PDA

View Full Version : practical problem (long)


Bob Patton
October 13th, 2003, 11:02 PM
Here's a practical problem that I ran into last week. Might be interesting
to see how folks here might solve it:

Last Friday I fished a stream in western North Carolina. About two miles of
the stream run through privately-owned land, and that portion is posted and
zealously protected. It has not been stocked in many years. It's owned by an
elderly farmer who prohibits fishing by virtually all others except a
fishing club in Charlotte which leases the rights to the stream and pays for
a game warden. And it's full of very large rainbows and browns. A 27-inch
brown trout was caught there the week before last, and I could see several
similar-sized trout in the water. The point is that the water contains large
trout and fishing pressure is low.

I spent about five hours fishing a stretch of water that runs generally from
east to west and is about 300 yards long. The hundred yards at the upper end
is fairly typical Smoky mountain pocket water, as the stream falls four or
five feet over that hundred yard distance and flows over and around numerous
rocks. The upper end has large trees on both sides and is well-shaded. The
two hundred yards below that is a pool, the bottom of which consists of
cobblestone-size pebbles with a sandy bottom in places. The pool ends with a
dam made of river rocks over which the water flows. It's about thirty feet
wide.

The south bank of the stream is a tangle of laurel and rhododendrons, much
of which overhangs the stream, and is impassable. The north side of the pool
(to the right as one faces downstream) is a bank about four feet high with
brush and small trees from the water to the top of the bank, followed by a
barbed-wire fence and a pasture beyond that. The middle of the pool is open
to the sky. There is little or no room to cast from either bank; the only
practical way to access the pool is from the water, although I suppose one
could use spinning gear and cast from places on the bank.

The pool ranges in depth from a foot or two at its head to five feet or more
near the dam. On this particular day, the air temperature was about 65 F and
it was cloudy. The water was crystal clear, and I could easily see the
bottom of the pool. There were a few mayfly spinners (about size 12 -14) in
the air, but very few. The fish were rising sporadically, and occasionally a
12 - 15 inch fish could be seen jumping completely out of the water. I could
also see rippling rises, presumably from fish sipping something off or just
below the surface. There were many fallen leaves floating, drifting in
mid-column, and on the bottom.

Wading into the stream at the downstream end of the pool means that you
almost immediately are in water up to the waist, and it quickly becomes
deeper. The current is slow enough in the pool that one can stand in
chest-deep water with some effort. But it also means a bit of staggering on
the cobblestone bottom, which makes enough noise to scare the fish.

Casting was a problem. With water to the middle of my chest, it was
virtually impossible for me to lift the line cleanly off the water, there
was not sufficient room for a good backcast, and rollcasting from that
awkward position meant lots of line splashing on the water with the fish
presumably running for cover. I tried drifting flies downstream, but could
not reach the area of the rises with a fly drifted from a distance upstream

Here's the question: how would you attack the pool? Rod and line size, fly
selection, and tactics? Or should I simply give the pool up as too difficult
and concentrate on the pocket water upstream? This may be one of the very
few times I've felt that long-distance casting was important.

FWIW, I was skunked. I spent almost five hours on that water, and wasted way
too much time chasing those lunkers, which I probably put down within a few
minutes


Bob
Who doesn't know what he would have done if he had actually hooked such a
fish on 6x tippet . . .

Peter Charles
October 13th, 2003, 11:19 PM
[snipped a neat problem]

love these type of posts . . .


These deep, slow pools bordered by brush are often the toughest
challenges as there's no way to approach them without some difficult
problem intruding.

Casting: __ Only one answer -- spey casting. It can be done with 6'
rods though her e, I'd probably us a fast 8 footer in the 2/3/4 wt.
range. The fast rod permits "tip flicks" and these rods tend to spey
cast very well. It's sort of counter-intuitive as most people
associate slower rods with spey casting but I've found faster rods
work better for single handed spey casting.

