridge and lower helm station which behind the step down salon/galley. This open helm area extends quite a way into the cockpit and includes the engine hatches (it has a fighting chair) and the cockpit seems quite short. I wonder if this is more a Cruiser model than a SF and if I’d get a better fishing boat if I looked for a later model. Does anyone have any knowledge of these models? I have looked in the "Sportfishing Boats 28-82′" guide and the oldest Pacemaker they show is a 1973 that has a different layout. The boat is in very good condition with outriggers, 489 hrs on 220/hp chryslers, older electronics (no GPS or radar) – he is asking $19K. Does this sound reasonable?? Thanks!

Response:

I am considering a 30′ Pacemaker – 1972. The owner says the model is Sportfish, but it sure has a small cockpit. It has a fly bridge and lower helm station which behind the step down salon/galley. This open helm area extends quite a way into the cockpit and includes the engine hatches (it has a fighting chair) and the cockpit seems quite short. I wonder if this is more a Cruiser model than a SF and if I’d get a better fishing boat if I looked for a later model. Does anyone have any knowledge of these models? I have looked in the "Sportfishing Boats 28-82′" guide and the oldest Pacemaker they show is a 1973 that has a different layout. The boat is in very good condition with outriggers, 489 hrs on 220/hp chryslers, older electronics (no GPS or radar) – he is asking $19K. Does this sound reasonable?? Thanks!

Response:

I wouldn’t trust the reliability of the hourmeter.  You need both a survey and a mechanic to check out your boat to decide if 19K is a good price. — — Jim Proud, but feeble minded Regal Owner Three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead.

| I am considering a 30′ Pacemaker – 1972. The owner says the model is | Sportfish, but it sure has a small cockpit. It has a fly bridge and lower | helm station which behind the step down salon/galley. This open helm area | extends quite a way into the cockpit and includes the engine hatches (it has | a fighting chair) and the cockpit seems quite short. | | I wonder if this is more a Cruiser model than a SF and if I’d get a better | fishing boat if I looked for a later model. Does anyone have any knowledge of | these models? I have looked in the "Sportfishing Boats 28-82′" guide and the | oldest Pacemaker they show is a 1973 that has a different layout. | | The boat is in very good condition with outriggers, 489 hrs on 220/hp | chryslers, older electronics (no GPS or radar) – he is asking $19K. Does this | sound reasonable?? | | Thanks! |

Response:

Question:

Well, well, well, So what do we flyfishers think of the new (and old) warranties? Orvis                25-years Loomis             Lifetime $45 exchange for new rod Scott                $20 Lifetime Winston           $25 Lifetime Sage               $20 Lifetime Etc. etc. etc. Just wondering, Paul

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Well, well, well, So what do we flyfishers think of the new (and old) warranties? Orvis                25-years Loomis             Lifetime $45 exchange for new rod Scott                $20 Lifetime Winston           $25 Lifetime Sage               $20 Lifetime Etc. etc. etc. Just wondering, Paul

Ha Paul, I want my money back. I bought a new outfit and went out and got skunked. I am going to take all these manufacturers to court. I think the government should step in and do something about this. You read the adds, buy a new fly fishing outfit, go done to the river and get skunked. Well, it’s not my fault, it’s my parents. They didn’t send me to an Orvis School when I was young. They made me fish with worms too. I think I will take them to court too. I think I will take the government to court too because they let me ’slip through the cracks’. I guess I am just a loser, but it’s not my fault. I think I will go have a tuna fish sand witch and watch David Letterman. Bill Kiene Kiene’s Fly Shop www.kiene.com

Response:

got skunked. I – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -am going to take all these manufacturers to court. I think the government should step in and do something about this. You read the adds, buy a new fly fishing outfit, go done to the river and get skunked. Well, it’s not my fault, it’s my parents. They didn’t send me to an Orvis School when I was young. They made me fish with worms too. I think I will take them to court too. I think I will take the government to court too because they let me ’slip through the cracks’. I guess I am just a loser, but it’s not my fault. I think I will go have a tuna fish sand witch and watch David Letterman. Bill Kiene Kiene’s Fly Shop www.kiene.com

Love you Bill!!!!! You probably have more experience with both guides and lawyers, but I find it easies to find a competeant guide than it is a competeant lawyer. Care to comment? Big Dale

Response:

LL Bean still has their warranty policy in place… Lifetime satisfaction guarantee If you break the rod on a trip, they’ll overnight fedex a replacement anwhere in the country.  You return the broken rod at your convenience. All free. Michael – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Well, well, well, So what do we flyfishers think of the new (and old) warranties? Orvis                25-years Loomis             Lifetime $45 exchange for new rod Scott                $20 Lifetime Winston           $25 Lifetime Sage               $20 Lifetime Etc. etc. etc. Just wondering, Paul

Response:

You know, I remember the old days when if I screwed up, it was my fault.  I remember that I took care of my rod, because if I broke it, I was  out X number of dollars.  I remember a time when you were responsible for your actions.  I remember when I didn’t do well in school, it was my fault, not society.  I remember breaking my arm in junior high school and not suing the school.  I remember a time when if you broke something, you stood up like a man and admitted it…. It’s amazing how rods are now "accidently" broken as opposed to how many were broken BEFORE the new warranties. Just my 2 cents. Flyguy Bill Kiene wrote – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Ha Paul, I want my money back. I bought a new outfit and went out and got skunked. I am going to take all these manufacturers to court. I think the government should step in and do something about this. You read the adds, buy a new fly fishing outfit, go done to the river and get skunked. Well, it’s not my fault, it’s my parents. They didn’t send me to an Orvis School when I was young. They made me fish with worms too. I think I will take them to court too. I think I will take the government to court too because they let me ’slip through the cracks’. I guess I am just a loser, but it’s not my fault. I think I will go have a tuna fish sand witch and watch David Letterman. Bill Kiene Kiene’s Fly Shop www.kiene.com

