snipe hunt

[Larry L]

I like a "Snipe and Peacock" soft hackle early in the season ... and

A couple days ago I noticed that the commercially purchased item I have in
my tying kit is actually called "snipe sub." Being a guy that likes real
more than 'sub,' and wanting to tie some up on this dreary day, I just now
grabbed the 20gauge and two shells and went for a walk through our pasture.
I'm now the proud owner of two dead snipe that are sitting on the counter
over there.

Not being too bright, or too likely to plan ahea
d, I didn't give any pre-thought to how to turn a dead snipe into tying
material :-(

I'm leaning towards skinning them, coating the meat side with borax and
letting them dry someplace ... is this anywhere close to the right
procedure?

Pointers ? Tips? Comments? Helpful Advise? Attacks? ( so the RD
Wolfenberry AbUseNet Club can feel included ;-)

Larry ( who is off to look for a scalpel or X-acto knife or single edged
razor, or moderately sharp Swiss Army tool, to start the skinning )

[Mike Connor]

"Larry L" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
<SNIP>
> Not being too bright, or too likely to plan ahea
> d, I didn't give any pre-thought to how to turn a dead snipe into tying
> material :-(
>
> I'm leaning towards skinning them, coating the meat side with borax and
> letting them dry someplace ... is this anywhere close to the right
> procedure?
>
> Pointers ? Tips? Comments? Helpful Advise? Attacks? ( so the RD
> Wolfenberry AbUseNet Club can feel included ;-)
>
> Larry ( who is off to look for a scalpel or X-acto knife or single edged
> razor, or moderately sharp Swiss Army tool, to start the skinning )
>

Yep. Clip the wings close to the body, and borax the knuckles. skin the
birds, remove all meat etc, and borax the skins When the skin no longer wets
the borax, wash the lot, skin and wings in warm soapy water, rinse
thoroughly, and allow to dry thoroughly. Place in the freezer for at least
three days. Add moth crystals before final storage in zip loc bags or
similar.

That was it.

TL
MC

[Larry L]

"Mike Connor" > wrote
>
> That was it.
>
Thanks, Mike, I knew I could count on you.

[Larry L]

"Jonathan Cook" > wrote

>
> Braggart!
>


Nah, if I was bragging I'd tell about the five consecutive days I got a 10
bird Dove limit ... total shells for the five days ... 50


or the time when two wardens appeared out of the dark and fog as I walked in
to hunt ducks on a California refuge. They were checking everyone for
extra shells ( the refuge had a 25 limit ), gun plugs, etc. For a seven
bird limit, I had 7 steel shot shells ( this was before steel was legally
required ) and 3 lead dove loads ( steel wasn't available in small shot
sizes for head shots ) for possible cripples and my 12ga over and under.
They searched and searched and searched and then sent me on my way.

Later, as I was leaving with my limit, one of the same two came out of the
weeds and stopped me again. This time it was to tell me that he had
followed me and watched me all morning. He and his buddy simply couldn't
believe I only brought 10 shells with me and assumed I was up to no good and
had a stash somewhere or something evil. I showed him my 7 ducks and the
single shell I had left and he said, " Yes, I saw you get them all and shoot
that one cripple a couple times. I'm impressed !"

There ... now, that, is how to brag <G>

Larry ( who was taught "you do best what you do most" and who used to shoot
a whole lot ..... but the real key is to be a good enough hunter that you
don't need to be a good shot )

P.S. I suck at fly casting Larry ( trying to maintain humility )

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 00:03:13 GMT, "Larry L"
> wrote:

>
>"Jonathan Cook" > wrote
>
>>
>> Braggart!
>>
>
>
>Nah, if I was bragging I'd tell about the five consecutive days I got a 10
>bird Dove limit ... total shells for the five days ... 50
>
>
>or the time when two wardens appeared out of the dark and fog as I walked in
>to hunt ducks on a California refuge. They were checking everyone for
>extra shells ( the refuge had a 25 limit ), gun plugs, etc. For a seven
>bird limit, I had 7 steel shot shells ( this was before steel was legally
>required ) and 3 lead dove loads ( steel wasn't available in small shot
>sizes for head shots ) for possible cripples and my 12ga over and under.
>They searched and searched and searched and then sent me on my way.
>
>Later, as I was leaving with my limit, one of the same two came out of the
>weeds and stopped me again. This time it was to tell me that he had
>followed me and watched me all morning. He and his buddy simply couldn't
>believe I only brought 10 shells with me and assumed I was up to no good and
>had a stash somewhere or something evil. I showed him my 7 ducks and the
>single shell I had left and he said, " Yes, I saw you get them all and shoot
>that one cripple a couple times. I'm impressed !"
>
>There ... now, that, is how to brag <G>
>
>Larry

Larry, there's no delicate way to ask this, but were you adopted? If
so, was your real pappy a dashing young SabreTigger pilot?

