Jump to content
Fly Tying


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by SilverCreek

  1. I also own Dan Baileys. 5 years without a problem.
  2. False casting is the correct answer as above. In addition to extending line and changing direction, another reason is to dry the fly by removing water. One should not false cast excessively. It wastes fishing time and can occasionally spook fish. However, I have also continued to false cast when fishing a lake, and I see a surface feeding fish that is moving and feeding. I can run along the shore toward the fish, by keeping the line in the air, and get a cast out as quickly as possible. So another reason to false cast is to keep as much line out and off the ground as possible, when moving to a new location. Otherwise, you would have to drag the line on the ground OR wind the line up; both are not good options when you want to get to a rising fish before it moves away.
  3. Check your private messages for places to stay on the Madison River.
  4. You asked if I live close and that is a yes and no. I live in Wisconsin but my close friend, Jim has a log home and a guest cabin just up from the Raynold's Pass Bridge. His place is the furthest log home you see on the right bank in the photo below. Jim was the owner of Weinbbrenner, the manufacturer of the Gary Borger Wading Boot. He passed away 2 years ago but I have an open invitation to stay at the guest cottage from his wife. Here is Jim fishing the Ross Marigold hole in 2006. He loved the Madison River. Here is Jim and now Carmen's place on the Madison. If you ever fish this area you will recognize the home. I stay in the guest cabin on the right. I also own 28 acres on a Montana spring creek I fish each year. The Three Amigos on the spring creek
  5. Our TU chapter uses 15 of the Albright Topwater combos to teach fly. They are a great for a starter outfit.
  6. For you fly fishing history buffs. Here is the story of the Serendipity pattern as told by Patrick Maxon, who was present when the pattern was invented. Patrick was a member of [email protected], the first internet fly fishing mailing list. He wrote about the origin of the Serendipity in 1995 post. http://jdunns.dyndns.org/cgi-bin/wr-flyfish.pl?440487%20444533%20/home/joel/flyfish/log9502b.txt:flyfish95:76:4046 Ross Merigold was a famous guide who loved the Madison River. His friends have placed a bronze plaque on a boulder beside his favorite place on the Madison now called the Ross Merigold Hole. It can be seen just upstream from the Raynold's Bridge. Anyone who has fished this area will recognize this location. Here's a view of his plaque. This photo is taken from the Raynold's Pass Bridge looking upstream. The second fly fisher on the right is just downstream from the hole and the plaque can be seen on the boulder on the bank, upstream behind him. Here's a close up of the spot.
  7. I am familiar with Waterwisp. James Greene, the owner, was a member of the [email protected] mailing list. I was sent several of the original flies. The flies are patented. Below are some [email protected] posts about waterwisp from Jim Greene http://jdunns.dyndns.org/cgi-bin/wr-flyfish.pl?225053%20226066%20/home/joel/flyfish/log9506e.txt:flyfish95:30:1013 http://jdunns.dyndns.org/cgi-bin/wr-flyfish.pl?764851%20765984%20/home/joel/flyfish/log9709b.txt:flyfish97:24:1133 http://jdunns.dyndns.org/cgi-bin/wr-flyfish.pl?14753%2015762%20/home/joel/flyfish/log9710c.txt:flyfish97:22:1009 The flies are still being made and sold. http://www.waterwisp.com/info.htm The trademark, and I presume the patent also are still valid. I think you can tie them for yourself but selling them would be a no-no. "The current federal status of this trademark filing is REGISTERED AND RENEWED. The correspondent listed for WATERWISP THE ULTIMATE DRY FLY is JAMES A. GREENE of C/O MAYFLY ENTERPRISES, LTD., P.O. BOX 151028, CHEVY CHASE, MD 20815 ." http://www.trademarkia.com/waterwisp-the-ultimate-dry-fly-74634084.html
  8. A fly reel spool should have about 1/4" of "head space" after the backing, line, and leader are put on. The extra room allows for sloppy winding. It also allows for easy removal of the spool from the reel. The problem is that one never knows how much backing is the correct amount to end up with that 1/4" of space. The solution is to wind the fly line on the reel first beginning with the tip end. When the fly line is on, tie the backing on to the end of fly line and wind the backing on the reel spool until you you are 1/4 inch from the spool edge. Then take it all off. Reverse it by tying the backing to the spool arbor and wind the backing and line onto the spool, then tie the leader system to the tip of the fly line. Now your reel is properly filled.
