Playing A Fish Quest. ?

[Bob]

Hi,

New at this, and would like to see a discussion on
the subject of "playing a fish" when flyfishing for trout.

For "typical" sized New England trout, e.g. rainbows and brookies,
do you folks literally just haul them in (certainly no problem in
overpowering them even with very thin tippet sizes), or do you
like to "play" them some, and tire them a bit, before landing them.

Which is better for the fish' chance of surviving ?

Do you wait until you have a real large sized trout on before "playing him"
off the reel, some ? How large ?

Very interested in the techniques for this used by others.

Thanks,
B.

[Ken Fortenberry]

Bob wrote:
> ...
> Very interested in the techniques for this used by others.

It's not the size of the fish in the fight, it's the size of
the fight in the fish. In other words, it all depends. ;-)

In general bring the fish to hand or net as quickly as possible.
There are times when your equipment is overmatched for one
reason or another, strong current, big fish, strong fish, foul
hooked, in which case you point the rod tip straight at the
fish and break him off rather than continuing a battle that
might prove fatal to the fish. For the kind of fishing you
describe this will hardly ever be an issue unless you're using
a 1wt or a 2wt.

On the other hand, I try to get every fish, no matter how small,
on the reel instead of just pulling them in by hand which would
probably be a little quicker. It just seems like the honorable
thing to do.

--
Ken Fortenberry

[riverman]

"Bob" > wrote in message
om...
> Hi,
>
> New at this, and would like to see a discussion on
> the subject of "playing a fish" when flyfishing for trout.
>
> For "typical" sized New England trout, e.g. rainbows and brookies,
> do you folks literally just haul them in (certainly no problem in
> overpowering them even with very thin tippet sizes), or do you
> like to "play" them some, and tire them a bit, before landing them.
>
> Which is better for the fish' chance of surviving ?
>
> Do you wait until you have a real large sized trout on before "playing
him"
> off the reel, some ? How large ?
>
> Very interested in the techniques for this used by others.

The bottom line is whether or not you are going to catch and release or not.
If you're planning to release them, the rule of thumb is to get them in and
off as quickly as possible, but this is often tempered by how bored you are
from a long, dry spell of no fish. If I get a New England sized fish (10-14
inches) on, and I've been catching them regularly, I'll have that little guy
off the hook in under a minute...drag him in, grab the hook (without
touching the fish), and twist it loose while holding him at the surface of
the water, if possible. No net, no hands, bye bye fish.

If, on the other hand, I haven't caught anything for several hours, I might
let him tug the line for 5 seconds or so, reel him in closer, let him tug a
bit, then reel him in and release him. But he inevitably has the strength to
take off immediately.

OTOH, I've seen 4-5 pound trout fight like banshees for several minutes,
making several (4, 5 or more) runs almost to the backing, finally getting
dragged in on their sides when they were too tired to fart, and then be held
out of the water for 1-2 minutes while we tried to get the hook out of their
mouth from them swallowing it beyond the knot. Then have them be held in the
air for another 15-30 seconds while we untangled them from the net, fiddled
with the camera, posed and took the shot, then finally (FINALLY) placed them
back in the water, looking pretty well stunned. They would sit at our ankles
wondering what the hell hit them for about 5 minutes, then disappear with a
snap of their tail.

Current wisdom says that large fish are a LOT more resiliant than we give
them credit for, although I don't think this is true for smaller ones or
stockies. And there is also evidence that tortured fish like the
aforementioned often end up dying later in the day from the lactic acid
buildup from their workout. So if you intend to release them, play with them
like you'd play with an egg...gently and with caution, and get them released
as quickly as is reasonable.

--riverman

[riverman]

"Bob" > wrote in message
om...
> Hi,
>
> New at this, and would like to see a discussion on
> the subject of "playing a fish" when flyfishing for trout.
>
> For "typical" sized New England trout, e.g. rainbows and brookies,
> do you folks literally just haul them in (certainly no problem in
> overpowering them even with very thin tippet sizes), or do you
> like to "play" them some, and tire them a bit, before landing them.
>
> Which is better for the fish' chance of surviving ?
>
> Do you wait until you have a real large sized trout on before "playing
him"
> off the reel, some ? How large ?
>
> Very interested in the techniques for this used by others.

The bottom line is whether or not you are going to catch and release or not.
If you're planning to release them, the rule of thumb is to get them in and
off as quickly as possible, but this is often tempered by how bored you are
from a long, dry spell of no fish. If I get a New England sized fish (10-14
inches) on, and I've been catching them regularly, I'll have that little guy
off the hook in under a minute...drag him in, grab the hook (without
touching the fish), and twist it loose while holding him at the surface of
the water, if possible. No net, no hands, bye bye fish.

If, on the other hand, I haven't caught anything for several hours, I might
let him tug the line for 5 seconds or so, reel him in closer, let him tug a
bit, then reel him in and release him. But he inevitably has the strength to
take off immediately.

OTOH, I've seen 4-5 pound trout fight like banshees for several minutes,
making several (4, 5 or more) runs almost to the backing, finally getting
dragged in on their sides when they were too tired to fart, and then be held
out of the water for 1-2 minutes while we tried to get the hook out of their
mouth from them swallowing it beyond the knot. Then have them be held in the
air for another 15-30 seconds while we untangled them from the net, fiddled
with the camera, posed and took the shot, then finally (FINALLY) placed them
back in the water, looking pretty well stunned. They would sit at our ankles
wondering what the hell hit them for about 5 minutes, then disappear with a
snap of their tail.

Current wisdom says that large fish are a LOT more resiliant than we give
them credit for, although I don't think this is true for smaller ones or
stockies. And there is also evidence that tortured fish like the
aforementioned often end up dying later in the day from the lactic acid
buildup from their workout. So if you intend to release them, play with them
like you'd play with an egg...gently and with caution, and get them released
as quickly as is reasonable.

--riverman

[North Star]

To be safe, it would be wisest to catch and release as soon as absolutely
possible, but the colder the water, the less you have to worry.

In the spring, I often get Lake Trout on the fly rod and those brutes can
put up a terrific fight. The fight usually last a long time (taking line -
giving it back - and taking it out again), and after pictures and admiring
their beauty, they are good to go - no problem. When the water warms up
considerably, its another story. On a lake where a summer thermocline
develops, those fish are spent by the time you get them in the boat. I have
spent up to 15 minutes reviving a lake trout when the surface temperature of
the water was over 70.


"Bob" > wrote in message
om...
> Hi,
>
> New at this, and would like to see a discussion on
> the subject of "playing a fish" when flyfishing for trout.
>
> For "typical" sized New England trout, e.g. rainbows and brookies,
> do you folks literally just haul them in (certainly no problem in
> overpowering them even with very thin tippet sizes), or do you
> like to "play" them some, and tire them a bit, before landing them.
>
> Which is better for the fish' chance of surviving ?
>
> Do you wait until you have a real large sized trout on before "playing
him"
> off the reel, some ? How large ?
>
> Very interested in the techniques for this used by others.
>
> Thanks,
> B.

[North Star]

To be safe, it would be wisest to catch and release as soon as absolutely
possible, but the colder the water, the less you have to worry.

In the spring, I often get Lake Trout on the fly rod and those brutes can
put up a terrific fight. The fight usually last a long time (taking line -
giving it back - and taking it out again), and after pictures and admiring
their beauty, they are good to go - no problem. When the water warms up
considerably, its another story. On a lake where a summer thermocline
develops, those fish are spent by the time you get them in the boat. I have
spent up to 15 minutes reviving a lake trout when the surface temperature of
the water was over 70.


"Bob" > wrote in message
om...
> Hi,
>
> New at this, and would like to see a discussion on
> the subject of "playing a fish" when flyfishing for trout.
>
> For "typical" sized New England trout, e.g. rainbows and brookies,
> do you folks literally just haul them in (certainly no problem in
> overpowering them even with very thin tippet sizes), or do you
> like to "play" them some, and tire them a bit, before landing them.
>
> Which is better for the fish' chance of surviving ?
>
> Do you wait until you have a real large sized trout on before "playing
him"
> off the reel, some ? How large ?
>
> Very interested in the techniques for this used by others.
>
> Thanks,
> B.