Response:

You know, I remember the old days when if I screwed up, it was my fault

Geez, let’s not have too much pity for the poor manufacturers… The fly rod that you and I pay $650 for in the store, probably costs the manufacturer $50 in direct materials and labor.  And it makes the vendor probably 3x to 4x the profit per rod as a $200 rod. Some people probably won’t buy a super-premium rod because they’re afraid they’ll break it.  So by offering a no-fault warranty, the manufacturers get more folks to buy the highly profitable rods.  Really, it makes a lot of sense given the disparity between direct and retail costs. Especially now that the rod vendors are charging for warranty repairs (and offsetting most of the cost anyway), they’re laughing all the way to the bank. Michael

Response:

You know, I remember the old days when if I screwed up, it was my fault Geez, let’s not have too much pity for the poor manufacturers… The fly rod that you and I pay $650 for in the store, probably costs the manufacturer $50 in direct materials and labor.  And it makes the vendor probably 3x to 4x the profit per rod as a $200 rod.

that very possibly true – check out George Gherke’s costing for his Bastard Rod – the fitting alone exceed $50. but, don’t forget it the manufacturer has to pay for a lot of other things beside direct material and labour. Anyone whose worked in a manufacturing environment can tell you overheads are very often more than direct manufacturing costs. Don’t forget as well that everyone along the way – the manufacturer, the distributor and the retailer all have to make some sort of profit. For most products of this nature the mark up on the rod( the difference between the retail price and the wholessale price the retailer pays) is about 1/3 of the price you pay. So for a $650 rod the manufacturer may gets $425 in revenue. Ralph H

Response:

but, don’t forget it the manufacturer has to pay for a lot of other things beside direct material and labour. Anyone whose worked in a manufacturing environment can tell you overheads are very often more than direct manufacturing costs. Don’t forget as well that everyone along the way – the manufacturer, the distributor and the retailer all have to make some sort of profit.

Absolutely true, but it’s also my point. You can make the argument that it’s reasonable for a fly mfg. to charge $650 for a rod.  (Hey, no one’s forcing me to buy the damn thing, and the market also supplies pretty good rods at every price point from $19 up).  Lord knows, a lot of vendors with fancy names and fancy rods are only marginally profitable.  But the time to make the profit is on the initial sale and, hopefully,  the next sale a few years later from a satisfied customer upgrading to the same vendor’s latest and greatest. Repairs are a time when the vendor can make or break customer loyalty.  It’s simply not worth getting into a debate with the customer about who’s fault it was.  <<Was the ferrule defective, or had it loosened up on me while fishing?  Is it the fault of the vendor’s poor tolerances that the rod loosened up and then broke at the ferrule, or my sloppy fishing habits, for not checking them every once in a while?  It just makes good sense for the manufacturer to fix a rod at it’s marginal cost, and not mark it up.  Even if it truly is the customer’s fault.  Hey, we all make mistakes. Then you can argue whether, if the marginal cost is so low (say $20 for a section of a $600 rod), does it make sense to bill for it, or do you get even more than $20 worth of loyalty and repeat business to do it for "free". I don’t see this as a biggee…it’s close enough to $0 that I wouldn’t care if I felt it were my fault.  Of course, if it were truly a mfg. flaw, I’d be pissed off about paying even $20, much less $50. Michael

Response:

Question:

Never been to Alaska…..But I’m very interested in going this summer toseethe sights and get in some fishing….I hear it is unbelievable! Can someone share information about their trips and make suggestionsforsomeone that has never been there before?  Where in Alaska to go? Motorhome rentals? Lodge rentals? Fishing vacation packages? Fishing Guides? Best time of year to go? Etc.

When I was there it was August and the fishing was fantastic!  We had some business to attend to in Anchorage, but were able to mix in 2 and 1/2 days fishing in Seward (about 2 1/2 hours south of Anchorage).  We fished in the Silver Salmon Derby and I actually had one fish that was in the top 15 fish on the first day, but didn’t stay there very long.  I would like to go back in late May/early June to get in on some of the barn door size halibut.  The days are so long you can fish almost 24 hours a day…it’s really a novel experience.  We fished on a Thu. afternoon and were scheduled to fish again Fri, but by the time the boat got in Thu (around 9 pm) and we got the fish cleaned and stowed at the packing company then had some dinner it was well after midnight.  Since we had to be back at 7 am to fish in Seward it made no sense to go back to Anchorage (5 hour round trip) so we started to look for a hotel.  Since the derby was going on the 2 hotels were all booked up.  So we did what a lot of folks do…3 of us spent the night in the rental car – at least it was an Explorer and had some room.  We fished until late afternoon on Friday, rushed back to Anchorage, packed our bags and just made our flight Friday night.  Dog tired…but worth every minute.  I can’t wait to go back. Brian Raines Publisher, TheChesapeakeBay.com http://TheChesapeakeBay.com

Response:

Alaska is definitely ALL it’s cracked up to be.   Last year we fished for king salmon on the Talkeetna River and halibut out of Homer.   We stayed mostly in B&B’s, but rented cabins in several locations.  We were there in late June and early July, and found the weather to be perfect.   There are many good packages, but we just did our own thing with quite a bit of internet research in advance.    It sounds like most of the higher priced lodgings in Anchorage will provide fish storage.  But for us more rustic accomodation seekers, it seems the best advice I’ve gotten so far is the airport storage facility which can be reached at 907-248-3485.   Thanks so much to everyone who has offered advice.  If I can help anyone with Alaska plans, would be glad to.  Marcia

  What kind of prices did you pay for the B&B’s and the cabins? Bill

Response:

The B&B’s we stayed in ranged from $70 to $100 per night, the cabins  were $70 – $125.  These prices were for 2 people, although most places had room for extra people for $10 to $20 each per night.   I’m going with a group of 6 people this summer.   Our costs per night range from $150. to a high of $256. for all 6.   These prices usually include a full breakfast.     Marcia – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –  What kind of prices did you pay for the B&B’s and the cabins? Bill

Response:

Never been to Alaska…..But I’m very interested in going this summer to see the sights and get in some fishing….I hear it is unbelievable! Can someone share information about their trips and make suggestions for someone that has never been there before?  Where in Alaska to go? Motorhome rentals? Lodge rentals? Fishing vacation packages? Fishing Guides? Best time of year to go? Etc. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – When I went to Alaska and fished I had the lodge pack and freeze the fish before I flew out.  Then when I got to my hotel in Anchorage they had a locker that they put the whole box in overnight.  Most hotels have this kind of facility for anglers and hunters.  Ewok I’ll be fishing in Alaska this summer with my family.   We fly home on July 5 and are looking for a cold storage facility in Anchorage where we can store our fish over night before the flight home.  Can you advise us as to a business that would be open to receive our fish on July 4?   Any help you

Response:

Alaska is definitely ALL it’s cracked up to be.   Last year we fished for king salmon on the Talkeetna River and halibut out of Homer.   We stayed mostly in B&B’s, but rented cabins in several locations.  We were there in late June and early July, and found the weather to be perfect.   There are many good packages, but we just did our own thing with quite a bit of internet research in advance.    It sounds like most of the higher priced lodgings in Anchorage will provide fish storage.  But for us more rustic accomodation seekers, it seems the best advice I’ve gotten so far is the airport storage facility which can be reached at 907-248-3485.   Thanks so much to everyone who has offered advice.  If I can help anyone with Alaska plans, would be glad to.  Marcia

Response:

I lead fishing tours in AK every year and the easiest place for your to do overnight storage is at the Anchorage Airport freezer locker.  There is a small fee for this but it is really convenient. If you need to have charters set up or information in the Kenai Penninsula, Homer or highway road to Denali, please feel free to email me at Michael Milne, Owner Outdoor Odyssey

Response:

When I went to Alaska and fished I had the lodge pack and freeze the fish before I flew out.  Then when I got to my hotel in Anchorage they had a locker that they put the whole box in overnight.  Most hotels have this kind of facility for anglers and hunters.  Ewok – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’ll be fishing in Alaska this summer with my family.   We fly home on July 5 and are looking for a cold storage facility in Anchorage where we can store our fish over night before the flight home.  Can you advise us as to a business that would be open to receive our fish on July 4?   Any help you

Response:

Marcia, We fished in Seward two summers ago for a 5 day stretch – mixed up with some business in between.  (Seward is about 2 1/2 hours south of Anchorage)  At the dock there was a company that would vacuum pack your fish, quick freeze and store them and then ship them to you AFTER you left for home.  Worked great for us, even if the fish thawed slightly during shipping they were vacuum packed. We had around 80-100 lbs of halibut and salmon shipped from Alaska to our home on the East Coast in August and it worked great!  I would recommend this course of action highly. Best of luck… Brian Raines Publisher, TheChesapeakeBay.com http://TheChesapeakeBay.com I’ll be fishing in Alaska this summer with my family.   We fly home on July 5 and are looking for a cold storage facility in Anchorage where we can store our fish over night before the flight home.  Can you advise us as to a business that would be open to receive our fish on July 4?   Any help you

Brian Raines Publisher, TheChesapeakeBay.com http://TheChesapeakeBay.com

Response:

I’ll be fishing in Alaska this summer with my family.   We fly home on July 5 and are looking for a cold storage facility in Anchorage where we can store our fish over night before the flight home.  Can you advise us as to a business that would be open to receive our fish on July 4?   Any help you

Response:

Question:

Watching ESPN2 recently I chanced across a young lady (seemingly well accomplished in the fly-fishing arts) guiding the show host on a snowy winter stream near Cooke City Montana.  She was fishing dry flys downstream. According to her "when the water is clear and the fish spook easily this prevents ""lining the fish"".