  9. April on a Podcast: http://www.itinerantangler.com/podcasts/2012/01/podcast_april_vokey_will_survi.html
  10. Go to the post office and get a 28" long priority mailing tube. For a 4 pc 9 ft rod a single long tube is sufficient. 4x28" = 9' 4" They are free. The only question is whether a single tube will be sturdy enough. Get 3 tubes and you can use 2 of them to reinforce the main tube. Match the edges and fold two sides of the first spare tube over a corner of the main tube. Cut the spare edge of the outer tube off. Then do the opposite corner with the other spare tube. You'll figure out how. Take a roll of duct tape and any post office will have spare tubes for a repair kit.
  11. I was asked to write the FAQS for [email protected], the first internet fly fishing group back in the 1990's. Although I wrote in back in 1996, it is still ranked by Google as the 6th result when Nymphing is searched. Unfortunately consumer digital photography had just been invented and I could not include photos. Hopefully you will still find it helpful. Google Search Nymphing FAQ My Other FAQs
  12. I tend to use the size of the natural flies that are hatching so size 14 Royal Wulffs are my favorite where I fish. For the same reason I like Grizzly Wulffs in size 14 when PMDs are hatching. Wulffs are "upwing" flies and I believe they work best when mayflies are the dominant hatch. Although Wulffs are attractors and not imitative, I think there is some crossover when mayflies with upwings are hatcching vs when say stoneflies with down wings are the predominant hatch.
  13. These are just over $120 but include the backing, fly line and leader. We use them in our fly fishing classes. http://albrightflyfish.com/items/topwater-outfits/list.htm
  14. Perchjerker and I have offered two differing versions of reality. Both of us are trying to persuade each other and you that our version of the truth is the one that corresponds to reality. Like Perchjerker and others who have commented, I also have several advanced degrees. I have an undergraduate, doctorate degrees and postdoctorate training from Stanford University and the Stanford University School of Medicine. I spent 11 years at Stanford and 3 additional years of postdoctorate education at the University of Utah Medical Center. I was the only Phi Beta Kappa in my undergraduate major, graduated with honors from Stanford, and was Chief Resident at The University of Utah. Stanford requires that all its graduates, regardless of major, have a foundation in the basics of all human knowledge. So non-science majors must take a science courses; and science majors must be fluent in a foreign language, english composition (writing), and western civilization (history and philosophy). I also took courses in logic and boolean algebra. Part of my required freshman Western Civilization course at Stanford was epistemology or the theory of knowledge - how do we determine and know what is true? You will recognize the methods that both Perchjerker and I used to determine what is true. One method of knowing what is true is called rationalism - this is knowledge gained through pure reason. Mathematics would be the "prime" example. All of mathematics is derived from number theory, that 1+1=2. No experiments are needed for mathematical proofs. Even though mathematics is based in pure thought, it accurately describes our universe and how it works. Another method is empiricism - or knowledge gained by experience. It can be formal experiments, but in most cases, it is what philosophers call the correspondence theory or experiential relevance. Does what we believe to be true correspond to what we actually experience? This is where Perchjerker and I differ. Either he has not had the situation where fish were put off by the tippet, OR he has not recognized that a refusal was caused by the fish seeing the tippet. But more than that, he does not believe that other fly fly fishers have had that experience either. Regardless of the experiences of Tom Rosenbauer, Bill Hansford-Steele, John Goddard, Brian Clarke, Davy Wotton, and countless posters to the UKFF Forum, Perchjerker replies, "With reference to the experiences of Tom Rosenbauer, et al., they are simply anecdotal, as they have done nothing to either confirm, or refute, their observations." One could say the same thing about size, shape and color as determining factors in matching the hatch. I have not read of an actual experiment to prove this hypothesis. But when I first read about these three ways to choose the correct fly, I believed it was true, because better fly fishers than I had said this was true in their experience. Using size, shape, and color to matching the hatch corresponded to reality. I take the same view with tippets putting off spooky fish in clear, calm, shallow water; that "Tom Rosenbauer, et al" are far better and more experienced fly fishers than I am and therefore their "experiential relevance" is truer than my own experience or Perchjerker's experience. We learn by either our own or other people's experience. Fly fishing is a sport about which we can learn much by reading about what others have experienced. To be skeptical of some facts because we have not yet personally experienced, or have not recognized that experience, in my opinion, is to refuse being educated by others. For those of you who have been reading along during this discussion, you must decide which version of the truth, you choose to believe.