Basically, a spey cast is simply one where the fly is still in the
water when power stroke is made. Spey casts look like forward casts
when the power is applied and aren't nearly as splashy as a roll cast.

A downstream approach works great with streamers, wets and emergers so
I'd fish those almost exclusively and forget the dries. A fast
sinking caddis emerger on a short leader can brought up short and made
to swing up quickly. If they're whacking caddis coming off (the
jumping is my clue) then a hard swung emerger should take some fish.



Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

Larry L
October 13th, 2003, 11:30 PM
"Bob Patton" <rwpmailatcharterdotnet> wrote

Or should I simply give the pool up as too difficult
> and concentrate on the pocket water upstream?

shame on you .... the whole point of fly fishing is to make it harder to
catch fish <G> the harder the spot the better, quality not quanity ( and
you can always go find some easy planters when you find yourself screaming
and mumbling to yourself :-)


I can't tell for sure from your tale, did you try a downstream "Fall River
twitch" that is cast down stream then flick more and more line out after
the cast is on the water ... you don't CAST a long long ways but it is
possible to "flick out" all the line and then some in many situations
especially slower moving water areas

And my first effort would be a smallish soft hackle sunk but not too deeply
and drifted/ twitched/ swung into areas where fish were known to be. And
I'd use at least 5X. I'd probably fish downstream, moving very slowly and
covering the water with real slow swings ( nearly dead drifts ) and a soft
hackle, a step between casts until I was down far enough that the whole pool
had seen my fly. Cast, mend, twitch out line, mend, let it slowly swing,
hand over hand it back to me slow enough to never make a wake, until I could
pick up, amd make a new cast. On the note of "first effort" .... that is
one thing I think is very important with tough fish and one many of us
forget over and over ... make your first effort your best effort ... don't
wait to get into "try hard" mode until after you've failed at an attempt or
two ... fish that are alerted to possible problems get tougher

Or, maybe a fast sinking shooting head, long wait after it was delivered to
allow it to gain the bottom and fish to calm down then a stripped back to me
sculpin or whatever the local ecology suggests in the way of streamer ...
maybe cast from below the "dam" back upstream, the sinking line will still
go down fast?

Larry L
October 13th, 2003, 11:33 PM
"Larry L" > wrote

> I'd use at least 5X.

At least that heavy is what I mean 4X would work I bet

daytripper
October 13th, 2003, 11:37 PM
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 17:02:34 -0500, "Bob Patton" <rwpmailatcharterdotnet>
wrote:
>Here's a practical problem that I ran into last week. Might be interesting
>to see how folks here might solve it:
[snipped]
>Here's the question: how would you attack the pool? Rod and line size, fly
>selection, and tactics? Or should I simply give the pool up as too difficult
>and concentrate on the pocket water upstream? This may be one of the very
>few times I've felt that long-distance casting was important.

Sounds like a perfect place to go "bowling", from just above the top of the
pool...

/daytripper (gotta love "Bowling for Trouties" ;-)

Bob Patton
October 13th, 2003, 11:48 PM
"Peter Charles" > wrote in message
...
> These deep, slow pools bordered by brush are often the toughest
> challenges as there's no way to approach them without some difficult
> problem intruding.
>
> Casting: __ Only one answer -- spey casting. It can be done with 6'
> rods though her e, I'd probably us a fast 8 footer in the 2/3/4 wt.
> range. The fast rod permits "tip flicks" and these rods tend to spey
> cast very well. It's sort of counter-intuitive as most people
> associate slower rods with spey casting but I've found faster rods
> work better for single handed spey casting.
>
> Basically, a spey cast is simply one where the fly is still in the
> water when power stroke is made. Spey casts look like forward casts
> when the power is applied and aren't nearly as splashy as a roll cast.
>
> A downstream approach works great with streamers, wets and emergers so
> I'd fish those almost exclusively and forget the dries. A fast
> sinking caddis emerger on a short leader can brought up short and made
> to swing up quickly. If they're whacking caddis coming off (the
> jumping is my clue) then a hard swung emerger should take some fish.