Hi Hart, I didn’t read any of the other post yet, but I am sure there are some good answers. I know that on smooth water that is moving slowly the fishing can be tough on the surface. I usually add on 3 feet of 6x or 7x tippet with a #16 or 18 dry, like a Spinner, Parachute, Cripple or Sparkle Dun. I get 30 to 50 feet above the fish and cast my fly downstream  ~3 feet above it’s rise form. Stop the rod high and shake down some slack so it won’t drag. We learned this from guide Bob Quigley in the 70s on California’s Hat Creek. This way the first thing the fish sees is the fly! If you rent or buy Doug Swisher 3M video, ‘Advanced Strategies for Selective Trout’, you will see Doug demonstrate presenting a fly from any point 360 degrees to the fish. I think this is a standard technique on any western spring creek? Bill Kiene Kiene’s Fly Shop Sacramento,CA,USA 800/4000FLY www.kiene.com

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Watching ESPN2 recently I chanced across a young lady (seemingly well accomplished in the fly-fishing arts) guiding the show host on a snowy winter stream near Cooke City Montana.  She was fishing dry flys downstream. According to her "when the water is clear and the fish spook easily this prevents ""lining the fish"". Being a new student of the art, everything I read or listen to tells me dry flys Upstream, wet flys up or down stream and nymphing requires years of experience.  Now I wonder how far a trout is seeing upstream.  I have recently experienced "lining the fish" with a pod of three browns while fishing a streamer upstream.  The floating leader alone spooked the fish. Any thoughts on downstream dry fly fishing and range of sight for trout? As a side note: I have caught a couple of lesser fish when allowing the dry fly to float 20 to 30 feet behind me as I moved up stream in the hole.  I don’t consider this a method I wish to regularly adopt but peaks my curiosity about fish sight range. Wayne To fish is human…to release devine.

Response:

The book "Trout and the Fly" by John Goddard offers some interesting insight into a trout’s sight window.   You will line a trout on a downstream drift if the trout does not take the fly and you allow the fly to continue its drift well past the fish. Clint

Response:

Interesting, I started fly fishing in 1948 and find that fishing a dry fly upstream to be the most successful method.  Only in special circumstances where the water is smooth and clear and the trout are "educated" do I use the downstream method. — Ernie Harrison Remove NOSPAM to send E-Mail Selling my Fly Fishing Books Go to: http://users.ccnet.com/~emh – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I started fly fishing in 1952, and the only hard and fast rule I have discovered is that in order to be succesful, you have to adapt your method to suit the current conditions.  As far as dry flies go, I find direct upstream fishing to usually be the least successful method because you will "line" the fish, and drag is difficult to control.   Usually a quartering upstream or side approach is best. If the surface of the water is not smooth, such as a riffle, the downstream method can be quite effective. As far as what other people think of your method, if it is legal, and you are not crowding or otherwise disturbing them, don’t worry about what they think. Tight Lines!!! George

Response:

Ernie, Just goes to show that there are no *right* answers.  Jeez, was I ever bagged when I wrote my first post on this thread.  It’s a miracle I made any sense at all.  Blame it on the Sleemans and keeping bad company (in-laws.) Peter – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Interesting, I started fly fishing in 1948 and find that fishing a dry fly upstream to be the most successful method.  Only in special circumstances where the water is smooth and clear and the trout are "educated" do I use the downstream method. — Ernie Harrison Remove NOSPAM to send E-Mail Selling my Fly Fishing Books Go to: http://users.ccnet.com/~emh I started fly fishing in 1952, and the only hard and fast rule I have discovered is that in order to be succesful, you have to adapt your method to suit the current conditions.  As far as dry flies go, I find direct upstream fishing to usually be the least successful method because you will "line" the fish, and drag is difficult to control.   Usually a quartering upstream or side approach is best. If the surface of the water is not smooth, such as a riffle, the downstream method can be quite effective. As far as what other people think of your method, if it is legal, and you are not crowding or otherwise disturbing them, don’t worry about what they think. Tight Lines!!! George

Response:

_______ Are you sure you’re not a professional troller Mr. Hart because I think you know the subject of dabbling a dry fly downstream. Mr. G. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Watching ESPN2 recently I chanced across a young lady (seemingly well accomplished in the fly-fishing arts) guiding the show host on a snowy winter stream near Cooke City Montana.  She was fishing dry flys downstream. According to her "when the water is clear and the fish spook easily this prevents ""lining the fish"". Being a new student of the art, everything I read or listen to tells me dry flys Upstream, wet flys up or down stream and nymphing requires years of experience.  Now I wonder how far a trout is seeing upstream.  I have recently experienced "lining the fish" with a pod of three browns while fishing a streamer upstream.  The floating leader alone spooked the fish. Any thoughts on downstream dry fly fishing and range of sight for trout? As a side note: I have caught a couple of lesser fish when allowing the dry fly to float 20 to 30 feet behind me as I moved up stream in the hole.  I don’t consider this a method I wish to regularly adopt but peaks my curiosity about fish sight range. Wayne To fish is human…to release devine.

Response:

Wayne Hart: <<Wayne To fish is human…to release devine. Uh oh!  Glad I’m not gonna be around for awhile. Dave L.

Response:

Being a new student of the art, everything I read or listen to tells me dry flys Upstream, wet flys up or down stream and nymphing requires years of experience.  Now I wonder how far a trout is seeing upstream.  I have recently experienced "lining the fish" with a pod of three browns while fishing a streamer upstream.  The floating leader alone spooked the fish.