  15. Please tell me if my interpretation of what you are saying is correct. I think what you mean is that for very picky fish, you will do better if you present the fish from upstream rather than down stream. That is the fly enters the trout's window BEFORE the tippet. I happen to agree that downstream is better than an upstream approach for tough fish and complex currents. However, I also am saying that even with a downstream presentation, fish can spook due to the tippet because there is the surface impression of the tippet and the fly before it enters the window. Both the tippet and the fly causes reflections, refractions and shadows in the mirror and stream bottom that alert the fish that something floating is going to enter the window. I am saying that to prevent this and have a better presentation, you should dull the surface of tippet material and sink the section next to the fly.
  16. You have made three assumptions. The first is that there is always moving water enough to cause drag. The fly fishers in Great Britain fish mainly still waters. So there is no drag. The fish also have a longer time to inspect the fly and any leader that is visible. I believe this is the reason they use Fullers earth sinkants. Secondly, you assume that a fish's eye is comparable to a human eye. That is not so. Fisheye camera lenses are called that because the eye of a fish has a wide field of view. They have spherical lenses and not discoid lenses like a human. They have almost a 180 degree field of view. The spherical lens give them another advantage. Virtually everything is in focus. So they have a wild field of view and a very large depth of field. The illustration below shows the difference between a fish eye on the left and a human eye on the right. "Spherical lens of fish eye (left) protruding through pupil opening of iris. Flattened camera-like lens of human eye (right) sitting below iris and pupil.The human iris is therefore adjustable according to light intensity,while the fish eye iris is not." Because the fish lens is exposed as a hemisphere and not behind the iris, it acts just like a "fish eye camera lens" with almost a 180 degree field of view. It sees virtually everything in front of it. The iris does not limit the field of view of a fish. Here are two illustrations that demonstrate the field of view of a trout. Combine the two and you can see that the fish can see both the water surface and the bottom in front of it simultaneously. This is especially true in shallow water, which is the situation I specifically addressed in moving water. The only "blind" area is immediately under and behind the trout. These illustrations are from "How Trout See" by opthamologist Gordon Brown, MD. So in calm moving shallow water the fish is able to see a shadow on the bottom of the stream in front of them and the water surface simultaneously. When the fish is looking at the surface for food, it also sees the stream bottom. It does not have to choose whether to look up or down. It sees in both directions. So your assumption that it cannot see the bottom if it sees the surface is incorrect. The third factor is that the underside of the water surface acts as a mirror, reflecting the stream and lake bottom. Only the window allows the fish to see the outside world. We know that the circumference of the window decreases as the fish gets closer to he surface and the area of the mirror increases. So in shallow water, even if the fish is on the bottom, the window will be smaller than if the fish were in deeper water. A leader floating on the water surface can be seen as linear string of bright lights dimpling this mirror as it throws a shadow on the stream bottom. Even when a fish concentrates on the water surface for food as in your aquarium example, it sees the window and the mirror surrounding the window. It sees the impression of the insect dimpling the mirror and it sees the tippet dimpling the mirror. This is a point brought up by several posters on the UKFF. So the tippet effects can be seen both outside the window as mirror effects and directly in the window. But there is more than that. Even if the the fish did not have a "fish eye lens", it would still be able to see the bottom reflected in the mirror. In fact, fish can see prey even if some object blocks them from the line of sight. See and example below. It is thought that fish use this to locate prey such as baitfish and crayfish using objects to hide.
  17. I cannot argue against the "evidence" as anecdotal and that no experiments have been done. It is also true that many experienced fly fishers have noted the same phenomena, that heavily fished trout in clear shallow water seem to react to the shadow of a leader on the stream bottom. They also note that when fishing on overcast days, they don't react in the same way. Although the American fly fishers rarely use sinkants and mud, this is not so in other countries. So it is not just the references above that refer to fish being spooked by floating tippets. Thousands of fly fishers in other countries hold that same belief. If you were to go the UKFF Forum, the dominant opinion would be that Fullers Earth "mud" increases the catch rate. There are many discussions on tippets about whether to sink them or not: Within the discussion below is this photo of three tippets with the one in the center being the one that is sunken. The photo is from The trout and the fly - a new approach by Clarke & Goddard. The middle tippet is just about invisible. http://www.flyforums.co.uk/trout-grayling-fishing/159517-importance-tippet.html Here are a few more similar posts. http://www.flyforums.co.uk/general-fly-fishing-discussion/76465-should-i-always-sink-my-leader.html http://www.flyforums.co.uk/general-fly-fishing-discussion/57749-leader-degreasing.html http://www.flyforums.co.uk/general-fly-fishing-discussion/41238-how-do-you-degrease-leaders-2.html What I believe is that the water types we fish form our beliefs about fly fishing. Here in the states, we are fortunate to have lots to water types to fish. Not so in Great Britain. Most, if not all the good rivers are private. Even the lakes are for the most part "pay to fish" waters. They are also heavily fished and the fish are more difficult to take. It should not surprise us that the overwhelming belief of the fly fisher there is that a floating tippet near the fly spooks the fish that they are trying to catch. I submit that either the majority of fly fishers in Great Britain are wasting time and money on sinkants OR that they are correct and that many of the fish they are fishing to are spooked by seeing the floating tippet. I believe they are correct. The fish that they are fishing to are put off by the tippet. You can go to the BB and search for "fullers earth" and you will find hundreds of posts that mention it. I am a believer that micro drag and not seeing the tippet is the major cause of refusals in the USA. My disagreement is that fish are never spooked by seeing the tippet. If you asked that question in GB, the great majority of fly fishers would answer that fish are often spooked by seeing the tippet. The difference is not in the fly fishers but in the fish that they are fishing to. If you mentioned George Harvey's experiment to them, they would say that it does not apply to their fishery. That was and is my original point.
  18. I think the results of George Harvey's experiment depended on the population of fish he tested. Had be performed his experiment on a different population, I think the results would differ. Here is why. Earlier I posted, "This assumption has been tested and there are products that lower the visibility of tippet. Fluorocarbon is one. Fullers earth degreaser and sinkant is another." Several well know fly fishers have come to the same conclusion, that fish are spooked by the shadow of the tippets even when the tippets are not causing any drag. Fuller's Earth "mud" is used as a degreaser and sinkant. Tom Rosenbauer writes in The Orvis Vest Pocket Guide to Leaders, Knots, and Tippets: http://books.google.com/books?id=A8220bxRLXUC&pg=PA75&lpg=PA75&dq=tippet+shadow+spook+fish&source=bl&ots=sDEaeg8VOB&sig=toRPhrqvv-ZG1zcNLAUmPfTPyTA&hl=en&ei=XovFTu-UAaeL2AWy8aS9BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CFAQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q&f=false "…..a leader floating in the surface film cast a much bigger shadow on the bottom of a stream because of the dimple it causes on the water's surface. Does it spook fish? I have always been casual about whether my leader floats or sinks, but I remember fishing the Snake River and its productive Spring Creek with the legendary Vern Bressler. In these waters thrives and unusual leader shy and fussy strain of cutthroat trout. After an hour, I;d meet up with Vern and whine that I couldn't fool any rising trout. "Put any Mud on your leader?" he'd ask. I had to admit I didn't, and after applying some of Vern's top-secret Mud to my leader, I started fooling a lot of fish….. So if you are fishing a dry fly in flat water and suspect that the shadow of your tippet is spooking the trout…….." Bill Hansford-Steele writes in the African Fly-fishing Handbook: http://books.google.com/books?id=XwPJJO4vOJkC&pg=PA144&lpg=PA144&dq=tippet+shadow+spook+fish&source=bl&ots=TanPP-PPaG&sig=W1lEAqZu2ApNYElR058Oh22A1gg&hl=en&ei=GYzFTpWEDajo2QWryuCZBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCYQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=tippet%20shadow%20spook%20fish&f=false "In bright sunlight, the shadow of a tippet can frighten a feeding trout…." Here's a post by Davy Wotton on shadows from tippets spooking fish. He posted this on Sexy loops under his name Davyfly: http://www.sexyloops.co.uk/cgi-bin/theboard_07/ikonboard.cgi?act=Print;f=4;t=12435 "I agree with Chris to some extent but l will also argue that the initial presentation may have been good, it was the subsequent down stream drift and shadow cast on the river bed that spooked the fish, and that one is near on impossible to avoid if at that time the relative angle of the light caused this to happen. I can only related this to you as it is a issue l see 100s of times while guiding from my boat. Its not so easy to see when wade fishing due to the angler low level. Make no mistake it happens !!! For example. We are drifting down to a known zone that l know is holding a number of fish, the cast is made well before we are close to the fish, regardless be it with a dry or nymphs dead drift. I can well see on the river bed the shadow cast by the leader and tippet, nothing you can do about. As it nears the fish you can visibly see those fish become very disturbed and in some cases take off in a hurry. The fly line is not the issue. The same can happen even when the leader and tippet are sunk below the surface. The only answer to this is to fish when the relative angle of light eliminates shadow to be cast, or fish a zone that it is not a issue." I believe tippets can spook fish in the absence of drag just by the shadow of the leader/tippet on the stream bottom. It has nothing to do with drag and everything to do the fact that some fish have associated these shadows with danger. The original question was whether tippets spook fish and that is why I included this in a previous post. Had George Harvey tried the same experiment in the waters that Tom Rosenbauer fished, I think the results would have been different.