[Willi]

Ken Fortenberry wrote:


> On the other hand, I try to get every fish, no matter how small,
> on the reel instead of just pulling them in by hand which would
> probably be a little quicker. It just seems like the honorable
> thing to do.
>



More honorable to use a method that in some situations is less efficient
and results in a longer fight?

Strange choice of words. Pretentious, misguided, rigid, elitist, or
..... (not that I think it's a "bad" thing to do) but honorable?

Maybe it does say something about how you view honor?

Willi

[Willi]

Ken Fortenberry wrote:


> On the other hand, I try to get every fish, no matter how small,
> on the reel instead of just pulling them in by hand which would
> probably be a little quicker. It just seems like the honorable
> thing to do.
>



More honorable to use a method that in some situations is less efficient
and results in a longer fight?

Strange choice of words. Pretentious, misguided, rigid, elitist, or
..... (not that I think it's a "bad" thing to do) but honorable?

Maybe it does say something about how you view honor?

Willi

[Ken Fortenberry]

Willi wrote:
> Ken Fortenberry wrote:
>> On the other hand, I try to get every fish, no matter how small,
>> on the reel instead of just pulling them in by hand which would
>> probably be a little quicker. It just seems like the honorable
>> thing to do.
>
> More honorable to use a method that in some situations is less efficient
> and results in a longer fight?
>
> Strange choice of words. Pretentious, misguided, rigid, elitist, or
> .... (not that I think it's a "bad" thing to do) but honorable?
>
> Maybe it does say something about how you view honor?

I try to honor the fish, which would generally mean bonking them
on the head and eating their flesh while thanking the fish spirit
for sustenance. In terms of catch and release, I try to honor the
fish by catching them properly, with respect, and releasing them
them same way. For me, catching them properly means getting them
on the reel.

YMMV.

--
Ken Fortenberry

[Ken Fortenberry]

Willi wrote:
> Ken Fortenberry wrote:
>> On the other hand, I try to get every fish, no matter how small,
>> on the reel instead of just pulling them in by hand which would
>> probably be a little quicker. It just seems like the honorable
>> thing to do.
>
> More honorable to use a method that in some situations is less efficient
> and results in a longer fight?
>
> Strange choice of words. Pretentious, misguided, rigid, elitist, or
> .... (not that I think it's a "bad" thing to do) but honorable?
>
> Maybe it does say something about how you view honor?

I try to honor the fish, which would generally mean bonking them
on the head and eating their flesh while thanking the fish spirit
for sustenance. In terms of catch and release, I try to honor the
fish by catching them properly, with respect, and releasing them
them same way. For me, catching them properly means getting them
on the reel.

YMMV.

--
Ken Fortenberry

[Tim J.]

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote...
> Bob wrote:
> > ...
> > Very interested in the techniques for this used by others.
>
> It's not the size of the fish in the fight, it's the size of
> the fight in the fish. In other words, it all depends. ;-)
>
> In general bring the fish to hand or net as quickly as possible.
> There are times when your equipment is overmatched for one
> reason or another, strong current, big fish, strong fish, foul
> hooked, in which case you point the rod tip straight at the
> fish and break him off rather than continuing a battle that
> might prove fatal to the fish. For the kind of fishing you
> describe this will hardly ever be an issue unless you're using
> a 1wt or a 2wt.
>
> On the other hand, I try to get every fish, no matter how small,
> on the reel instead of just pulling them in by hand which would
> probably be a little quicker. It just seems like the honorable
> thing to do.

I prefer to get the fish in as fast as possible, based on fish size, fight, and
tippet strength, and unhook them at the water with a twist of the hook. Very
rarely do I get a fish onto the reel in the smaller streams I frequent. I think
it would place undo stress on the smaller fish while I took the time to reel in
slack line. When I'm alone, I quit taking so many photos of the fish I catch
after I stressed one more than I liked last year.
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

[Tim J.]

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote...
> Bob wrote:
> > ...
> > Very interested in the techniques for this used by others.
>
> It's not the size of the fish in the fight, it's the size of
> the fight in the fish. In other words, it all depends. ;-)
>
> In general bring the fish to hand or net as quickly as possible.
> There are times when your equipment is overmatched for one
> reason or another, strong current, big fish, strong fish, foul
> hooked, in which case you point the rod tip straight at the
> fish and break him off rather than continuing a battle that
> might prove fatal to the fish. For the kind of fishing you
> describe this will hardly ever be an issue unless you're using
> a 1wt or a 2wt.
>
> On the other hand, I try to get every fish, no matter how small,
> on the reel instead of just pulling them in by hand which would
> probably be a little quicker. It just seems like the honorable
> thing to do.

I prefer to get the fish in as fast as possible, based on fish size, fight, and
tippet strength, and unhook them at the water with a twist of the hook. Very
rarely do I get a fish onto the reel in the smaller streams I frequent. I think
it would place undo stress on the smaller fish while I took the time to reel in
slack line. When I'm alone, I quit taking so many photos of the fish I catch
after I stressed one more than I liked last year.
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

[Willi]

Ken Fortenberry wrote:


>
> I try to honor the fish, which would generally mean bonking them
> on the head and eating their flesh while thanking the fish spirit
> for sustenance. In terms of catch and release, I try to honor the
> fish by catching them properly, with respect, and releasing them
> them same way. For me, catching them properly means getting them
> on the reel.
>
> YMMV.
>


That all sounds very cute.


"properly" another strange word.


I'm not sure how putting the fish on the reel if it results in taking
longer to land it fits in with "honor the fish" and treating them "with
respect." Sounds to me that it's just somehow more satisfying to YOU or
somehow fits in with some image you have of YOURSELF. (Which is fine
with me but calling it "proper" and "honorable" ???????)

Willi

[Willi]

Ken Fortenberry wrote:


>
> I try to honor the fish, which would generally mean bonking them
> on the head and eating their flesh while thanking the fish spirit
> for sustenance. In terms of catch and release, I try to honor the
> fish by catching them properly, with respect, and releasing them
> them same way. For me, catching them properly means getting them
> on the reel.
>
> YMMV.
>


That all sounds very cute.


"properly" another strange word.


I'm not sure how putting the fish on the reel if it results in taking
longer to land it fits in with "honor the fish" and treating them "with
respect." Sounds to me that it's just somehow more satisfying to YOU or
somehow fits in with some image you have of YOURSELF. (Which is fine
with me but calling it "proper" and "honorable" ???????)

Willi

[Ken Fortenberry]

Willi wrote:
> Ken Fortenberry wrote:
>> I try to honor the fish, which would generally mean bonking them
>> on the head and eating their flesh while thanking the fish spirit
>> for sustenance. In terms of catch and release, I try to honor the
>> fish by catching them properly, with respect, and releasing them
>> them same way. For me, catching them properly means getting them
>> on the reel.
>>
>> YMMV.
>
> That all sounds very cute.
>
> "properly" another strange word.
>
> I'm not sure how putting the fish on the reel if it results in taking
> longer to land it fits in with "honor the fish" and treating them "with
> respect." Sounds to me that it's just somehow more satisfying to YOU or
> somehow fits in with some image you have of YOURSELF. (Which is fine
> with me but calling it "proper" and "honorable" ???????)

I like to do things right, and for me getting the fish, no matter
how small, on the reel is right, meet, proper and honorable. I
don't ever have much slack line out of the reel. That's one of the
things you learn as you get better at this fly fishing thing, so
the difference between pulling in the line by hand and taking up
the slack to play the fish "right" is negligible.

Respecting the fish by honoring the sport of fly fishing, or strange
fetish of an elitist snob. Call it whatever you want. That's how I
do things and if you want to disparage my motives, well that's just
roff, isn't it ?