The library will help: the books of Vince Marinaro include up-to-date experiments on what fish can see and how far (studied since approx. 1875); Leonard Wright’s Fishing the Dry Fly as a Living Insect (about 1973) explains at length a method of fishing a dry caddis across and downstream, and the times when this produces better than other methods. — |  Donald Phillipson, 4180 Boundary Road, Carlsbad Springs,  | |        Ontario, Canada, K0A 1K0, tel. 613 822 0734         |

Response:

Wayne:  I can’t add much to the series of informative replies already posted, but can share my experience that the hooking of trout when floating a dry downstream is trickier than with the upstream or across presentations.  I have always assumed that this is because when you strike, you are pulling the fly right out of the mouth.  When fishing upstream, a strike pulls the fly back into the side of the mouth.  Thus, my hooking rate declines when fishing downstream, even though I try to set the hook more softly. Mark Faulkner – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Being a new student of the art, everything I read or listen to tells me dry flys Upstream, wet flys up or down stream and nymphing requires years of experience.  Now I wonder how far a trout is seeing upstream.  I have recently experienced "lining the fish" with a pod of three browns while fishing a streamer upstream.  The floating leader alone spooked the fish. The library will help: the books of Vince Marinaro include up-to-date experiments on what fish can see and how far (studied since approx. 1875); Leonard Wright’s Fishing the Dry Fly as a Living Insect (about 1973) explains at length a method of fishing a dry caddis across and downstream, and the times when this produces better than other methods. — |  Donald Phillipson, 4180 Boundary Road, Carlsbad Springs,  | |        Ontario, Canada, K0A 1K0, tel. 613 822 0734         |

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – She was fishing dry flys downstream. According to her "when the water is clear and the fish spook easily this prevents ""lining the fish"". Being a new student of the art, everything I read or listen to tells me dry flys Upstream, wet flys up or down stream and nymphing requires years of experience.  Now I wonder how far a trout is seeing upstream.  I have recently experienced "lining the fish" with a pod of three browns while fishing a streamer upstream.  The floating leader alone spooked the fish. Any thoughts on downstream dry fly fishing and range of sight for trout? As a side note: I have caught a couple of lesser fish when allowing the dry fly to float 20 to 30 feet behind me as I moved up stream in the hole.  I don’t consider this a method I wish to regularly adopt but peaks my curiosity about fish sight range.

Hi Wayne, Trout see best in front, and slightly above them.  They have binocular vision and can judge distances very well in about a 30

Question:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <stuff I deletedThen there’s the ‘cruelty’ aspect of industrial meat production,which no doubt has some merit in some cases.  But so what? They’re*animals*.  <more stuff deleted for brevity Actually, the animal rights argument runs a little deeper than just the nastiness of factory farms.  They would probably say that an animal is the experiencing subject of a life and, as such, has a good of its own that is independent of, and unrelated to, any practical good humans derive from its consumption.  Since animals are the experiencing subjects of a life with a good of their own it is wrong (in their view) to kill them for fun or profit. These are not my views necessarily–just some stuff that I picked up in a course on enviromental ethics.  I’m not saying that I agree with them, or that you should.  Just that there’s way more to that side of the argument than the people who inhabit the blood sport newsgroups like this one want to look at (yeah . . . flyfishing’s a blood sport whether you want it to be or not).  There is a strong philosophical foundation in much of the animal rights debate.  Study some of it and you might not be so sure about what you think.  This is called character growth.  It’s practiced by people who haven’t limited how big they want to be. The PETA people are not all the irrational terrorists many in this group would like to make them out to be.  Just as the people here are not all the bloodthirsty yahoos that some PETA folks would like us to be. Though some posts you encounter here gotta make you wonder . . . Pete People Eating Tasty Animals

Response:

<stuff I deletedThen there’s the ‘cruelty’ aspect of industrial meat production,which no doubt has some merit in some cases.  But so what? They’re*animals*.  <more stuff deleted for brevity

Actually, the animal rights argument runs a little deeper than just the nastiness of factory farms.  They would probably say that an animal is the experiencing subject of a life and, as such, has a good of its own that is independent of, and unrelated to, any practical good humans derive from its consumption.  Since animals are the experiencing subjects of a life with a good of their own it is wrong (in their view) to kill them for fun or profit. These are not my views necessarily–just some stuff that I picked up in a course on enviromental ethics.  I’m not saying that I agree with them, or that you should.  Just that there’s way more to that side of the argument than the people who inhabit the blood sport newsgroups like this one want to look at (yeah . . . flyfishing’s a blood sport whether you want it to be or not).  There is a strong philosophical foundation in much of the animal rights debate.  Study some of it and you might not be so sure about what you think.  This is called character growth.  It’s practiced by people who haven’t limited how big they want to be. The PETA people are not all the irrational terrorists many in this group would like to make them out to be.  Just as the people here are not all the bloodthirsty yahoos that some PETA folks would like us to be. Though some posts you encounter here gotta make you wonder . . . Pete

Response:

<stuff I deletedThen there’s the ‘cruelty’ aspect of industrial meat production,which no doubt has some merit in some cases.  But so what? They’re*animals*.  <more stuff deleted for brevity

flyfishing’s a blood sport whether you want it to be or not).  There is a strong philosophical foundation in much of the animal rights debate.

(snipped a lot. . .) The fish get released. I don’t play them until they’re exhausted, not even close. Fish don’t have nerves in the mouth area.  Fish don’t reflect and philosophize a great deal on the existential paradigm. I sometimes wonder if being caught and released might not break up the monotony encountered in a aqueous existence of sucking bugs in a stream. Annie Oakley’s Casting & Blasting Page, shooting and fly fishing links: http://members.tripod.com/~AnnieOakley/CastAndBlast.html Annie’s retired and too busy to be a millionaire. Skip the spam.

Response:

These are not my views necessarily–just some stuff that I picked up in a course on enviromental ethics.  I’m not saying that I agree with them, or that you should.  Just that there’s way more to that side of the argument than the people who inhabit the blood sport newsgroups like this one want to look at (yeah . . . flyfishing’s a blood sport whether you want it to be or not).  There is a strong philosophical foundation in much of the animal rights debate.  