  19. Mike, Thanks for your summary. You have captured what I posted.
  20. Lets go back to the original question. The original question was can a tippet put off a fish? George Harvey showed was that some fish are not put off by tippets, not whether any fish are put off by tippets. This is the classic case of trying to prove a negative. To show that no fish are put off by tippets, you need to study every fish. George Harvey's test did not do that and cannot do that. The logical fallacy in believing that George Harvey's experiment show that all fish are not put off by a tippet is called the fallacy of hasty generalization. The premise is, "There are no fish that are put off by a tippet". To disprove the premise, you need to test until you find at least one fish that IS put off by a tippet. To prove the premise, you need to test all the fish to show that none of them are put off by a tippet. To state that this is a fact before testing all the fish is a fallacious conclusion. The actual proof is even more difficult. The proof requires that you test all fish under all water and light conditions. There is already evidence that tippet visibility is important. Otherwise there would be little need to use fluorocarbon leaders. Every time a fly fisher buys a spool of fluorocarbon, they are voting with their wallets that less visible tippets mean more fish. So I believe that tippets matter to some fish, not only in their effect on drag but also in visibility. If you really believe fish do not react to tippets, I suggest you not use fluorocarbon lines and tippet material.
  21. "Your point is well made. However, as I recall, he did this more than once, and got the same results every time; which says that on that stream, it was reproducible, which is also a critical requirement. Unfortunately, it is not known if they were the same fish or not in each test, if, in fact, more than one test was conducted; which bit of info would be helpful." There are two fundamental problems with the experiment. The first is the experimental design, which is to test for the positive and not the negative. The second is the assumption that the population has uniform behavior everywhere. Problem 1 - Note that the experiment is designed to test for the fish that take the beetle. That is the positive result. It is not designed to test for fish that do not take the beetle. If there is a fish in the stream that was put off by the tippet, how would we know? We cannot because the experiment is not designed to test for that. George Harvey wanted to prove that tippets did not matter so that is the experimental design. We assume that the experiment also tests for the negative but when you closely examine the design, it does not Problem 2 - The critical error in logic is in the assumption that the fish that were not bothered by the tippet represent the behavior of every fish in every fishery every where. All one can say is that some of the fish are not bothered by a tippet. That is all that can be said, regardless of the number of times the experiment is repeated. This experiment is different from chemical experiments or experiments in physics. Whether a chemical experiment is performed in NYC or LA should not influence the experiment. However, if you do an experiment as to the behavior of the occupants of NYC vs LA, we would not be surprised if the behavior differs. That is because we are experimenting on biological populations and behavior is not only a matter of "nature"(DNA) but also nurture (environment). Biological studies deal with population distributions around a mean. There is a distribution of behavior; and in the classical case, the distribution follows a bell curve. Since we are considering feeding behavior, lets specifically consider selective feeding. During a heavy hatch, the fish do not suddenly become selective feeders. In fact the change from opportunistic to selective feeding occurs over time; and each individual fish may or may not become a selective feeder, and if the do, they do not become selective in unison. So the population distribution changes over time toward selectivity. But more than that, the "selective" feeders may not be "selective" to the same stage of the emergence. Even when we say a fish is "selective" we need to ask, "selective to what"? Even selectivity is not uniform. This behavior is typical of a population. It is population dynamics. By dynamic, we means non uniform behavior that changes over time. Therefore, we cannot assume a behavior elicited in single experiment on a population, even a reproducible experiment, excludes other behaviors in a population. All we can say is that some of the fish are not bothered by the presence of a large tippet. As long as there are some and probably most of the fish that are not tippet shy, we can catch fish. This also assumes that there could be fish that have degrees of tippet shyness in the population and the less visible the tippet is, we improve our chances of catching these fish. This assumption has been tested and there are products that lower the visibility of tippet. Fluorocarbon is one. Fullers earth degreaser and sinkant is another. Regarding the comment on hook bends and points, I agree that fish look for positives. But this does not exclude the possibilty that the hook is not part of the search pattern for some fish. For the same reasons I gave above, all we can say for certain is that some and probably most fish ignore the hook. We cannot say that all fish everywhere do so. Since we cannot change that fact that flies must have hooks, this isn't as important as whether some fish are put off by seeing the tippet.
  22. IIt is almost always drag and not tippet size that puts off trout. I say almost always because, regardless of George Harvey's experiment, it only proved that for those fish, the tippet was not important. It did not prove that a thick tippet alone cannot put off some fish in some fisheries. His experiment does not fulfill the criteria of a universal test. Having said, there is a relationship between tippet diameter and drag. That relationship is suppleness. The thicker the tippet, the less supple it will be. The second factor in reducing drag is tippet length. The longer a tippet, the longer the drag free drift. So to reduce drag, I first try a longer tippet. That is because I want to use the strongest tippet possible. If that doesn't work, I'll use a thinner AND a longer tippet to eliminate drag. Whether it is drag or very rarely the tippet size, the solution of going to a thinner tippet reduces drag as well as reduces the visibility of the tippet itself. So I use it as option 2.
  23. Hi Ed, The short answer is to practice with 30 feet of fly line outside the guides and work shorter and longer casts from there. The long answer follows. Think of it this way, you should practice the casts that you will use in fishing. The answer to that is, "how far are you going to cast while fishing?" The most important factor in answering that question is how close you can get to the fish before it can detect you. You want to get as close as you can because the closer you are, the more accurately you can place the fly and the more effectively you can mend the line. With careful wading in riffles, you can get very close. But in calm flows, the fish can detect you by the vibrations of wading or by seeing you through the surface window. Assuming you are a careful wader, the limit is then how close you can get before being seen in the window. The answer for most anglers is about 30 feet from the fish. I believe this is why 30 feet of fly line was chosen as the amount needed to make the rod feel best during a cast. Why 30 feet was chosen is explained below. The fish is limited to seeing the world outside the water through a "window" determine by how light enters the water. When the fish is looking at us through it surface window, light that enters the water bends such that, the light that enters at a narrower angle is bend more. Only the light entering at 90 degrees (directly overhead) to the water surface is not bend. This means that the light that enters from objects at a low angle to the water surface is compressed and distorted. The objects below 10 degrees are compressed into the 1% edge of the window. Only when the entry angle is greater than 10 degrees can the object be seen relatively clearly. This is why we need to stay below 10 degrees to be virtually undetectable. The 10 degree line at d=30 feet from the window's edge is about h=5 feet of height. Since we are wading, our profile is lower than our actual height; so by staying 30 feet away from the fish's window, most anglers will below the detection level. We need to be 30 feet from the edge of the window, but the fish is further from us because it is in the center of the window. Also we need to cast above the fish for our fly to land outside the window and not spook the fish, with the current than taking the fly to the fish. The distance of the edge of the window to the center of the window is almost identical to the depth of the fish. So if a fish is r=3 feet deep, the diameter of the window will be about 2r=6 feet and the edge of the window will be about r=3 feet from the fish. If we have a nine foot leader, staying 30 feet away from the window allows us to cast above the fish with 30 feet of fly line outside the guides. So that is why I say that the 30 foot length of fly line was chosen to balance the fly rod. It is the amount of fly line that allows most of us to cast to the fish without being detected in the window. Sometime you cannot get that close to the fish because of water depth, or speed, or an obstruction; and you need to make a longer cast so practice casts with more than 30 feet of fly line. Similarly, you my be making shorter casts in riffles or if you stoop and crawl on your knees to get closer than 30 feet. But 30 feet is what the fly rod is designed for and is the starting point I recommend for the reasons above.
  24. Do a Google search for "dacron backing sighters". these are used for euronymphing mostly for the French and Spanish long line style of direct line nymphing. Trout Predator is the best site for information. The first is a Utube video showing the best method of making them and the next two are some discussions. After making the sighter, barber pole stripe the sighter for increased contrast. Two tone sighters are also possible with optic yellow and optic orange, both striped with black marker. http://www.troutpredator.com/community/thread1902.html http://www.troutpredator.com/community/thread1902.html
  25. I'm sorry to hear that. I've ordered from them at least 5 times in the past with no problems. But I've always called my order in to find out what hooks were availbale. I've not found a cheaper source of TMC hooks.
  • Create New...