--
Ken Fortenberry

[Ken Fortenberry]

Willi wrote:
> Ken Fortenberry wrote:
>> I try to honor the fish, which would generally mean bonking them
>> on the head and eating their flesh while thanking the fish spirit
>> for sustenance. In terms of catch and release, I try to honor the
>> fish by catching them properly, with respect, and releasing them
>> them same way. For me, catching them properly means getting them
>> on the reel.
>>
>> YMMV.
>
> That all sounds very cute.
>
> "properly" another strange word.
>
> I'm not sure how putting the fish on the reel if it results in taking
> longer to land it fits in with "honor the fish" and treating them "with
> respect." Sounds to me that it's just somehow more satisfying to YOU or
> somehow fits in with some image you have of YOURSELF. (Which is fine
> with me but calling it "proper" and "honorable" ???????)

I like to do things right, and for me getting the fish, no matter
how small, on the reel is right, meet, proper and honorable. I
don't ever have much slack line out of the reel. That's one of the
things you learn as you get better at this fly fishing thing, so
the difference between pulling in the line by hand and taking up
the slack to play the fish "right" is negligible.

Respecting the fish by honoring the sport of fly fishing, or strange
fetish of an elitist snob. Call it whatever you want. That's how I
do things and if you want to disparage my motives, well that's just
roff, isn't it ?

--
Ken Fortenberry

[Tim J.]

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote...
> Willi wrote:
> > Ken Fortenberry wrote:
> >> I try to honor the fish, which would generally mean bonking them
> >> on the head and eating their flesh while thanking the fish spirit
> >> for sustenance. In terms of catch and release, I try to honor the
> >> fish by catching them properly, with respect, and releasing them
> >> them same way. For me, catching them properly means getting them
> >> on the reel.
> >>
> >> YMMV.
> >
> > That all sounds very cute.
> >
> > "properly" another strange word.
> >
> > I'm not sure how putting the fish on the reel if it results in taking
> > longer to land it fits in with "honor the fish" and treating them "with
> > respect." Sounds to me that it's just somehow more satisfying to YOU or
> > somehow fits in with some image you have of YOURSELF. (Which is fine
> > with me but calling it "proper" and "honorable" ???????)
>
> I like to do things right, and for me getting the fish, no matter
> how small, on the reel is right, meet, proper and honorable. I
> don't ever have much slack line out of the reel. That's one of the
> things you learn as you get better at this fly fishing thing, so
> the difference between pulling in the line by hand and taking up
> the slack to play the fish "right" is negligible.
>
> Respecting the fish by honoring the sport of fly fishing,

You lost me on that one. . .

> or strange
> fetish of an elitist snob. Call it whatever you want. That's how I
> do things and if you want to disparage my motives, well that's just
> roff, isn't it ?

Okay, you got me back. That last sentence alone pegs the irony meter. ;-)
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

[Tim J.]

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote...
> Willi wrote:
> > Ken Fortenberry wrote:
> >> I try to honor the fish, which would generally mean bonking them
> >> on the head and eating their flesh while thanking the fish spirit
> >> for sustenance. In terms of catch and release, I try to honor the
> >> fish by catching them properly, with respect, and releasing them
> >> them same way. For me, catching them properly means getting them
> >> on the reel.
> >>
> >> YMMV.
> >
> > That all sounds very cute.
> >
> > "properly" another strange word.
> >
> > I'm not sure how putting the fish on the reel if it results in taking
> > longer to land it fits in with "honor the fish" and treating them "with
> > respect." Sounds to me that it's just somehow more satisfying to YOU or
> > somehow fits in with some image you have of YOURSELF. (Which is fine
> > with me but calling it "proper" and "honorable" ???????)
>
> I like to do things right, and for me getting the fish, no matter
> how small, on the reel is right, meet, proper and honorable. I
> don't ever have much slack line out of the reel. That's one of the
> things you learn as you get better at this fly fishing thing, so
> the difference between pulling in the line by hand and taking up
> the slack to play the fish "right" is negligible.
>
> Respecting the fish by honoring the sport of fly fishing,

You lost me on that one. . .

> or strange
> fetish of an elitist snob. Call it whatever you want. That's how I
> do things and if you want to disparage my motives, well that's just
> roff, isn't it ?

Okay, you got me back. That last sentence alone pegs the irony meter. ;-)
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

[Larry L]

"Bob" > wrote

> Do you wait until you have a real large sized trout on before "playing
him"
> off the reel, some ? How large ?
>


I find "the fight" boring and just want to get it over with smaller fish.
I often give them some slack and hope they shake off. If they don't I hand
strip them in quickly and try to get the hook twisted out while they are
still in the water, usually the slack water in my lee as I wade.

Big fish can be "fun" to fight, i.e. it can be a real challenge without a
certain outcome. In those cases I still try to get the fish in and
released ASAP but it will require getting the fish on the reel, trying to
keep him off balance with pressure from varying angles, and moving with him
to keep a short, move controllable line. All the pressure my tackle can
handle is used, I'd rather lose one to a broken tippet than stress him too
much, but 5X will stand one hell of a pull these days. And I try to use
any advantage of terrain I can spot, certainly avoid letting the fish go
where he thinks is a good battleground. For example, I like the last part
of the fight to be in slack water so that the fish can't use current to her
advantage.

In no case, big, little, or in between, do I "play them longer" for "the
fun of it" Get 'em in and released as fast as you can, the fish will let
you know if you need the reel as line goes zinging through your hand, and
you dance with the excess you lazily let dangle at your feet. <g> The
definition of big fish is one where "landing ASAP" is still after a long,
uncertain, fight, often a 16" fish will have more spunk than a 20" Another
definition? I am often happy to see a small fish get off, I can't remember
having that emotion when a big one beat me <G>

One last note. I often fail to do this, but never fail to gain when I do.
Fish for ALL fish like they were trophy fish. It develops good habits, like
planning the approach and scouting likely escape routes your fish will try,
before the cast, and NOT having excess line tangled round your feet. :-)

[Larry L]

"Bob" > wrote

> Do you wait until you have a real large sized trout on before "playing
him"
> off the reel, some ? How large ?
>


I find "the fight" boring and just want to get it over with smaller fish.
I often give them some slack and hope they shake off. If they don't I hand
strip them in quickly and try to get the hook twisted out while they are
still in the water, usually the slack water in my lee as I wade.

Big fish can be "fun" to fight, i.e. it can be a real challenge without a
certain outcome. In those cases I still try to get the fish in and
released ASAP but it will require getting the fish on the reel, trying to
keep him off balance with pressure from varying angles, and moving with him
to keep a short, move controllable line. All the pressure my tackle can
handle is used, I'd rather lose one to a broken tippet than stress him too
much, but 5X will stand one hell of a pull these days. And I try to use
any advantage of terrain I can spot, certainly avoid letting the fish go
where he thinks is a good battleground. For example, I like the last part
of the fight to be in slack water so that the fish can't use current to her
advantage.

In no case, big, little, or in between, do I "play them longer" for "the
fun of it" Get 'em in and released as fast as you can, the fish will let
you know if you need the reel as line goes zinging through your hand, and
you dance with the excess you lazily let dangle at your feet. <g> The
definition of big fish is one where "landing ASAP" is still after a long,
uncertain, fight, often a 16" fish will have more spunk than a 20" Another
definition? I am often happy to see a small fish get off, I can't remember
having that emotion when a big one beat me <G>

One last note. I often fail to do this, but never fail to gain when I do.
Fish for ALL fish like they were trophy fish. It develops good habits, like
planning the approach and scouting likely escape routes your fish will try,
before the cast, and NOT having excess line tangled round your feet. :-)

[rw]

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
>
> I like to do things right, and for me getting the fish, no matter
> how small, on the reel is right, meet, proper and honorable.

I can't get this picture out of my mind -- of you in your goofy hat and
with your fussy, fancy-pants tackle, playing a two-inch brook trout on
the reel.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[rw]

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
>
> I like to do things right, and for me getting the fish, no matter
> how small, on the reel is right, meet, proper and honorable.

I can't get this picture out of my mind -- of you in your goofy hat and
with your fussy, fancy-pants tackle, playing a two-inch brook trout on
the reel.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[Don Phillipson]

"Bob" > wrote in message
om...

> For "typical" sized New England trout, e.g. rainbows and brookies,
> do you folks literally just haul them in (certainly no problem in
> overpowering them even with very thin tippet sizes), or do you
> like to "play" them some, and tire them a bit, before landing them.
>
> Which is better for the fish' chance of surviving ?

Fish survival on release seems to depend on the
X minutes it takes to disperse Y units of lactic
acid built up when fighting before release. If you
plan to release the fish alive, presumably playing
it faster allows less time for lactic acid to increase
i.e. Y has a smaller value so X does too.

A generation ago, experienced anglers wrote that
a fish should be played until it was so exhausted
it could not maintain itself upright, but floated on
its back or side. This may have been applied to
trout from traditional salmon fishing (cf. the
unrelated independent rule of thumb of one minute
per pound: only a skilled angler could bring a
12-pound salmon to hand in less than 12 minutes.)

Both doctrines now seem to be obsolete. Salmon
can be landed much faster than that but most
two-pound trout need more than two minutes
playing before you can either release them gently
or bag them for the pot. If you are going to keep
and eat your catch, perhaps you treat the fish
less roughly i.e. play it longer.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

[Ken Fortenberry]

rw wrote:
> Ken Fortenberry wrote:
>>
>> I like to do things right, and for me getting the fish, no matter
>> how small, on the reel is right, meet, proper and honorable.
>
> I can't get this picture out of my mind -- of you in your goofy hat and
> with your fussy, fancy-pants tackle, playing a two-inch brook trout on
> the reel.

I don't know whether to be flattered or creeped out.

--
Ken Fortenberry

[Ken Fortenberry]

rw wrote:
> Ken Fortenberry wrote:
>>
>> I like to do things right, and for me getting the fish, no matter
>> how small, on the reel is right, meet, proper and honorable.
>
> I can't get this picture out of my mind -- of you in your goofy hat and
> with your fussy, fancy-pants tackle, playing a two-inch brook trout on
> the reel.

I don't know whether to be flattered or creeped out.

--
Ken Fortenberry

[Ken Fortenberry]

Tim J. wrote:
> "Ken Fortenberry" wrote...
>>Respecting the fish by honoring the sport of fly fishing,
>
> You lost me on that one. . .

For me fly fishing is a very important part of who I am and
how I make sense of the world around me. Norman Maclean had
it right when he said there is no clear line between religion
and fly fishing. For me, words like honorable, properly and
respect are not "strange" words to associate with fly fishing.

--
Ken Fortenberry

[Ken Fortenberry]

Tim J. wrote:
> "Ken Fortenberry" wrote...
>>Respecting the fish by honoring the sport of fly fishing,
>
> You lost me on that one. . .

For me fly fishing is a very important part of who I am and
how I make sense of the world around me. Norman Maclean had
it right when he said there is no clear line between religion
and fly fishing. For me, words like honorable, properly and
respect are not "strange" words to associate with fly fishing.

--
Ken Fortenberry

[Wolfgang]

"Ken Fortenberry" > wrote in
message ...
> Tim J. wrote:
> > "Ken Fortenberry" wrote...
> >>Respecting the fish by honoring the sport of fly fishing,
> >
> > You lost me on that one. . .
>
> For me fly fishing is a very important part of who I am and
> how I make sense of the world around me.

Thus demonstrating that you should find a less intellectually
demanding avocation.

> Norman Maclean had
> it right when he said there is no clear line between religion
> and fly fishing.

Exactly......um.....except he never said that.

> For me, words like honorable, properly and
> respect are not "strange" words to associate with fly fishing.

I don't think anyone here would have any trouble associating words
like honorable, properly or respect with fly fishing. It's you
insistence that they apply somehow to YOU, whether through fly fishing
or anything else, that taints them.

Wolfgang

[Wolfgang]

"Ken Fortenberry" > wrote in
message ...
> Tim J. wrote:
> > "Ken Fortenberry" wrote...
> >>Respecting the fish by honoring the sport of fly fishing,
> >
> > You lost me on that one. . .
>
> For me fly fishing is a very important part of who I am and
> how I make sense of the world around me.

Thus demonstrating that you should find a less intellectually
demanding avocation.

> Norman Maclean had
> it right when he said there is no clear line between religion
> and fly fishing.

Exactly......um.....except he never said that.

> For me, words like honorable, properly and
> respect are not "strange" words to associate with fly fishing.

I don't think anyone here would have any trouble associating words
like honorable, properly or respect with fly fishing. It's you
insistence that they apply somehow to YOU, whether through fly fishing
or anything else, that taints them.

Wolfgang

[rw]

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
> Tim J. wrote:
>
>> "Ken Fortenberry" wrote...
>>
>>> Respecting the fish by honoring the sport of fly fishing,
>>
>>
>> You lost me on that one. . .
>
>
> For me fly fishing is a very important part of who I am and
> how I make sense of the world around me. Norman Maclean had
> it right when he said there is no clear line between religion
> and fly fishing. For me, words like honorable, properly and
> respect are not "strange" words to associate with fly fishing.

I loathe this style of quasi-mystical navel-gazing elitist bull****.
This is from someone who claims that the essence of flyfishing is
casting -- with a T&T rod, of course. :-) Flyfishing is a blood sport.
It can be done well (which requires years of practice, aside from a few
rare naturals), it can be done poorly, or, as is the case with most of
us, it can be done with hopeful and striving mediocrity. It has
absolutely nothing in common with religion.

Ken has a right to his point of view, and I have a right to say it's a
pile of self righteous crap.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[rw]

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
> Tim J. wrote:
>
>> "Ken Fortenberry" wrote...
>>
>>> Respecting the fish by honoring the sport of fly fishing,
>>
>>
>> You lost me on that one. . .
>
>
> For me fly fishing is a very important part of who I am and
> how I make sense of the world around me. Norman Maclean had
> it right when he said there is no clear line between religion
> and fly fishing. For me, words like honorable, properly and
> respect are not "strange" words to associate with fly fishing.

I loathe this style of quasi-mystical navel-gazing elitist bull****.
This is from someone who claims that the essence of flyfishing is
casting -- with a T&T rod, of course. :-) Flyfishing is a blood sport.
It can be done well (which requires years of practice, aside from a few
rare naturals), it can be done poorly, or, as is the case with most of
us, it can be done with hopeful and striving mediocrity. It has
absolutely nothing in common with religion.

Ken has a right to his point of view, and I have a right to say it's a
pile of self righteous crap.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[Ken Fortenberry]

Wolfgang wrote:
> ...
> I don't think anyone here ...

See, there you go again. Why would you presume to speak
for anyone here other than yourself ? Are you such a
Usenet psychopath that you cannot post your nasty insults
here without the support of a circle jerk ?

Here's news for you Wolfie, even though you have a large
audience, you're masturbating all by your little lonesome.

--
Ken Fortenberry

[Ken Fortenberry]

Wolfgang wrote:
> ...
> I don't think anyone here ...

See, there you go again. Why would you presume to speak
for anyone here other than yourself ? Are you such a
Usenet psychopath that you cannot post your nasty insults
here without the support of a circle jerk ?

Here's news for you Wolfie, even though you have a large
audience, you're masturbating all by your little lonesome.

--
Ken Fortenberry

[Peter A. Collin]

Bob wrote:
> Hi,
>
> New at this, and would like to see a discussion on
> the subject of "playing a fish" when flyfishing for trout.
>
> For "typical" sized New England trout, e.g. rainbows and brookies,
> do you folks literally just haul them in (certainly no problem in
> overpowering them even with very thin tippet sizes), or do you
> like to "play" them some, and tire them a bit, before landing them.
>
> Which is better for the fish' chance of surviving ?
>
> Do you wait until you have a real large sized trout on before "playing him"
> off the reel, some ? How large ?
>
> Very interested in the techniques for this used by others.
>
> Thanks,
> B.
A typical new England trout, you pretty much winch onto the bank. An 8
to ten inch trout can be dangled from a 5X tippet without breaking it.
that is the average trout i got when i lived there.

Pete Collin

[Peter A. Collin]

Bob wrote:
> Hi,
>
> New at this, and would like to see a discussion on
> the subject of "playing a fish" when flyfishing for trout.
>
> For "typical" sized New England trout, e.g. rainbows and brookies,
> do you folks literally just haul them in (certainly no problem in
> overpowering them even with very thin tippet sizes), or do you
> like to "play" them some, and tire them a bit, before landing them.
>
> Which is better for the fish' chance of surviving ?
>
> Do you wait until you have a real large sized trout on before "playing him"
> off the reel, some ? How large ?
>
> Very interested in the techniques for this used by others.
>
> Thanks,
> B.
A typical new England trout, you pretty much winch onto the bank. An 8
to ten inch trout can be dangled from a 5X tippet without breaking it.
that is the average trout i got when i lived there.

Pete Collin

[Wolfgang]

"Ken Fortenberry" > wrote in message
m...
> Wolfgang wrote:
> > ...
> > I don't think anyone here ...
>
> See, there you go again. Why would you presume to speak
> for anyone here other than yourself ?

Because:
A: Many have already expressed themselves quite clearly in stating their
contempt for you. No one can go wrong in referring to that contempt or the
fact that you have earned it.

B: Many others have clearly demonstrated that, like you, they are incapable
of expressing themselves in a comprehensible fashion. Nevertheless, they
too deserve to be heard, or at least represented.

C: Human are social animals. While watching others slap you around is
immensely satisfying, one can hardly be blamed for taking the opportunity to
twist your nose one's self occasionally.

D: Why not?

> Are you such a
> Usenet psychopath that you cannot post your nasty insults
> here without the support of a circle jerk ?
>
> Here's news for you Wolfie, even though you have a large
> audience, you're masturbating all by your little lonesome.

Fascinating that you've gotten to the point where you can't keep
masturbation off your mind whenever you think of me. So, the obvious
question is....do Mark, Jennifer, Jeff, and Wayno and I show up
collectively, one at a time, or in various other combinations in your
fantasies? I think it would be an interesting exercise for you to write a
few of them up some time and post them to ROFF. God knows you could use the
practice. And, speaking of which.......

If the following sentence looks a bit familiar, that's a good sign.

If you aspire to be a writer some day, it would help immensely if you were
to become a competent reader first.

Interested in knowing what Maclean said in the opening of "A River Runs
Through It"?

Wolfgang
yes, we all know the fool is dying to know but hasn't got the good sense to
ask. :)

[Wolfgang]

"Ken Fortenberry" > wrote in message
m...
> Wolfgang wrote:
> > ...
> > I don't think anyone here ...
>
> See, there you go again. Why would you presume to speak
> for anyone here other than yourself ?

Because:
A: Many have already expressed themselves quite clearly in stating their
contempt for you. No one can go wrong in referring to that contempt or the
fact that you have earned it.

B: Many others have clearly demonstrated that, like you, they are incapable
of expressing themselves in a comprehensible fashion. Nevertheless, they
too deserve to be heard, or at least represented.

C: Human are social animals. While watching others slap you around is
immensely satisfying, one can hardly be blamed for taking the opportunity to
twist your nose one's self occasionally.

D: Why not?

> Are you such a
> Usenet psychopath that you cannot post your nasty insults
> here without the support of a circle jerk ?
>
> Here's news for you Wolfie, even though you have a large
> audience, you're masturbating all by your little lonesome.

Fascinating that you've gotten to the point where you can't keep
masturbation off your mind whenever you think of me. So, the obvious
question is....do Mark, Jennifer, Jeff, and Wayno and I show up
collectively, one at a time, or in various other combinations in your
fantasies? I think it would be an interesting exercise for you to write a
few of them up some time and post them to ROFF. God knows you could use the
practice. And, speaking of which.......

If the following sentence looks a bit familiar, that's a good sign.

If you aspire to be a writer some day, it would help immensely if you were
to become a competent reader first.

Interested in knowing what Maclean said in the opening of "A River Runs
Through It"?

Wolfgang
yes, we all know the fool is dying to know but hasn't got the good sense to
ask. :)

[Ken Fortenberry]

Wolfgang wrote:
> <snip>
> yes, we all know ...

There you go again.

Laugh and the world laughs with you, but jacking off in
public, that's just sick.

--
Ken Fortenberry

[Ken Fortenberry]

Wolfgang wrote:
> <snip>
> yes, we all know ...

There you go again.

Laugh and the world laughs with you, but jacking off in
public, that's just sick.

--
Ken Fortenberry

[Wolfgang]

"Ken Fortenberry" > wrote in message
...
> Wolfgang wrote:
> > <snip>
> > yes, we all know ...
>
> There you go again.
>
> Laugh and the world laughs with you, but jacking off in
> public, that's just sick.

O.k., ya got me on the ropes.......now how ya gonna finish it?

Wolfgang
see? is the boy easy to steer or what? watch this. hey kennie! wanna
know what maclean said in "a river runs through it"? i double dog dare
you not to ask! :)

[Wolfgang]

"Ken Fortenberry" > wrote in message
...
> Wolfgang wrote:
> > <snip>
> > yes, we all know ...
>
> There you go again.
>
> Laugh and the world laughs with you, but jacking off in
> public, that's just sick.

O.k., ya got me on the ropes.......now how ya gonna finish it?

Wolfgang
see? is the boy easy to steer or what? watch this. hey kennie! wanna
know what maclean said in "a river runs through it"? i double dog dare
you not to ask! :)

[Ken Fortenberry]

Wolfgang wrote:
> "Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
>> ...
>>Laugh and the world laughs with you, but jacking off in
>>public, that's just sick.
>
> O.k., ya got me on the ropes.......now how ya gonna finish it?

You're not only finished, you've been flamed to a black,
crispy cinder. Not that you're aware enough to know it.

And your sotto voce pseudo sigs ? They speak volumes, but
once again, you're not aware enough to know it.

--
Ken Fortenberry

[Ken Fortenberry]

Wolfgang wrote:
> "Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
>> ...
>>Laugh and the world laughs with you, but jacking off in
>>public, that's just sick.
>
> O.k., ya got me on the ropes.......now how ya gonna finish it?

You're not only finished, you've been flamed to a black,
crispy cinder. Not that you're aware enough to know it.

And your sotto voce pseudo sigs ? They speak volumes, but
once again, you're not aware enough to know it.

--
Ken Fortenberry

[Wolfgang]

"Ken Fortenberry" > wrote in message
m...
> Wolfgang wrote:
> > "Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
> >> ...
> >>Laugh and the world laughs with you, but jacking off in
> >>public, that's just sick.
> >
> > O.k., ya got me on the ropes.......now how ya gonna finish it?
>
> You're not only finished, you've been flamed to a black,
> crispy cinder. Not that you're aware enough to know it.

Flamed? You call THAT flaming? Write much, kid? :)

> And your sotto voce pseudo sigs ? They speak volumes, but
> once again, you're not aware enough to know it.

Took the dare. Who's surprised?

Wolfgang
o.k., shall we continue? anyone care to vote?

[Wolfgang]

"Ken Fortenberry" > wrote in message
m...
> Wolfgang wrote:
> > "Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
> >> ...
> >>Laugh and the world laughs with you, but jacking off in
> >>public, that's just sick.
> >
> > O.k., ya got me on the ropes.......now how ya gonna finish it?
>
> You're not only finished, you've been flamed to a black,
> crispy cinder. Not that you're aware enough to know it.

Flamed? You call THAT flaming? Write much, kid? :)

> And your sotto voce pseudo sigs ? They speak volumes, but
> once again, you're not aware enough to know it.

Took the dare. Who's surprised?

Wolfgang
o.k., shall we continue? anyone care to vote?

[Tim J.]

"Ken Fortenberry" > wrote in message
...
> Tim J. wrote:
> > "Ken Fortenberry" wrote...
> >>Respecting the fish by honoring the sport of fly fishing,
> >
> > You lost me on that one. . .
>
> For me fly fishing is a very important part of who I am and
> how I make sense of the world around me. Norman Maclean had
> it right when he said there is no clear line between religion
> and fly fishing. For me, words like honorable, properly and
> respect are not "strange" words to associate with fly fishing.

I didn't say they were, but I still fail to understand how getting the fish onto
the reel has anything to do with "respecting the fish." Hell, you can honor the
sport any way you want, but I think the fish would feel better respected if you
didn't fish at all.
--
TL,
Tim
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

[Tim J.]

"Ken Fortenberry" > wrote in message
...
> Tim J. wrote:
> > "Ken Fortenberry" wrote...
> >>Respecting the fish by honoring the sport of fly fishing,
> >
> > You lost me on that one. . .
>
> For me fly fishing is a very important part of who I am and
> how I make sense of the world around me. Norman Maclean had
> it right when he said there is no clear line between religion
> and fly fishing. For me, words like honorable, properly and
> respect are not "strange" words to associate with fly fishing.

I didn't say they were, but I still fail to understand how getting the fish onto
the reel has anything to do with "respecting the fish." Hell, you can honor the
sport any way you want, but I think the fish would feel better respected if you
didn't fish at all.
--
TL,
Tim
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

[Ken Fortenberry]

Tim J. wrote:
> "Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
>>For me fly fishing is a very important part of who I am and
>>how I make sense of the world around me. Norman Maclean had
>>it right when he said there is no clear line between religion
>>and fly fishing. For me, words like honorable, properly and
>>respect are not "strange" words to associate with fly fishing.
>
> I didn't say they were, ...

Right, but you glommed on to a conversation between me and Willi
and Willi called my fly fishing vocabulary "strange."

--
Ken Fortenberry

[Ken Fortenberry]

Tim J. wrote:
> "Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
>>For me fly fishing is a very important part of who I am and
>>how I make sense of the world around me. Norman Maclean had
>>it right when he said there is no clear line between religion
>>and fly fishing. For me, words like honorable, properly and
>>respect are not "strange" words to associate with fly fishing.
>
> I didn't say they were, ...

Right, but you glommed on to a conversation between me and Willi
and Willi called my fly fishing vocabulary "strange."

--
Ken Fortenberry

[Tim J.]

"Ken Fortenberry" > wrote in message
...
> Tim J. wrote:
> > "Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
> >>For me fly fishing is a very important part of who I am and
> >>how I make sense of the world around me. Norman Maclean had
> >>it right when he said there is no clear line between religion
> >>and fly fishing. For me, words like honorable, properly and
> >>respect are not "strange" words to associate with fly fishing.
> >
> > I didn't say they were, ...
>
> Right, but you glommed on to a conversation between me and Willi

I'm so sorry - I didn't realise you guys were using Usenet for a private
conversation. What was I thinking? NOBODY READ THIS, OKAY? ;-)

> and Willi called my fly fishing vocabulary "strange."

Yes, but I didn't, except for the context.
--
TL,
Tim
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

[Tim J.]

"Ken Fortenberry" > wrote in message
...
> Tim J. wrote:
> > "Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
> >>For me fly fishing is a very important part of who I am and
> >>how I make sense of the world around me. Norman Maclean had
> >>it right when he said there is no clear line between religion
> >>and fly fishing. For me, words like honorable, properly and
> >>respect are not "strange" words to associate with fly fishing.
> >
> > I didn't say they were, ...
>
> Right, but you glommed on to a conversation between me and Willi

I'm so sorry - I didn't realise you guys were using Usenet for a private
conversation. What was I thinking? NOBODY READ THIS, OKAY? ;-)

> and Willi called my fly fishing vocabulary "strange."

Yes, but I didn't, except for the context.
--
TL,
Tim
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

[Ken Fortenberry]

Tim J. wrote:
> "Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
>>
>> ... you glommed on to a conversation between me and Willi
>
> I'm so sorry - I didn't realise you guys were using Usenet for a private
> conversation. ...

It wasn't a private conversation, but if you want to join in
you should do so in context.

>>and Willi called my fly fishing vocabulary "strange."
>
> Yes, but I didn't, except for the context.

See above.

--
Ken Fortenberry

[Ken Fortenberry]

Tim J. wrote:
> "Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
>>
>> ... you glommed on to a conversation between me and Willi
>
> I'm so sorry - I didn't realise you guys were using Usenet for a private
> conversation. ...

It wasn't a private conversation, but if you want to join in
you should do so in context.

>>and Willi called my fly fishing vocabulary "strange."
>
> Yes, but I didn't, except for the context.

See above.

--
Ken Fortenberry

[Tim J.]

"Ken Fortenberry" > wrote in message
m...
> Tim J. wrote:
> > "Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
> >>
> >> ... you glommed on to a conversation between me and Willi
> >
> > I'm so sorry - I didn't realise you guys were using Usenet for a private
> > conversation. ...
>
> It wasn't a private conversation, but if you want to join in
> you should do so in context.

It *was* in context with Willi's comments. He was saying your use of the words
as they referred to "honoring the fish" was strange. At least that's how I read
his statement. Willi?

> >>and Willi called my fly fishing vocabulary "strange."

Okay, I'll rephrase. Your entire statements as they refer to respecting and
honoring fish is strange. If you want to honor them, don't put a freakin' hook
in their mouth.
--
TL,
Tim
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

[Tim J.]

"Ken Fortenberry" > wrote in message
m...
> Tim J. wrote:
> > "Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
> >>
> >> ... you glommed on to a conversation between me and Willi
> >
> > I'm so sorry - I didn't realise you guys were using Usenet for a private
> > conversation. ...
>
> It wasn't a private conversation, but if you want to join in
> you should do so in context.

It *was* in context with Willi's comments. He was saying your use of the words
as they referred to "honoring the fish" was strange. At least that's how I read
his statement. Willi?

> >>and Willi called my fly fishing vocabulary "strange."

Okay, I'll rephrase. Your entire statements as they refer to respecting and
honoring fish is strange. If you want to honor them, don't put a freakin' hook
in their mouth.
--
TL,
Tim
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

[Ken Fortenberry]

Tim J. wrote:
> ...
> Okay, I'll rephrase. Your entire statements as they refer to respecting and
> honoring fish is strange. If you want to honor them, don't put a freakin' hook
> in their mouth.

It's one thing to honor fish in the abstract, as a fly fisherman
I'm talking about honoring fish as prey, which is somewhat strange
I suppose in that I don't actually plan to eat them, just fool
them with fur and feathers.

--
Ken Fortenberry

[Ken Fortenberry]

Tim J. wrote:
> ...
> Okay, I'll rephrase. Your entire statements as they refer to respecting and
> honoring fish is strange. If you want to honor them, don't put a freakin' hook
> in their mouth.

It's one thing to honor fish in the abstract, as a fly fisherman
I'm talking about honoring fish as prey, which is somewhat strange
I suppose in that I don't actually plan to eat them, just fool
them with fur and feathers.

--
Ken Fortenberry

[George Cleveland]

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 00:28:04 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
> wrote:

>Tim J. wrote:
>> ...
>> Okay, I'll rephrase. Your entire statements as they refer to respecting and
>> honoring fish is strange. If you want to honor them, don't put a freakin' hook
>> in their mouth.
>
>It's one thing to honor fish in the abstract, as a fly fisherman
>I'm talking about honoring fish as prey, which is somewhat strange
>I suppose in that I don't actually plan to eat them, just fool
>them with fur and feathers.


Coup sticks often have fur and feathers, if I'm not mistaken.


g.c.

Which I'm not.

http://www.grandrivermuseum.org/Coup%20Stick.htm

[George Cleveland]

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 00:28:04 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
> wrote:

>Tim J. wrote:
>> ...
>> Okay, I'll rephrase. Your entire statements as they refer to respecting and
>> honoring fish is strange. If you want to honor them, don't put a freakin' hook
>> in their mouth.
>
>It's one thing to honor fish in the abstract, as a fly fisherman
>I'm talking about honoring fish as prey, which is somewhat strange
>I suppose in that I don't actually plan to eat them, just fool
>them with fur and feathers.


Coup sticks often have fur and feathers, if I'm not mistaken.


g.c.

Which I'm not.

http://www.grandrivermuseum.org/Coup%20Stick.htm

[Willi]

Ken Fortenberry wrote:

> Tim J. wrote:
>
>> "Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
>>
>>> For me fly fishing is a very important part of who I am and
>>> how I make sense of the world around me. Norman Maclean had
>>> it right when he said there is no clear line between religion
>>> and fly fishing. For me, words like honorable, properly and
>>> respect are not "strange" words to associate with fly fishing.
>>
>>
>> I didn't say they were, ...
>
>
> Right, but you glommed on to a conversation between me and Willi
> and Willi called my fly fishing vocabulary "strange."
>

No I didn't find your vocabulary particularly strange when applied to
fly fishing. I think fly fishing can be done with respect for the
resource, not so sure about "properly" and I have trouble with seeing it
as "honorable." But that aside, what I find strange is that you apply
those words to the way YOU do it.

"I try to honor the fish by catching them properly, with respect, and
releasing them them same way. For me, catching them properly means
getting them on the reel."

Personally, I don't care how you fish as long as it's legal but saying
that a method of fishing that puts additional stress on a fish (in some
circumstances) has "honor", is "proper" and is treating the fish with
"respect" is VERY strange to me.



I wrote this before I saw the below post from you:

> I'm talking about honoring fish as prey, which is somewhat strange
> I suppose in that I don't actually plan to eat them, just fool
> them with fur and feathers.


Glad you agree.

Willi

[Willi]

Ken Fortenberry wrote:

> Tim J. wrote:
>
>> "Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
>>
>>> For me fly fishing is a very important part of who I am and
>>> how I make sense of the world around me. Norman Maclean had
>>> it right when he said there is no clear line between religion
>>> and fly fishing. For me, words like honorable, properly and
>>> respect are not "strange" words to associate with fly fishing.
>>
>>
>> I didn't say they were, ...
>
>
> Right, but you glommed on to a conversation between me and Willi
> and Willi called my fly fishing vocabulary "strange."
>

No I didn't find your vocabulary particularly strange when applied to
fly fishing. I think fly fishing can be done with respect for the
resource, not so sure about "properly" and I have trouble with seeing it
as "honorable." But that aside, what I find strange is that you apply
those words to the way YOU do it.

"I try to honor the fish by catching them properly, with respect, and
releasing them them same way. For me, catching them properly means
getting them on the reel."

Personally, I don't care how you fish as long as it's legal but saying
that a method of fishing that puts additional stress on a fish (in some
circumstances) has "honor", is "proper" and is treating the fish with
"respect" is VERY strange to me.



I wrote this before I saw the below post from you:

> I'm talking about honoring fish as prey, which is somewhat strange
> I suppose in that I don't actually plan to eat them, just fool
> them with fur and feathers.


Glad you agree.

Willi

[Ken Fortenberry]

Willi wrote:
> <snip>
> I wrote this before I saw the below post from you:
>
>> I'm talking about honoring fish as prey, which is somewhat strange
>> I suppose in that I don't actually plan to eat them, just fool
>> them with fur and feathers.
>
> Glad you agree.

That's almost clever, have you been taking Wolfgang lessons ? ;-)

But no, we don't agree at all. Read rw's response, he made your
argument for you and he made it more lucidly.

--
Ken Fortenberry

[Ken Fortenberry]

Willi wrote:
> <snip>
> I wrote this before I saw the below post from you:
>
>> I'm talking about honoring fish as prey, which is somewhat strange
>> I suppose in that I don't actually plan to eat them, just fool
>> them with fur and feathers.
>
> Glad you agree.

That's almost clever, have you been taking Wolfgang lessons ? ;-)

But no, we don't agree at all. Read rw's response, he made your
argument for you and he made it more lucidly.

--
Ken Fortenberry

[Jonathan Cook]

Ken Fortenberry > wrote in message >...

> It's one thing to honor fish in the abstract, as a fly fisherman
> I'm talking about honoring fish as prey, which is somewhat strange
> I suppose in that I don't actually plan to eat them, just fool
> them with fur and feathers.

Moe Skeeter's hittin' about 3000 RPM in his virtual grave....

Jon.

[Jonathan Cook]

Ken Fortenberry > wrote in message >...

> It's one thing to honor fish in the abstract, as a fly fisherman
> I'm talking about honoring fish as prey, which is somewhat strange
> I suppose in that I don't actually plan to eat them, just fool
> them with fur and feathers.

Moe Skeeter's hittin' about 3000 RPM in his virtual grave....

Jon.

[Charlie Choc]

On 26 Aug 2004 09:24:43 -0700, (Jonathan Cook) wrote:

>Ken Fortenberry > wrote in message >...
>
>> It's one thing to honor fish in the abstract, as a fly fisherman
>> I'm talking about honoring fish as prey, which is somewhat strange
>> I suppose in that I don't actually plan to eat them, just fool
>> them with fur and feathers.
>
>Moe Skeeter's hittin' about 3000 RPM in his virtual grave....
>
I think 40's trying to channel T-Bone and isn't clever enough to realize his
cable service has been cut off.
--
Charlie...

[Charlie Choc]

On 26 Aug 2004 09:24:43 -0700, (Jonathan Cook) wrote:

>Ken Fortenberry > wrote in message >...
>
>> It's one thing to honor fish in the abstract, as a fly fisherman
>> I'm talking about honoring fish as prey, which is somewhat strange
>> I suppose in that I don't actually plan to eat them, just fool
>> them with fur and feathers.
>
>Moe Skeeter's hittin' about 3000 RPM in his virtual grave....
>
I think 40's trying to channel T-Bone and isn't clever enough to realize his
cable service has been cut off.
--
Charlie...

[Ken Fortenberry]

Jonathan Cook wrote:
> Ken Fortenberry wrote:
>
>>It's one thing to honor fish in the abstract, as a fly fisherman
>>I'm talking about honoring fish as prey, which is somewhat strange
>>I suppose in that I don't actually plan to eat them, just fool
>>them with fur and feathers.
>
> Moe Skeeter's hittin' about 3000 RPM in his virtual grave....

I was thinking the same thing. The whole C&R "ethic", or as the
Halfordian Golfer would say, "treating trout like golf balls,"
is the subtext of this particular argument.

--
Ken Fortenberry

[Ken Fortenberry]

Jonathan Cook wrote:
> Ken Fortenberry wrote:
>
>>It's one thing to honor fish in the abstract, as a fly fisherman
>>I'm talking about honoring fish as prey, which is somewhat strange
>>I suppose in that I don't actually plan to eat them, just fool
>>them with fur and feathers.
>
> Moe Skeeter's hittin' about 3000 RPM in his virtual grave....

I was thinking the same thing. The whole C&R "ethic", or as the
Halfordian Golfer would say, "treating trout like golf balls,"
is the subtext of this particular argument.

--
Ken Fortenberry

[Ken Fortenberry]

Charlie Choc wrote:
>
> I think 40's trying to channel T-Bone ...

**** you, Choc.

--
Ken Fortenberry

[Ken Fortenberry]

Charlie Choc wrote:
>
> I think 40's trying to channel T-Bone ...

**** you, Choc.

--
Ken Fortenberry

[Charlie Choc]

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 16:37:01 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
> wrote:

>Charlie Choc wrote:
>>
>> I think 40's trying to channel T-Bone ...
>
>**** you, Choc.

Only in your dreams. Talk about creepy...
--
Charlie...

[Charlie Choc]

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 16:37:01 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
> wrote:

>Charlie Choc wrote:
>>
>> I think 40's trying to channel T-Bone ...
>
>**** you, Choc.

Only in your dreams. Talk about creepy...
--
Charlie...

[Charlie Choc]

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 16:35:36 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
> wrote:

>Jonathan Cook wrote:
>> Ken Fortenberry wrote:
>>
>>>It's one thing to honor fish in the abstract, as a fly fisherman
>>>I'm talking about honoring fish as prey, which is somewhat strange
>>>I suppose in that I don't actually plan to eat them, just fool
>>>them with fur and feathers.
>>
>> Moe Skeeter's hittin' about 3000 RPM in his virtual grave....
>
>I was thinking the same thing. The whole C&R "ethic", or as the
>Halfordian Golfer would say, "treating trout like golf balls,"
>is the subtext of this particular argument.

And putting a fish "on the reel" just because you think it looks cool is
treating trout like what?
--
Charlie...

[Charlie Choc]

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 16:35:36 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
> wrote:

>Jonathan Cook wrote:
>> Ken Fortenberry wrote:
>>
>>>It's one thing to honor fish in the abstract, as a fly fisherman
>>>I'm talking about honoring fish as prey, which is somewhat strange
>>>I suppose in that I don't actually plan to eat them, just fool
>>>them with fur and feathers.
>>
>> Moe Skeeter's hittin' about 3000 RPM in his virtual grave....
>
>I was thinking the same thing. The whole C&R "ethic", or as the
>Halfordian Golfer would say, "treating trout like golf balls,"
>is the subtext of this particular argument.

And putting a fish "on the reel" just because you think it looks cool is
treating trout like what?
--
Charlie...

[Ken Fortenberry]

Charlie Choc wrote:
> Ken Fortenberry wrote:
>>
>>I was thinking the same thing. The whole C&R "ethic", or as the
>>Halfordian Golfer would say, "treating trout like golf balls,"
>>is the subtext of this particular argument.
>
> ... just because you think it looks cool ...

**** you, Choc.

--
Ken Fortenberry

[Ken Fortenberry]

Charlie Choc wrote:
> Ken Fortenberry wrote:
>>
>>I was thinking the same thing. The whole C&R "ethic", or as the
>>Halfordian Golfer would say, "treating trout like golf balls,"
>>is the subtext of this particular argument.
>
> ... just because you think it looks cool ...

**** you, Choc.

--
Ken Fortenberry

[Wolfgang]

"Charlie Choc" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 16:37:01 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
> > wrote:
>
> >Charlie Choc wrote:
> >>
> >> I think 40's trying to channel T-Bone ...
> >
> >**** you, Choc.
>
> Only in your dreams. Talk about creepy...

There are so many of us so busy in Kennie's dreams it's a wonder we
get any rest at all. :(

Wolfgang

[Wolfgang]

"Charlie Choc" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 16:37:01 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
> > wrote:
>
> >Charlie Choc wrote:
> >>
> >> I think 40's trying to channel T-Bone ...
> >
> >**** you, Choc.
>
> Only in your dreams. Talk about creepy...

There are so many of us so busy in Kennie's dreams it's a wonder we
get any rest at all. :(

Wolfgang

[Willi]

Charlie Choc wrote:

> On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 16:35:36 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Jonathan Cook wrote:
>>
>>>Ken Fortenberry wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>It's one thing to honor fish in the abstract, as a fly fisherman
>>>>I'm talking about honoring fish as prey, which is somewhat strange
>>>>I suppose in that I don't actually plan to eat them, just fool
>>>>them with fur and feathers.
>>>
>>>Moe Skeeter's hittin' about 3000 RPM in his virtual grave....
>>
>>I was thinking the same thing. The whole C&R "ethic", or as the
>>Halfordian Golfer would say, "treating trout like golf balls,"
>>is the subtext of this particular argument.
>
>
> And putting a fish "on the reel" just because you think it looks cool is
> treating trout like what?

No he says he does it because it's "proper" and that somehow translates
into treating the trout with "honor" and "respect" even though he
himself said that it sometimes stresses the fish more.

Willi

[Willi]

Ken Fortenberry wrote:

> Willi wrote:
>
>> <snip>
>> I wrote this before I saw the below post from you:
>>
>>> I'm talking about honoring fish as prey, which is somewhat strange
>>> I suppose in that I don't actually plan to eat them, just fool
>>> them with fur and feathers.
>>
>>
>> Glad you agree.
>
>
> That's almost clever, have you been taking Wolfgang lessons ? ;-)
>
> But no, we don't agree at all. Read rw's response, he made your
> argument for you and he made it more lucidly.
>

Although I agree with RW's post, it doesn't address the point I was making.

My point is that I think you're delusional if you think the way YOU
practice fly fishing is somehow more "proper" "respectful" and
"honorable" than some others when YOUR practices can result in more
stress for the fish (as even you stated in one of your posts).

Willi

[Willi]

Ken Fortenberry wrote:

> Wolfgang wrote:
>
>> ... I don't think anyone here ...
>
>
> See, there you go again. Why would you presume to speak
> for anyone here other than yourself ? Are you such a
> Usenet psychopath that you cannot post your nasty insults
> here without the support of a circle jerk ?
>
> Here's news for you Wolfie, even though you have a large
> audience, you're masturbating all by your little lonesome.
>


I guess I'm a member of his circle jerk group on this one.

Willi

[Charlie Choc]

On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 12:46:24 -0600, Willi > wrote:

>No he says he does it because it's "proper"

And I think his definition of proper is that he thinks it makes him look cool.
--
Charlie...

[tony weall]

cant someone give their feelings on a subject without being lambasted
everytime
you think one thing he thinks another big dealwe are talking about a sport
which people have personal values and opinions cant you just accept his are
different to yours or is this just bait to fire ken up?
"Willi" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Ken Fortenberry wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I try to honor the fish, which would generally mean bonking them
>> on the head and eating their flesh while thanking the fish spirit
>> for sustenance. In terms of catch and release, I try to honor the
>> fish by catching them properly, with respect, and releasing them
>> them same way. For me, catching them properly means getting them
>> on the reel.
>>
>> YMMV.
>>
>
>
> That all sounds very cute.
>
>
> "properly" another strange word.
>
>
> I'm not sure how putting the fish on the reel if it results in taking
> longer to land it fits in with "honor the fish" and treating them "with
> respect." Sounds to me that it's just somehow more satisfying to YOU or
> somehow fits in with some image you have of YOURSELF. (Which is fine with
> me but calling it "proper" and "honorable" ???????)
>
> Willi
>
>

[Wolfgang]

"tony weall" > wrote in message
...
> cant someone give their feelings on a subject without being
lambasted
> everytime
> you think one thing he thinks another

Some of us can but, as those who have met him will attest, that Willi
is just plain MEAN. :(

> big dealwe are talking about a sport
> which people have personal values and opinions cant you just accept
his are
> different to yours or is this just bait to fire ken up?

Kennie has had a lot of time to get used to the fact that he is the
only honorable man left in fly fishing. Even the evil Willi no longer
has much effect on him.

I wouldn't get too worked up over it if I was you.

Wolfgang

[Wolfgang]

"tony weall" > wrote in message
...
> cant someone give their feelings on a subject without being
lambasted
> everytime
> you think one thing he thinks another

Some of us can but, as those who have met him will attest, that Willi
is just plain MEAN. :(

> big dealwe are talking about a sport
> which people have personal values and opinions cant you just accept
his are
> different to yours or is this just bait to fire ken up?

Kennie has had a lot of time to get used to the fact that he is the
only honorable man left in fly fishing. Even the evil Willi no longer
has much effect on him.

I wouldn't get too worked up over it if I was you.

Wolfgang

[Ken Fortenberry]

Wolfgang wrote:
> "tony weall" wrote:
>
>>cant someone give their feelings on a subject without being lambasted
>>everytime you think one thing he thinks another
>
> Some of us can but, as those who have met him will attest, that Willi
> is just plain MEAN. :(

I don't think Willi is MEAN, I think he must buy his underwear
two sizes too small and it causes him to squeal a lot.

--
Ken Fortenberry

[Ken Fortenberry]

Wolfgang wrote:
> "tony weall" wrote:
>
>>cant someone give their feelings on a subject without being lambasted
>>everytime you think one thing he thinks another
>
> Some of us can but, as those who have met him will attest, that Willi
> is just plain MEAN. :(

I don't think Willi is MEAN, I think he must buy his underwear
two sizes too small and it causes him to squeal a lot.

--
Ken Fortenberry