Emotional maybe – but philosophical?  I don’t think so. I know a person who used to belong to PETA and we have had many debates on the subject.  She was opened minded about debating it and realized in the end that most of her arguments were not based on logic.  I married that lady.  She still doesn’t eat meat but OUR son likes nothing better than a thick juicy elk steak. Marty

Response:

I sometimes wonder if being caught and released might not break up the monotony encountered in a aqueous existence of sucking bugs in a stream.

Maybe they view it like humans who run with bulls or some other exhilarating adventure. They may enjoy the challenge(especially if they know they are living in a C&R only stream. How do you know they are not playing with us anglers? Judging by some of the antics I have seen fish pull, that little splash in the face before the return to their space in the stream or making a victory lap of the whole with a leap after they throw your hook. I think about this sometimes. Do you think I spend to much time with trout? regards, Joe Webb Atlanta Macintosh User Group

Response:

These are not my views necessarily–just some stuff that I picked up in a course on enviromental ethics.  I’m not saying that I agree with them, or that you should.  Just that there’s way more to that side of the argument than the people who inhabit the blood sport newsgroups like this one want to look at (yeah . . . flyfishing’s a blood sport whether you want it to be or not).  There is a strong philosophical foundation in much of the animal rights debate.  Study some of it and you might not be so sure about what you think.  This is called character growth.  It’s practiced by people who haven’t limited how big they want to be.

Pete – I have studied what PETA proposes and I disagree with about 99% of it. I find NO strong philosophical foundation to any of the AR drivel. The self righteous statement about character growth at the end of this paragraph is typical of the holier than thou AR propaganda.   The PETA people are not all the irrational terrorists many in this group would like to make them out to be.  Just as the people here are not all the bloodthirsty yahoos that some PETA folks would like us to be. Though some posts you encounter here gotta make you wonder . . . Pete

Pete – If you truly believe that PETA represents a rational approach then go for it, QUIETLY!!!! Regards – DICK

Response:

These are not my views necessarily–just some stuff that I picked up in a course on enviromental ethics.  I’m not saying that I agree with them, or that you should.  Just that there’s way more to that side of the argument than the people who inhabit the blood sport newsgroups like this one want to look at Pete – I have studied what PETA proposes and I disagree with about 99% of it. I find NO strong philosophical foundation to any of the AR drivel

see if your library has a copy of Singers’ "Practical Ethics" which contains several chapters on animals rights vegetarianism etc. I believe he also wrote a book called "Animal Rights". Peter (I think) Singer is a professor of Philosophy (not sure where right now) and bases much of his argument on the well established notion of "utilitarianism". Of course many of the groups like PETA have been infuenced by people such as Singer but lack his control of rhetoric or depth of thought. This is not to say I agree with Singer. Others have argued that animals are outside the normal ‘realm’ of ethics or at least moral law. Singer refers to some of these authors in his book and you can follow those up if you have access to a good (ie university) library. Ralph H remove "take_this_out" for email reply

Response:

see if your library has a copy of Singers’ "Practical Ethics" which contains several chapters on animals rights vegetarianism etc. I believe he also wrote a book called "Animal Rights". Peter (I think) Singer is a professor of Philosophy (not sure where right now) and bases much of his argument on the well established notion of "utilitarianism".

Yes, I’ve read Singer, and am familiar with utilitarianism (simply stated:  do what brings the least pain and the most pleasure). Of course many of the groups like PETA have been infuenced by people such as Singer but lack his control of rhetoric or depth of thought.

Yes.  But the folks who did the dying 1774 – 1783 didn’t have Thomas Paine’s or James Madison’s control of rhetoric or depth of thought either (to use just one example of many possible). This is not to say I agree with Singer. Others have argued that animals are outside the normal ‘realm’ of ethics or at least moral law. Singer refers to some of these authors in his book and you can follow those up if you have access to a good (ie university) library.

Understood.  I don’t agree either.  One excellent author well worth reading is Paul Taylor, a professor (Stanford?) also.  His book "Respect for Nature" is a classic.  Taylor would argue that sports like fishing show a lack of respect for nature.  The explanation for why is complicated and well beyond the scope of a post like this (not sure I could explain it well from memory anyway). My point was–and is–that there is WAY more to this debate than than meets the eye.  Before we reject the arguments out of hand (as some have done to my original post) remember this:  folks who once said that slavery was bad were derided as sanctimonious moralizers too.  AndI guess we know how that debate ended. To conclude too quickly that the "other side" is kooky is to put your opinions in the service of your own comfort.  Life sure is a lot less complicated if you don’t think too hard.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <stuff I deletedThen there’s the ‘cruelty’ aspect of industrial meat production,which no doubt has some merit in some cases.  But so what? They’re*animals*.  <more stuff deleted for brevity Actually, the animal rights argument runs a little deeper than just the nastiness of factory farms.  They would probably say that an animal is the experiencing subject of a life and, as such, has a good of its own that is independent of, and unrelated to, any practical good humans derive from its consumption.  Since animals are the experiencing subjects of a life with a good of their own it is wrong (in their view) to kill them for fun or profit. These are not my views necessarily–just some stuff that I picked up in a course on enviromental ethics.  I’m not saying that I agree with them, or that you should.  Just that there’s way more to that side of the argument than the people who inhabit the blood sport newsgroups like this one want to look at (yeah . . . flyfishing’s a blood sport whether you want it to be or not).  There is a strong philosophical foundation in much of the animal rights debate.  Study some of it and you might not be so sure about what you think.  This is called character growth.  It’s practiced by people who haven’t limited how big they want to be. The PETA people are not all the irrational terrorists many in this group would like to make them out to be.  Just as the people here are not all the bloodthirsty yahoos that some PETA folks would like us to be. Though some posts you encounter here gotta make you wonder . . . Pete Long live P(eople)E(ating)T(asty)A(nimals)

Hank

Response:

If the reincarnationists are right, you may get a chance to find out! —                                                            -dnc- AnnieOakley wrote [snip] – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I sometimes wonder if being caught and released might not break up the monotony encountered in a aqueous existence of sucking bugs in a stream.