//snip//

Great idea. I was using a Winston 9-foot 5-weight, and just couldn't pick
the line up properly. It was really ugly, especially with the streamers and
nymphs I tried. A faster rod would have helped much. I should have tried
working the water with a streamer cast downstream. I was so fixated on the
rises that I didn't pay enough attention to the fact that things had to have
been happening inside the water column.

Next project is to get permission again . . . At least, all of the fish are
still there, unharmed but entertained.
Bob

Bob Patton
October 14th, 2003, 12:02 AM
"Larry L" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Patton" <rwpmailatcharterdotnet> wrote
>
> Or should I simply give the pool up as too difficult
> > and concentrate on the pocket water upstream?
>
> shame on you .... the whole point of fly fishing is to make it harder to
> catch fish <G> the harder the spot the better, quality not quanity ( and
> you can always go find some easy planters when you find yourself screaming
> and mumbling to yourself :-)

In that case, catching zero fish with maximum effort should be sublime
perfection. I guess I was in Nirvana and just didn't know it. ;-)

>
>
> I can't tell for sure from your tale, did you try a downstream "Fall River
> twitch" that is cast down stream then flick more and more line out after
> the cast is on the water ... you don't CAST a long long ways but it is
> possible to "flick out" all the line and then some in many situations
> especially slower moving water areas

Tried that, mainly with dries. Also used a soft hackle a little but probably
didn't give it enough of a chance. By that time I probably had the fish
rollin the aisles laffing their little tails off . . .

>
> And my first effort would be a smallish soft hackle sunk but not too
deeply
> and drifted/ twitched/ swung into areas where fish were known to be. And
> I'd use at least 5X. I'd probably fish downstream, moving very slowly
and
> covering the water with real slow swings ( nearly dead drifts ) and a soft
> hackle, a step between casts until I was down far enough that the whole
pool
> had seen my fly. Cast, mend, twitch out line, mend, let it slowly swing,
> hand over hand it back to me slow enough to never make a wake, until I
could
> pick up, amd make a new cast. On the note of "first effort" .... that is
> one thing I think is very important with tough fish and one many of us
> forget over and over ... make your first effort your best effort ... don't
> wait to get into "try hard" mode until after you've failed at an attempt
or
> two ... fish that are alerted to possible problems get tougher
>

Good advice. I tried working the pool from the bottom first (fishing
upstream) and probably put the fish down. So I spent an hour or so on the
upstream section, came back and tried fishing downstream in the manner you
describe. At one point I had drifted out almost all of my line, down to the
backing. Might have had better results with a little more discipline to
continue that longer than I did.


> Or, maybe a fast sinking shooting head, long wait after it was delivered
to
> allow it to gain the bottom and fish to calm down then a stripped back to
me
> sculpin or whatever the local ecology suggests in the way of streamer ...

Very interesting. Didn't think about that. Sounds like a great idea.

> maybe cast from below the "dam" back upstream, the sinking line will still
> go down fast?

I think the trick is to fish downstream. Trying to throw all that stuff
upstream, it first makes a splash, then floats back at me so fast that I
can't control it.

Thanks much. Practice makes perfect, right?

Bob
Avoiding Nirvana . . .

Larry L
October 14th, 2003, 12:27 AM
"Bob Patton" <rwpmailatcharterdotnet> wrote

>
> Thanks much. Practice makes perfect, right?
>


ain't helped me much ... I still achieve Nirvana far too often <G>

Wolfgang
October 14th, 2003, 12:31 AM
"Bob Patton" <rwpmailatcharterdotnet> wrote in message
...
> Here's a practical problem that I ran into last week. Might be interesting
> to see how folks here might solve it:
>
> Last Friday I fished a stream in western North Carolina. About two miles
of
> the stream run through privately-owned land, and that portion is posted
and
> zealously protected.......Here's the question: how would you attack the
pool? Rod and line size, fly
> selection, and tactics? Or should I simply give the pool up as too
difficult
> and concentrate on the pocket water upstream?........