Anyhoo, I have a little shooting story, too. There we were, ol' David
Tubb and I, with me doing my best to help him learn a little something
about shooting, in spite of the horrendous mosquitoes. Finally, he
couldn't take it, and said, "You see that skeeter out there about 1000
yards?" I looked and before I could say anything, he fired.

The skeeter was mist. "Um, Tubby, that was a male, didn't you see its
pecker?" "Well, yeah, so?" he replied.

"Well, it's just cruel to kill wantonly, and besides, it's the females
that git ya...see that bitch out there at 1627 yards?" "Uhhhh, yeah,
sure, of course..." he lied.

I took three rounds out, took my kabar from my slick and nicked up a
little spur on the jacket of the first and second, and whipped out my
Rollalite and heated the jacket up on the third. I quickly loaded 'em
up, and fired in rapid succession. "What the hell?" he asked.

"I opened her up with the first, spayed her with the second, and
cauterized the incision with the third..."

TC,
R
....well, OK, so maybe it mighta been 1626 yards...

[Larry L]

> wrote

> Larry, there's no delicate way to ask this, but were you adopted? If
> so, was your real pappy a dashing young SabreTigger pilot?
>


Hehe ..... I didn't tell about the times I took 'one shell per bird in the
limit' and came home far short of that limit and with zero shells left. I
had a lot of self imposed 'rules' to make hunting harder when I was really
into it, but I haven't hunted in several years ... those two snipe were the
first birds I've harvested in a long time.

Training gun dogs as my full time employment gave me far more shooting time
than most guys, so I got pretty decent as a wingshot.

And, at one point I was a damn fine duck hunter, but I define 'duck hunter'
and
'duck shooter' as two different types of people. Both the stories ( dove
and duck ) in my last post had their 1 to 1 ratio because I'm patient enough
to wait for shots I can make ... something very few hunters I've met can do.
But, especially with ducks, if you wait stay hidden and don't try the
tougher shots you'll find that the easy ones happen far more often.

I suggest that anyone that wants to become a very good duck hunter ( as
opposed to shot) carry one shell/ duck in the limit, at least a few days
each season ... learning to only move and shoot when you feel certain you
can score is a lesson few hunters ever master

[chas]

"Mike Connor" > wrote:
>Yep. Clip the wings close to the body, and borax the knuckles. skin the
>birds, remove all meat etc, and borax the skins When the skin no longer wets
>the borax, wash the lot, skin and wings in warm soapy water, rinse
>thoroughly, and allow to dry thoroughly. Place in the freezer for at least
>three days. Add moth crystals before final storage in zip loc bags or
>similar.
>
>That was it.
>
>TL
>MC

Mike,

I know you're experienced with this. I have some feathers that have been in
moth crystals for a long time, and they smell strongly of the stuff. A few
years ago I tied some wet flies with these feathers and they just wouldn't
catch any fish. I blamed the smell, do you think that makes any sense? I'm
sure it wouldn't matter in dries, but nymphs, wets, steelhead, and salmon
flies, what do you think?

Thanks

Chas
remove fly fish to e mail directly

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 03:01:17 -0600, chas >
wrote:

>"Mike Connor" > wrote:
>>Yep. Clip the wings close to the body, and borax the knuckles. skin the
>>birds, remove all meat etc, and borax the skins When the skin no longer wets
>>the borax, wash the lot, skin and wings in warm soapy water, rinse
>>thoroughly, and allow to dry thoroughly. Place in the freezer for at least
>>three days. Add moth crystals before final storage in zip loc bags or
>>similar.
>>
>>That was it.
>>
>>TL
>>MC
>
>Mike,
>
>I know you're experienced with this. I have some feathers that have been in
>moth crystals for a long time, and they smell strongly of the stuff. A few
>years ago I tied some wet flies with these feathers and they just wouldn't
>catch any fish. I blamed the smell, do you think that makes any sense? I'm
>sure it wouldn't matter in dries, but nymphs, wets, steelhead, and salmon
>flies, what do you think?
>
>Thanks
>
>Chas
>remove fly fish to e mail directly

Put them in a (fairly, at least) airtight container with some _plain_
charcoal briquettes - i.e., no "self-lighting" type soaked in starter.
In the alternative, put them in with a small dish of vinegar. Both
tricks are good for a variety of odor problems. For example, a few
briquettes under the seat of a car can help keep the air inside "smell
neutral." I just ask my SO to save her "run"...er, "ran"...well,
whatever they call them.. stockings and use the foot section to keep the
dust contained and the charcoal securely under the seats.

TC,
R

[Mike Connor]

"chas" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
<SNIP>
>
> I know you're experienced with this. I have some feathers that have been
> in
> moth crystals for a long time, and they smell strongly of the stuff. A
> few
> years ago I tied some wet flies with these feathers and they just wouldn't
> catch any fish. I blamed the smell, do you think that makes any sense?
> I'm
> sure it wouldn't matter in dries, but nymphs, wets, steelhead, and salmon
> flies, what do you think?
>
> Thanks
>
> Chas
> remove fly fish to e mail directly
>

I store a large quantity of materials, and a lot of finished flies using
napthalene moth balls. I air flies well before I use them, and with wet
flies I usually use a good dollop of riverside mud to "treat" them before I
use them. I have never noticed any difference in fish catching
capabilities, between these flies and "freshly" tied ones, from untreated
materials.

Napthalene, and Paradichlorbenzene ( The other commonly used crystals), both
sublimate strongly, and any residue disappears pretty quickly when the flies
or materials are aired.

I do think various smells can be detrimental to flies though. I have seen
fish spook thirty yards or more downstream of a wading angler, and I am
convinced because they got his "scent". I would always try to air my flies
well before use. It is not critical with dry flies it seems, as the fish
have not much chance to "smell" them, but I have always avoided dressings
and the like which cause the fly to produce oily rings etc, as I believe
these can indeed be detrimental. I now prefer the modern "hydrostop"
dressings.

TL
MC

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 04:55:52 GMT, "Larry L"
> wrote:

>
> wrote
>
>> Larry, there's no delicate way to ask this, but were you adopted? If
>> so, was your real pappy a dashing young SabreTigger pilot?
>>
>
>
>Hehe .....

>.....Both the stories ( dove
>and duck ) in my last post had their 1 to 1 ratio because I'm patient enough
>to wait for shots I can make ... something very few hunters I've met can do.
>But, especially with ducks, if you wait stay hidden and don't try the
>tougher shots you'll find that the easy ones happen far more often.
>
>I suggest that anyone that wants to become a very good duck hunter ( as
>opposed to shot) carry one shell/ duck in the limit, at least a few days
>each season ... learning to only move and shoot when you feel certain you
>can score is a lesson few hunters ever master

Fair advice, and your good grace re: my, er, what's the word...what's
the word....AHA! "fatuousness" with the shooting shtick is pretty
cool...OTOH, I notice you didn't answer the "who's yer daddy?"
question...<G>

TC,
R

[John]

"Larry L" said <clipped for brevity> ( trying to maintain humility )

In 1984 a neighbor from San Pedro & I attended the LA Olympic Skeet shooting
venue. After watching them break 25 of 25 I said, "They are pretty good."
He said "They're OK." "Whatta do ya mean," sez I. "Do you think you could
do better." (Bad choice of words on my part) "Yeah, he said if I shot a
lot." "Whatta do ya mean," sez I. "In the 60's I was 1st of two alternates
on the 10 man US Army Skeet team," he said. OOPS, I thought <g>.

"What did the 2nd alternate shoot," I asked. "498 out of 500," he said.
"What did you shoot," I asked. "499 out of 500,' he said.
"What did the 10 guys on the team shoot," I asked. "500 out of 500. "That
why I was an alternate," he said. "Never could break 500."

After this discussion I knew I'd never be able to improve my shooting to get
a lot of feathers for fly tying because I'd never shoot enough to hit much.
Hats off to you guys that shoot well and shoot a lot!

Good luck!
John

[RkyMtnHootOwl]

On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 08:01:43 -0600, wrote:

> On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 04:55:52 GMT, "Larry L"
> > wrote:
>
>>
> wrote
>>
>>> Larry, there's no delicate way to ask this, but were you adopted? If
>>> so, was your real pappy a dashing young SabreTigger pilot?
>>>
>>
>>
>>Hehe .....
>
>>.....Both the stories ( dove
>>and duck ) in my last post had their 1 to 1 ratio because I'm patient enough
>>to wait for shots I can make ... something very few hunters I've met can do.
>>But, especially with ducks, if you wait stay hidden and don't try the
>>tougher shots you'll find that the easy ones happen far more often.
>>
>>I suggest that anyone that wants to become a very good duck hunter ( as
>>opposed to shot) carry one shell/ duck in the limit, at least a few days
>>each season ... learning to only move and shoot when you feel certain you
>>can score is a lesson few hunters ever master
>
> Fair advice, and your good grace re: my, er, what's the word...what's
> the word....AHA! "fatuousness" with the shooting shtick is pretty
> cool...OTOH, I notice you didn't answer the "who's yer daddy?"
> question...<G>
>
> TC,
> R

I read a newspaper clipping about my dad when he was a boy, and
vouched to by the game warden. My dad brought down 5 ducks with one
shot of a 20 ga. The warden was watching, and said he did not believe
it was possible, but he saw it happen. The only problem with shooting
like that, was that then all he could do for the rest of the day was
set and watch the others blast away. Especially since the warden was
still watching! OvO

[chas]

wrote:
>Put them in a (fairly, at least) airtight container with some _plain_
>charcoal briquettes
....

Thanks Richard, I'll try it in that box.

Chas
remove fly fish to e mail directly

[chas]

"Mike Connor" > wrote:

>I store a large quantity of materials, and a lot of finished flies using
>napthalene moth balls. I air flies well before I use them, and with wet
>flies I usually use a good dollop of riverside mud to "treat" them before I
>use them. I have never noticed any difference in fish catching
>capabilities, between these flies and "freshly" tied ones, from untreated
>materials.
>
>Napthalene, and Paradichlorbenzene ( The other commonly used crystals), both
>sublimate strongly, and any residue disappears pretty quickly when the flies
>or materials are aired.
>
>I do think various smells can be detrimental to flies though. I have seen
>fish spook thirty yards or more downstream of a wading angler, and I am
>convinced because they got his "scent". I would always try to air my flies
>well before use. It is not critical with dry flies it seems, as the fish
>have not much chance to "smell" them, but I have always avoided dressings
>and the like which cause the fly to produce oily rings etc, as I believe
>these can indeed be detrimental. I now prefer the modern "hydrostop"
>dressings.
>
>TL
>MC
>

Thanks Mike. I'm going to try rdean's idea with the charcoal. I'm a bit
concerned that the Vinegar might effect the dyes.

I wonder about disturbing fish 30 feet downstream. It's awfully hard to be
silent, and impossible to avoid stirring silt off the bottom. Off hand I'd put
scent below those unless I knew more about the wader. ;-)

I know what you mean about the scent disipating on it's own, but I was
overenthusiastic years ago when I put the mothballs in this box, and it's
really a strong smell. A smart guy in my position would have thrown the old
stuff away years ago, recognizing that there's nothing of great value there.

Chas
remove fly fish to e mail directly

[Mike Connor]

"chas" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
<SNIP>
> Thanks Mike. I'm going to try rdean's idea with the charcoal. I'm a bit
> concerned that the Vinegar might effect the dyes.
>
> I wonder about disturbing fish 30 feet downstream. It's awfully hard to
> be
> silent, and impossible to avoid stirring silt off the bottom. Off hand
> I'd put
> scent below those unless I knew more about the wader. ;-)
>
> I know what you mean about the scent disipating on it's own, but I was
> overenthusiastic years ago when I put the mothballs in this box, and it's
> really a strong smell. A smart guy in my position would have thrown the
> old
> stuff away years ago, recognizing that there's nothing of great value
> there.
>
> Chas
> remove fly fish to e mail directly
>

If you want to get the smell off the materials quickly, just wash them in
warm soapy water, rinse thoroughly, and let them dry. The charcoal will
work, but even better is a box of silica gel. You can obtain this at any
flower shop, it is used for drying plants, among other things.

It is very loud indeed in a river. Wading is hardly heard even at a
comparatively short distance. Rocks, silt, etc etc are moving all the time,
and water rushing üast obstructions makes a very loud noise. I don´t worry
about noise at all, but I do worry about scent.

TL
MC

[Scott Seidman]

"Mike Connor" > wrote in
:

> It is very loud indeed in a river. Wading is hardly heard even at a
> comparatively short distance. Rocks, silt, etc etc are moving all the
> time, and water rushing �ast obstructions makes a very loud noise. I
> donït worry about noise at all, but I do worry about scent.
>
> TL
> MC
>
>

I worry alot about noise, but I think this is relatively low range. The
lateral line system is exquisite for sensing vibration, and is a huge
hunting tool in some situations.


--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

[chas]

"Mike Connor" > wrote:
>
>If you want to get the smell off the materials quickly, just wash them in
>warm soapy water, rinse thoroughly, and let them dry. The charcoal will
>work, but even better is a box of silica gel. You can obtain this at any
>flower shop, it is used for drying plants, among other things.

The best ideas yet, thanks.
>
>It is very loud indeed in a river. Wading is hardly heard even at a
>comparatively short distance. Rocks, silt, etc etc are moving all the time,
>and water rushing üast obstructions makes a very loud noise. I don´t worry
>about noise at all, but I do worry about scent.
>

Interesting. I know what you mean, but these disturbances all follow patterns
that the fish are used to, when the pattern changes I think (but don't actually
know) they are alerted. It could be much like the way we can pick a familiar
voice out of a throng, or recognize a friend at a distance by some subtle
nuance of motion. I'm going to think about testing this, off hand it seems
like it would be hard to get a good test that wasn't muddled by too many
variables.

Thanks,
Chas

Chas
remove fly fish to e mail directly

[Cyli]

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 00:36:33 -0600, chas
> wrote:

(snipped)
>
>Interesting. I know what you mean, but these disturbances all follow patterns
>that the fish are used to, when the pattern changes I think (but don't actually
>know) they are alerted. It could be much like the way we can pick a familiar
>voice out of a throng, or recognize a friend at a distance by some subtle
>nuance of motion. I'm going to think about testing this, off hand it seems
>like it would be hard to get a good test that wasn't muddled by too many
>variables.


Try to walk like a deer? They generally step in the water one slow
step at a time, stop and have a drink, maybe do another bodily
function or two, and then move on a bit or get out of the water. I
don't know what they do between knee level and swimming level, though.
But there are very often deer walking / swimming across trout streams.
Otters disturb the bottom, too. Think of all the things that do
disturb the silt and then try to move like that?

Cyli
r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli
email: (strip the .invalid to email)

[Willi]

chas wrote:

>
>
> Interesting. I know what you mean, but these disturbances all follow patterns
> that the fish are used to, when the pattern changes I think (but don't actually
> know) they are alerted. It could be much like the way we can pick a familiar
> voice out of a throng, or recognize a friend at a distance by some subtle
> nuance of motion. I'm going to think about testing this, off hand it seems
> like it would be hard to get a good test that wasn't muddled by too many
> variables.


I agree with this "pattern change" and the acclimation you're talking
about. Through in frequent interacts with humans and a variety of
"different" behaviors occurs. Here's a few of my personal observations.

My home river, as it goes through town, has a bike path along the side
on one bank. The path is heavily used by bikers, horseback riders,
joggers, walkers, kids etc. In several areas, the fish will move into
shallow water to feed during a hatch and are undisturbed by the people
passing by. However, if you stop on the path to watch them feed, unless
you are behind a tree or bush, they will spook off into the depths.

The fish will continue to surface feed while ducks, muskrats, beavers,
etc swim in their midst, even during low, slow water conditions. I even
had a beaver do a tail slap one evening while fishing the hatch and the
fish continued to feed. A dog going for a swim, even at a distance, will
put down the fish. For the fisherman, these fish are VERY difficult.
When these fish are feeding in shallow water, even a small "wave", a
push of water or a couple rocks clunked together when wading will spook
the fish back into deep water. A "less than good" cast will do the same.

Fish learn and acclimate themselves to their surroundings including
interactions with humans. Heavily fished C&R rivers give some of the
best examples. The "San Juan Shuffle" where fish are attracted to wading
anglers is the most "famous" example. On some of these heavily
rivers, the fish have learned to avoid strike indicators. The indicators
don't spook the fish, but as they pass over the fish, the fish will move
a foot or so into a different feeding lane and continue feeding often
returning to their original feeding lane after a few seconds.

Although this is an oversimplification, naive trout spook easily but
are tolerant of "mistakes" in presentation and fly selection. Heavily
fished over fish can be easily approached but are demanding in terms of
both presentation and fly selection.


Willi

[chas]

Cyli > wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 00:36:33 -0600, chas
> wrote:
>
>(snipped)
>>
>>Interesting. I know what you mean, but these disturbances all follow
>>patterns
>>that the fish are used to, when the pattern changes I think (but don't
>>actually
>>know) they are alerted. It could be much like the way we can pick a familiar
>>voice out of a throng, or recognize a friend at a distance by some subtle
>>nuance of motion. I'm going to think about testing this, off hand it seems
>>like it would be hard to get a good test that wasn't muddled by too many
>>variables.
>
>
>Try to walk like a deer? They generally step in the water one slow
>step at a time, stop and have a drink, maybe do another bodily
>function or two, and then move on a bit or get out of the water. I
>don't know what they do between knee level and swimming level, though.
>But there are very often deer walking / swimming across trout streams.
>Otters disturb the bottom, too. Think of all the things that do
>disturb the silt and then try to move like that?
>
>Cyli

What I was concerned about was trying to make only 1 disturbance and trying to
observer the trout at the same time to see if just that one disturbance
bothered them. Just getting close enough to see the trout is often enough to
spook them. Trying to only make noise, but not have them see you or see waves
you make is difficult. I suppose the watching could be done by a second
stealthy observer.

As for the deer, I'm sure they disturb trout often. Trout are often skittish,
but what bothers them is largely a function of what they are used to. The
cutthroat in the Yellowstone in the park in August have seen so many people
wading around that they don't even flinch when you walk in and bend over to
watch them eat tiny nymphs. Those fish wouldn't be the ones to try this test
with. I suspect the opposite end of the spectrum would be steelhead in low
water.

My point is that it's hard to devise a way to determine experimentally what
sort of things disturb trout, and what sort of things are not a problem because
it's hard to all at once 1) observe the trout without them knowing it, 2) make
just one sort of disturbance, and 3) determine if the fish were bothered by
that disturbance. Presuming success in this, then we just know about that one
fish or group of fish, now we need to run the experiment on other fish
populations.

Chas
remove fly fish to e mail directly

[chas]

Willi > wrote:
>My home river, as it goes through town, has a bike path along the side
>on one bank. The path is heavily used by bikers, horseback riders,
>joggers, walkers, kids etc. In several areas, the fish will move into
>shallow water to feed during a hatch and are undisturbed by the people
>passing by. However, if you stop on the path to watch them feed, unless
>you are behind a tree or bush, they will spook off into the depths.

I've been seeing this same behavior in eagles. Moving cars and trucks are no
problem, stop the car and watch and often the birds will continue to feed on a
salmon carcas, but just get out of the car and the eagle flies up into a tree.


And yes, all the rest of your post fits with my experience.

I wonder about fish in Germany where they don't allow catch and release. Most
of the fish in the river have never been hooked, so they aren't educated about
fishermen, but they have seen people stumbling around on the banks and in the
river.

Mike, do you see a difference in behavior in Germany from other countries?

Chas
remove fly fish to e mail directly

[Mike Connor]

"chas" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
> Willi > wrote:
>>My home river, as it goes through town, has a bike path along the side
>>on one bank. The path is heavily used by bikers, horseback riders,
>>joggers, walkers, kids etc. In several areas, the fish will move into
>>shallow water to feed during a hatch and are undisturbed by the people
>>passing by. However, if you stop on the path to watch them feed, unless
>>you are behind a tree or bush, they will spook off into the depths.
>
> I've been seeing this same behavior in eagles. Moving cars and trucks are
> no
> problem, stop the car and watch and often the birds will continue to feed
> on a
> salmon carcas, but just get out of the car and the eagle flies up into a
> tree.
>
>
> And yes, all the rest of your post fits with my experience.
>
> I wonder about fish in Germany where they don't allow catch and release.
> Most
> of the fish in the river have never been hooked, so they aren't educated
> about
> fishermen, but they have seen people stumbling around on the banks and in
> the
> river.
>
> Mike, do you see a difference in behavior in Germany from other countries?
>
> Chas
> remove fly fish to e mail directly
>

Nope, my general experiences are much the same as Willi´s. Some behaviour
is obviously water and environment specific. As I have never fished on
catch and release water, I simply am not qualified to comment on behaviour
which may be observed there. On compulsory catch and kill water, the vast
majority of fish have indeed been hooked before, as undersized fish, or out
of season, when one is obliged to release them. Catch and kill only
requires that legally sizeable and otherwise takeable fish be killed, all
the others must be released.

This affects the number and size of fish in any such water, but it does not
seem to affect their behaviour much at all.

TL
MC