Response:

… you are correct to focus on the ‘non-personhood’ question, because this is exactly where the entire discussion hinges.  The animal rights people have made a mental leap that you, me, and probably everyone else in this group won’t (or at least hasn’t).  If you posit that animals are the EXPERIENCING SUBJECTS OF A LIFE and that as such they have a GOOD OF THEIR OWN that is unrelated to their usefulness to humans then the waters become murkier.

restricting the discussion to fish alone I would say the fish have a value beyond their use to fishers or the food value of their flesh. I believe a fish or fish (pl) in the water have a near immeasurable value. I would also agree that being ‘alive’ and having a central nervous system (8^) fish must experience ‘a life’; though what sort of life we can’t really know. I don’t base the value of my angling on fish being of no intrinsic worth and being insensate. I would say I fish because I am a human being and we are natural creatures in that we are products of nature. The natural way of things sees living things using other living things to their own end. I accept this inherent part of my nature. Fishing is an expression of this, my chance to partcipate at the natural level of things. Where I differ with other animals is that rationality of reason gives me foresight to see how my actions my effect the value of fish or of nature as a whole in the future. This governs and influences my actions as a fisher. I don’t divorce myself from nature or myself as the PETA people do rather I ‘dive right in’ to use a related metaphor. Ralph H remove "(take_this_out)" for email reply.

Response:

…but a fish is not a person. The superflurous analogy of slavery and racism dies quickly and easily there.

Yeah but all analogies are superfluous.  The more you want them to be superfluous, the more superfluous they seem. However, you are correct to focus on the ‘non-personhood’ question, because this is exactly where the entire discussion hinges.  The animal rights people have made a mental leap that you, me, and probably everyone else in this group won’t (or at least hasn’t).  If you posit that animals are the EXPERIENCING SUBJECTS OF A LIFE and that as such they have a GOOD OF THEIR OWN that is unrelated to their usefulness to humans then the waters become murkier. Again I say . . . you don’t have to agree, but if you want to be intellectually honest you must concede that there is more to the AR arguments that the simplified arguments "our" side sometimes likes to toss out.  Ralph, I don’t think you’re part of that crowd.  But they’re here. This battle is going to get bigger as the years go by.  Do you think the yahoos will help us win it?  I don’t (yeeeehaaaa . . . let’s go four wheelin’ and tear up some wildflowers!) Pete

Response:

see if your library has a copy of Singers’ "Practical Ethics"  One excellent author well worth reading is Paul Taylor, a professor (Stanford?) also.  His book "Respect for Nature" is a classic.  Taylor would argue that sports like fishing show a lack of respect for nature.  remember this:  folks who once said that slavery was bad were derided as sanctimonious moralizers too.  AndI guess we know how that debate ended.

…but a fish is not a person. The superflurous analogy of slavery and racism dies quickly and easily there. Ralph H remove "take_this_out" for email reply

Response:

Question:

Jess writes: Hello I am going to try flyfishing for stripers here in OK. this spring and I am wondering if I really need a reel with a 200 yd backing capacity ? It seems your tippet would break just from the resistance of the flyline in the water.

                                                                 Thanks                                                                    Jess Jess, you are correct.  ~~150 yards ought to do it…. I’ve had fish go " over the hill" of a rapid and take more than this, but don’t recall landing any of them.  In open water, chase ‘em, in a river, finesse is better. A common method is to let the line go completely slack, the fish will then swim upstream back to you…  Have fun… Alan E. Hoover Anglers’ Rest Powhatan, Va        *the trout teach many, lessons*

Response:

Hello I am going to try flyfishing for stripers here in OK. this spring and I am wondering if I really need a reel with a 200 yd backing capacity ? It seems your tippet would break just from the resistance of the flyline in the water.                                                                  Thanks                                                                    Jess

Response:

Question:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – : : We canoed the Quetico the 9th thru the 13th of this month and I remember : : before going reading some posts by other folks that were to be going that : : week too.  I’d like to compare notes on what your trip was like (fishing, : : Northern Lights, Wolves, Bears, weather, etc).  Anyone care to swap lies? I canoed the Boundary Waters from Sept. 13th – 20th, pretty close to Quetico. Fishing was pretty good (we caught some decent bass), and the weather was outstanding, except for a little rain on Sunday the 15th.  We didn’t see any bears, although we were careful to hang our packs just in case (we saw bear tracks and scat at several of our portages).  We did see moose, bald eagles, beavers, and a lot of other wildlife. The skies were very clear for most of our trip, and I did see the Northern Lights (which was a thrill for me, because I’m from NJ), as well as more stars than I’ve ever seen before. How was Quetico?  This was our first time at BWCA, and we’re trying to think of an equally spectacular place to go next year…. – Scot R.