Well, personally, I feel that you should dynamite the pool and, more
particularly, the ****ers that "own" it.........but that's probably not what
you had in mind, huh? :)

Wolfgang
up the revolution, baby!

Bob Patton
October 14th, 2003, 01:04 AM
"Wolfgang" > wrote in message
...
//snip//
> Well, personally, I feel that you should dynamite the pool and, more
> particularly, the ****ers that "own" it.........but that's probably not
what
> you had in mind, huh? :)
>
> Wolfgang
> up the revolution, baby!
>
Welllllllllll . . .
Considering that if somebody had done that a few decades back yours truly
might not be here, I guess I wouldn't be one of the stronger proponents . .
..

Jeffie or Wayno could probably explain, but NC's stream rights laws probably
date back to Oliver Cromwell. Or Henry II.
Bob

Peter Charles
October 14th, 2003, 01:08 AM
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 19:04:57 -0500, "Bob Patton"
<rwpmailatcharterdotnet> wrote:

>"Wolfgang" > wrote in message
...
>//snip//
>> Well, personally, I feel that you should dynamite the pool and, more
>> particularly, the ****ers that "own" it.........but that's probably not
>what
>> you had in mind, huh? :)
>>
>> Wolfgang
>> up the revolution, baby!
>>
>Welllllllllll . . .
>Considering that if somebody had done that a few decades back yours truly
>might not be here, I guess I wouldn't be one of the stronger proponents . .
>.
>
>Jeffie or Wayno could probably explain, but NC's stream rights laws probably
>date back to Oliver Cromwell. Or Henry II.
>Bob
>
>
maybe Henry II but not Cromwell -- he was a republican :)

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

Bob Patton
October 14th, 2003, 01:25 AM
"Peter Charles" > wrote in message
...
>//snip//> >
> maybe Henry II but not Cromwell -- he was a republican :)
>
> Peter
>
> turn mailhot into hotmail to reply
>
> Visit The Streamer Page at
http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

And right you are, of course. But I still think it might have been Cromwell.
All liberalization is relative, I suppose, but my hypothesis is that
allowing ownership of the stream and the fish therein to belong to the
landowner instead of the king might have been a liberalization. I would like
to know more about this aspect of history.
Bob

Wolfgang
October 14th, 2003, 01:59 AM
"Bob Patton" <rwpmailatcharterdotnet> wrote in message
...
> "Wolfgang" > wrote in message
> ...
> //snip//
> > Well, personally, I feel that you should dynamite the pool and, more
> > particularly, the ****ers that "own" it.........but that's probably not
> what
> > you had in mind, huh? :)
> >
> > Wolfgang
> > up the revolution, baby!
> >
> Welllllllllll . . .
> Considering that if somebody had done that a few decades back yours truly
> might not be here, I guess I wouldn't be one of the stronger proponents .
..

See, there ya go......just thinkin' of yourself again! Still, I've had
worse company astream and on the trail. Tell ya what we'll do.....for now,
we'll forego making the policy retroactive.

> Jeffie or Wayno could probably explain, but NC's stream rights laws
probably
> date back to Oliver Cromwell. Or Henry II.

Never was much of a fan of the regency myself, and if ya seen one Hank, ya
seen 'em all. I like our water use policies up here just fine. Come on up
to Curdistan sometime.....you, Jeffie, wayno, and even I got as much right
to any piece of water as populists like Herb Kohl and Bud Selig.

Wolfgang
course, so do george and even......joel! :(

Peter Charles
October 14th, 2003, 02:02 AM
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 19:25:21 -0500, "Bob Patton"
<rwpmailatcharterdotnet> wrote:

>"Peter Charles" > wrote in message
...
>>//snip//> >
>> maybe Henry II but not Cromwell -- he was a republican :)
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> turn mailhot into hotmail to reply
>>
>> Visit The Streamer Page at
>http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html
>
>And right you are, of course. But I still think it might have been Cromwell.
>All liberalization is relative, I suppose, but my hypothesis is that
>allowing ownership of the stream and the fish therein to belong to the
>landowner instead of the king might have been a liberalization. I would like
>to know more about this aspect of history.
>Bob
>

Cromwell believed in the supremacy of Parliament over the King but he
also indulged in the religious intolerance that ravaged England and
Ireland.

John Locke is your boy: read "Two Treatise of Government"

http://www.swan.ac.uk/poli/texts/locke/lockcont.htm

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/philosophers/locke.html

note the comment in this second URL on the overthrow of tyrannical
governments and the separation of church and state.

Very interesting man for his time. His philosophy was the basis for
the American Revolution. Most of the features of the Declaration and
the Constitution, plus the writings of the great thinkers of the
revolution are rooted in Lockian philosophy.

Locke personifies the American political experiment and he should be
required reading for anyone studying American history.

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

slenon
October 14th, 2003, 03:42 PM
>I think the trick is to fish downstream. Trying to throw all that stuff
>upstream, it first makes a splash, then floats back at me so fast that I
>can't control it.

That's an intersection of thought. My first impression was that I would
snake out line downstream as far as possible. I'd probably open with an
emerger if they were rising. However, for me, streamers are never far from
my hand.

I really like downstream approaches, no matter what the fly may be. There's
seldom a worry about line shadow and at least I have the opportunity to
spook the fish sequentially rather than all at once by flinging my mightiest
upstream effort over them. And being somewhat vertically challenged, I
tend to avoid wading out beyond waist deep if I'm alone. Go with the
current on this one.

----
Stev Lenon 91B20 '68-'69
Drowning flies to Darkstar
Save a cow, eat a PETA

http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/index.html/slhomepage92kword.htm

slenon
October 14th, 2003, 03:51 PM
>Locke personifies the American political experiment and he should be
>required reading for anyone studying American history.
>Peter

Likely, it is at higher educational levels. But I would venture that here
in Florida, most of our public schools don't teach Locke.

Our current crop of educators' concept of history seems to be rather too
tied up with the demonstration of diversity and political correctness to
allow too much depth in the philosophies that drove the American Revolution.
I recall Locke from high school days. My children did not encounter him in
classes until university.

----
Stev Lenon 91B20 '68-'69
Drowning flies to Darkstar
Save a cow, eat a PETA

http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/index.html/slhomepage92kword.htm

George Cleveland
October 14th, 2003, 04:54 PM
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 18:31:05 -0500, "Wolfgang" > wrote:

>
>"Bob Patton" <rwpmailatcharterdotnet> wrote in message
...
>> Here's a practical problem that I ran into last week. Might be interesting
>> to see how folks here might solve it:
>>
>> Last Friday I fished a stream in western North Carolina. About two miles
>of
>> the stream run through privately-owned land, and that portion is posted
>and
>> zealously protected.......Here's the question: how would you attack the
>pool? Rod and line size, fly
>> selection, and tactics? Or should I simply give the pool up as too
>difficult
>> and concentrate on the pocket water upstream?........
>
>Well, personally, I feel that you should dynamite the pool and, more
>particularly, the ****ers that "own" it.........but that's probably not what
>you had in mind, huh? :)
>
>Wolfgang
>up the revolution, baby!
>
>
Get used to it Wolfman. If our state legislature has its way there will be a lot
more private trout water in Wisconsin (AB 506).

g.c.

Who is starting to obscess about being obscessive.

rw
October 14th, 2003, 06:10 PM
Bob Patton wrote:
>
> Here's the question: how would you attack the pool? Rod and line size, fly
> selection, and tactics? Or should I simply give the pool up as too difficult
> and concentrate on the pocket water upstream? This may be one of the very
> few times I've felt that long-distance casting was important.

If you can get your hands on a REALLY long rod (like 15 feet or more),
you could try dapping from the north bank.

Good luck landing a big fish, though. :-)

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

Bob Patton
October 15th, 2003, 01:00 AM
"rw" > wrote in message
. ..
//snip//>
> If you can get your hands on a REALLY long rod (like 15 feet or more),
> you could try dapping from the north bank.
>
> Good luck landing a big fish, though. :-)
>
> --
> Cut "to the chase" for my email address.


I thought about trying to hide in the brush on the north bank and doing
exactly that. But the heaviest tippet I had was 6x, and if I'd hooked into
one of those monsters from that position I'd pretty quickly have been
swimming. I've often wondered whether the ideal rod for those streams is
five or fifteen feet long. The real answer is to sit down and plan an
approach that is consistent with skills and equipment before plunging in and
wearing one's self out with futile efforts against the stream.

It gets back to the question of whether it would have been better to have
ignored those fish and concentrate on the pocket water upstream. And that
train of thought reminds me of an opportunity I had with a pretty Chilean
gal in 1968 . . . but that's another story.

Bob

Mu Young Lee
October 15th, 2003, 02:24 AM
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, rw wrote:
>
> In my brief but very enjoyable experience with NC mountain streams
> (Waldo's Spring Fling), I came away with the impression that the most
> effective way to flyfish them would be dapping with a long pole.

I've got a 15' telescoping dapping rod.

Mu

rw
October 15th, 2003, 02:48 AM
Bob Patton wrote:
> "rw" > wrote in message
> . ..
> //snip//>
>
>>If you can get your hands on a REALLY long rod (like 15 feet or more),
>>you could try dapping from the north bank.
>>
>>Good luck landing a big fish, though. :-)
>
> I thought about trying to hide in the brush on the north bank and doing
> exactly that. But the heaviest tippet I had was 6x, and if I'd hooked into
> one of those monsters from that position I'd pretty quickly have been
> swimming.

It's possible to land a very large trout on 6X tippet. If it doesn't
catch a snag the only way you'll lose it (short of operator error) is
pull-out or knot failure. And even if you fail the attempt is worth it.

If you're dapping, the tippet can be very sturdy, because (ideally) it
won't be in the water. If you can dap this pool during a wind from the
north you should be able to cover it. Try big "spidery" flies, like
cranefly imitations. Find the longest rod in NC, and instead of a
regular flyline use unwaxed dental floss.

The reason I think you'd have trouble landing a big fish is the length
of the rod.

> I've often wondered whether the ideal rod for those streams is
> five or fifteen feet long. The real answer is to sit down and plan an
> approach that is consistent with skills and equipment before plunging in and
> wearing one's self out with futile efforts against the stream.

In my brief but very enjoyable experience with NC mountain streams
(Waldo's Spring Fling), I came away with the impression that the most
effective way to flyfish them would be dapping with a long pole.
Carrying that rig through the rhodos would be a bitch, but it would take
casting out of the equation.

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

Bob Patton
October 15th, 2003, 02:55 AM
"rw" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> In my brief but very enjoyable experience with NC mountain streams
> (Waldo's Spring Fling), I came away with the impression that the most
> effective way to flyfish them would be dapping with a long pole.
> Carrying that rig through the rhodos would be a bitch, but it would take
> casting out of the equation.
>


There are plenty of people in those mountains who have a supply of very long
cane poles used for just this purpose. If you want to stop dapping and fish
with a worm, you just unwind a few more feet of line from the end of the
rod. The other use is to wrap a rag around the end, douse with kerosene, and
use to burn tent caterpillars out of trees.

Bob

bruiser
October 15th, 2003, 06:14 AM
"Mu Young Lee" >
>
> I've got a 15' telescoping dapping rod.
>

GHHOF

bruce h :-)

bruiser
October 15th, 2003, 06:15 AM
"bruiser" > wrote in message
>
> GHHOF
>
Illiteracy is the norm in New Mexico.

Should have been:

GWHOF

:-)

bruce h

George Cleveland
October 15th, 2003, 03:41 PM
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 14:51:56 GMT, "slenon" > wrote:

>>Locke personifies the American political experiment and he should be
>>required reading for anyone studying American history.
>>Peter
>
>Likely, it is at higher educational levels. But I would venture that here
>in Florida, most of our public schools don't teach Locke.
>
>Our current crop of educators' concept of history seems to be rather too
>tied up with the demonstration of diversity and political correctness to
>allow too much depth in the philosophies that drove the American Revolution.
>I recall Locke from high school days. My children did not encounter him in
>classes until university.
>
>----
>Stev Lenon 91B20 '68-'69
>Drowning flies to Darkstar
>Save a cow, eat a PETA

>http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/index.html/slhomepage92kword.htm
>
>
>
Locke's ideas would be accessible to most high schoolers. His literary style
wouldn't be. While reading him just now I found myself able to follow him but it
wasn't easy. Add to that the fact that I had two semesters of philosophy at UW
Madison (WI). So while I think it may be fair to bemoan students not being
exposed to his ideas, many of which informed the plotters of the American
revolution, I don't think it fair to expect them to gain much from his actual
writings in a general American history class. If there are any high schools
which have seperate philosophy classes, then he would have to be a required
read.

g.c.

slenon
October 15th, 2003, 04:45 PM
Greg:
> You mean that they finally realized that back in the 18th
> century there were Indians, blacks, and women living
> on this continent as well ? :-)

Yes, but like flies in a lightbulb, no one is sure how they got there.

----
Stev Lenon 91B20 '68-'69
Drowning flies to Darkstar
Save a cow, eat a PETA

http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/index.html/slhomepage92kword.htm

slenon
October 15th, 2003, 04:53 PM
g.c.:
>Locke's ideas would be accessible to most high schoolers. His literary
style wouldn't be.

No argument there.

>So while I think it may be fair to bemoan students not being exposed to his
ideas, many of which informed the plotters of the American
>revolution, I don't think it fair to expect them to gain much from his
actual writings in a general American history class

Perhaps not. But what bothers me is the general tendency, at least in my
experience with my children and those of friends and neighbors, to dilute
the core curriculum more and more and to allow how the core is approached to
suffer with swings in popular ed philosophy and pop ed psych.

There are, of course, exceptions in all circumstances.

----
Stev Lenon 91B20 '68-'69
Drowning flies to Darkstar
Save a cow, eat a PETA

http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/index.html/slhomepage92kword.htm

Peter Charles
October 15th, 2003, 05:13 PM
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 14:41:26 GMT,
(George Cleveland) wrote:


>>
>Locke's ideas would be accessible to most high schoolers. His literary style
>wouldn't be. While reading him just now I found myself able to follow him but it
>wasn't easy. Add to that the fact that I had two semesters of philosophy at UW
>Madison (WI). So while I think it may be fair to bemoan students not being
>exposed to his ideas, many of which informed the plotters of the American
>revolution, I don't think it fair to expect them to gain much from his actual
>writings in a general American history class. If there are any high schools
>which have seperate philosophy classes, then he would have to be a required
>read.
>
>g.c.

No doubt that Locke's 17th Century prose won't be the most readable
for the modern student, however, the concepts and their origins of
Lockian philosophy and the Whig concepts of liberty, can be taught.

One of my pet philosophies is the concept that national mythologies
impede social and political development unless they are routinely and
rigorously challenged. This was the basis of my "post-modern"
comments last year that stirred a minor brou-ha-ha. A thorough
examination of "origins" are part of that process of challenging
myths. If "origins" are not studied, then the myths stand and do
their dirty work.



Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

Willi
October 17th, 2003, 02:29 AM
Bob Patton wrote:

> Who doesn't know what he would have done if he had actually hooked such a
> fish on 6x tippet . . .

What's with you guys and 6X? Jeff M. used 6X on Rock Creek even when
fishing a streamer.

Willi

Jeff Miller
October 18th, 2003, 12:46 AM
it's a "little dick" thing willi... jeez!

jeff (who shoulda been using 7X)

Willi wrote:

>
>
> Bob Patton wrote:
>
>> Who doesn't know what he would have done if he had actually hooked such a
>> fish on 6x tippet . . .
>
>
> What's with you guys and 6X? Jeff M. used 6X on Rock Creek even when
> fishing a streamer.
>
> Willi
>
>
>
>
>
>

Bob Patton
October 18th, 2003, 03:24 AM
"Willi" > wrote in message
...
>//snip//
> What's with you guys and 6X? Jeff M. used 6X on Rock Creek even when
> fishing a streamer.
>
> Willi
>
>


Yeah - I know 6x is pretty heavy. That's why we use it for streamers. But my
spool of 8x ran out. It gets tangled up in spider webs.

Bob

Bob Patton
October 18th, 2003, 03:40 AM
"Jeff Miller" > wrote in message
news:tf%jb.84880$AH4.63602@lakeread06...
> it's a "little dick" thing willi... jeez!
>
> jeff (who shoulda been using 7X)
>
> Willi wrote:
>
> >
> >
//snip//

Yep. What normally happens in the Smokies is that once we get the fish on
the line we just sweet-talk it. Sort of like talking to our best gal, or
like Miller and Wolfgang making the acquaintance of somebody named Lana
about a year ago. And damned if the fish don't just sidle right up beside us
and do a "Flipper" routine. You know, tail-walkin', chatterin', offerin' to
make us happy, the whole bit.
Bob

Wolfgang
October 18th, 2003, 11:40 PM
"Bob Patton" <rwpmailatcharterdotnet> wrote in message
...
> "Jeff Miller" > wrote in message
> news:tf%jb.84880$AH4.63602@lakeread06...
> > it's a "little dick" thing willi... jeez!
> >
> > jeff (who shoulda been using 7X)
> >
> > Willi wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> //snip//
>
> Yep. What normally happens in the Smokies is that once we get the fish on
> the line we just sweet-talk it. Sort of like talking to our best gal, or
> like Miller and Wolfgang making the acquaintance of somebody named Lana
> about a year ago. And damned if the fish don't just sidle right up beside
us
> and do a "Flipper" routine. You know, tail-walkin', chatterin', offerin'
to
> make us happy, the whole bit.
> Bob

It was Tom (the *******!) I had to thrash within an inch of his miserable
life to get the precious Lana to take note of me in the first place, and
wayno (the *******!) who stole her heart (I won't even speculate on what he
did with the rest of her charms) while I was on the road with Jeff (the
*******!) who had heard rumors of trout and beer somewhat further west, and
consequently whisked me away from the blessed presence with a mere
dismissive nod in the general direction of the source of all that is good
and pure in the world.

Wolfgang
miserable *******s! :(

Wayne Harrison
October 19th, 2003, 12:18 AM
"Wolfgang" > wrote

> wayno (the *******!) who stole her heart (I won't even speculate on what
he
> did with the rest of her charms) while I was on the road with Jeff (the
> *******!) who had heard rumors of trout and beer somewhat further west,

god, i love to recall the soft little whimper she made as her heart
broke....

yfitons
wayno

a-happy-up-yours
October 19th, 2003, 01:27 AM
Wolfgang wrote:
......snip......
> It was Tom (the *******!)

......snip.....
> Wolfgang
> miserable *******s! :(
>
>

Normally, I'd be honored to be associated with either of the two
gentlemen as mentioned, but in this particular case, as there was
address-by-title, I must offer that while it might be acceptable to be
included in a list a *******s, however long and respected, my correct
and well earned title is DRSOB. In view of the considerable effort
expended in achieving this highly desired and sought-after recognition,
I am duty-bound to maintain the honor of the office by calling this to
your attention.

Tom (DRSOB 001)

n4tab at earthlink dot net