We had lots of windy, rainy and cool weather so that limited how much messing around in our canoe we did.  We fished from it some one afternoon below a rapid.  Aside from that, we just used the canoe to get in and out.  We took a float plane to and from the ranger sta. at Lac LaCroix and canoed over to McAree Lake.  We camped at 2 places on the north end of the lake.  We heard no wolves, saw no Northern Lights, Moose, Beaver, otters or Deer.  We did see lots of Bald Eagles (15 or so at least), one Grouse and some Loons.  We caught a total of 8 fish (3 Northerns, I Walleye and 4 Smallmouths) and lost about as many.  We lost a ton of tackle bank fishing as close to the bottom as possible (that’s where the book said they are…..on the bottom).  The wind died down one night out of 4 and we had one pretty spectacular sunset.  We averaged seeing about one party a day and saw motorboats everyday on McAree.  That was a little more crowded than I was expecting.  We didn’t paddle down to Rebecca Falls because we heard thru the portage grapevine that the campsites were taken.  We did get to fly over them on the plane trip out and they (2 of them side by side!) looked pretty spectacular and the campsitse were still taken.  I’m glad we went during the "off" season.  I have a feeling that we’d have seen lots more folks 2 or 3 weeks earlier.  You can never predict the weather but I think we’d've caught more fish and seen more wildlife if the weather would’ve been decent.  We would’ve seen the N. Lights on Tues. night too (we compared notes with some other paddlers on the plane to St. Paul afterwords and they saw them on Tues. night, it was clear for them further into Quetico.  They also heard wolves.  Sounds like you guys hit the weather pretty good.  It was still a kick in spite of the shit-o weather. Dave

Response:

: : We canoed the Quetico the 9th thru the 13th of this month and I remember : : before going reading some posts by other folks that were to be going that : : week too.  I’d like to compare notes on what your trip was like (fishing, : : Northern Lights, Wolves, Bears, weather, etc).  Anyone care to swap lies? I canoed the Boundary Waters from Sept. 13th – 20th, pretty close to Quetico. Fishing was pretty good (we caught some decent bass), and the weather was outstanding, except for a little rain on Sunday the 15th.  We didn’t see any bears, although we were careful to hang our packs just in case (we saw bear tracks and scat at several of our portages).  We did see moose, bald eagles, beavers, and a lot of other wildlife. The skies were very clear for most of our trip, and I did see the Northern Lights (which was a thrill for me, because I’m from NJ), as well as more stars than I’ve ever seen before. How was Quetico?  This was our first time at BWCA, and we’re trying to think of an equally spectacular place to go next year…. – Scot R.

Response:

We canoed the Quetico the 9th thru the 13th of this month and I remember before going reading some posts by other folks that were to be going that week too.  I’d like to compare notes on what your trip was like (fishing, Northern Lights, Wolves, Bears, weather, etc).  Anyone care to swap lies? Dave

Response:

: We canoed the Quetico the 9th thru the 13th of this month and I remember : before going reading some posts by other folks that were to be going that : week too.  I’d like to compare notes on what your trip was like (fishing, : Northern Lights, Wolves, Bears, weather, etc).  Anyone care to swap lies? I don’t see any reason why you cannot post your lies right here.  :-) —       .                      *        .    +          .  o        B. Michael Wick      .             ‘     .    +        Carnivorous Vulgarus      .   .     o                http://www.visi.com/~wick/   *   .    ’         +  *            .          *                        *        

Response:

Question:

I am looking for a telephone number (or adress) of a company called Float Tube Unlimited. Thanks in advance                      Thomas — Sender:  Thomas Urbig          Harvard University          Institute for Molecular and Cellular Biology          16 Divinity Ave.          Cambridge, MA 02138          Tel: (USA) 617 495 3716;   Fax:  (USA)  617 496 8726

Response:

Quoting Thomas from a message in rec.outdoors.fishing.fly    <I am looking for a telephone number (or adress) of a company called    <Float Tube Unlimited. Jim Carlisle

Response:

I tried to get a catalog off thier 1-800 #, 3 freak’n times.   NO LUCK. Whats with that company??? I went with Cabela’s. John

Response:

Question:

   My girlfriend (an elementary school teacher) just showed me a wonderful childrens’ book.  It’s called         A River Dream, by Allen Say.    In the book, a little boy in bed at home receives a gift from his uncle: a flybox.  When he opens the flybox, a bunch of live mayflies fly out and disappear out his bedroom window.  He looks out the window, and where once was an ordinary street scene he sees a beautiful mountain stream with a boat.    The little boy gets in the boat and heads downstream, where he encounters his uncle out flyfishing.  The uncle (who practices catch and release, by the way) teaches the little boy to fish, which of course results in the little boy catching a lunker of a rainbow.    The book (as with all Allen Say books) is beautifully illustrated, and the story is well-written.  I highly recommend it for adults and your kids alike!          - Scott —         Scott Wilkinson         Montgomery County, Maryland

Response:

:    My girlfriend (an elementary school teacher) just showed me a : wonderful childrens’ book.  It’s called :       A River Dream, by Allen Say. : the story is well-written.  I highly recommend it for adults and your kids alike! Could you provide the publisher’s name and an ISBN? — Newfoundland and Labrador Science  and Technology Advisory Council                Tel     (709) 738-3400 114 Empire Ave., St. John’s, NF    A1B 1C7      Fax     (709) 738-3276

Response: