TR: Monster Steelhead

[Chas Wade]

My son Andy always seems to catch the biggest fish. He's also a
fearless wader. Imagine someone who wades like Warren, but is 6 foot 3
inches tall.

Thursday on the Hoh had been going my way nicely. I hooked 5
steelhead, landed 3 of them clean, kept one hatchery fish, and had a 15
pound fish on long enough to get him up to the rocks twice, but I just
couldn't get a grip on him. He threw the hook after the tecond attempt
to land him. All this while, Andy had a few strikes, but hadn't hooked
up with any, but then it all changed.

We were at the last good hole above the takeout, and I'd worked through
it without a strike. Andy moved in for a few casts, and hooked a beast.
The fish took off down stream past a log jam, so he handed the rod up
to me on the log jam and ran around to take it from me on the other
side. In the process the fish managed to catch the line on a big
spruce tree that was lying in the water. The fish was still on, so
Andy waded out with the rod to pull the line off. The water was deeper
than the top of his waders, so he shipped some water, but floated a bit
and managed to get the line loose. The fish moved downstream, Andy
managed to stay upright and swim back to shore with the rod up and the
fish ripping line out downstream. Once on shore he took off after the
fish and had to cross to an island to get around another log jam.
About 15 minutes later and 300 yards downstream he got the fish onto
the rocks and held it up for me to photograph. I've posted the picture
to ABPF. It's not one of my clearer pictures, but I was across the
river, unwilling to attempt the crossing, so I used the 200mm zoom and
had to shoot at 1/40 second. This is the best shot of 10.

Chas
remove fly fish to reply
http://home.comcast.net/~chas.wade/wsb/html/view.cgi-home.html-.html
San Juan Pictures at:
http://home.comcast.net/~chasepike/wsb/index.html

[asadi]

I can have a good day fishing just watching something like that happen......

doggies, I bet he had fun....

john

"Chas Wade" > wrote in message
news:qM1Vb.196025$nt4.872805@attbi_s51...
> My son Andy always seems to catch the biggest fish. He's also a
> fearless wader. Imagine someone who wades like Warren, but is 6 foot 3
> inches tall.
>
> Thursday on the Hoh had been going my way nicely. I hooked 5
> steelhead, landed 3 of them clean, kept one hatchery fish, and had a 15
> pound fish on long enough to get him up to the rocks twice, but I just
> couldn't get a grip on him. He threw the hook after the tecond attempt
> to land him. All this while, Andy had a few strikes, but hadn't hooked
> up with any, but then it all changed.
>
> We were at the last good hole above the takeout, and I'd worked through
> it without a strike. Andy moved in for a few casts, and hooked a beast.
> The fish took off down stream past a log jam, so he handed the rod up
> to me on the log jam and ran around to take it from me on the other
> side. In the process the fish managed to catch the line on a big
> spruce tree that was lying in the water. The fish was still on, so
> Andy waded out with the rod to pull the line off. The water was deeper
> than the top of his waders, so he shipped some water, but floated a bit
> and managed to get the line loose. The fish moved downstream, Andy
> managed to stay upright and swim back to shore with the rod up and the
> fish ripping line out downstream. Once on shore he took off after the
> fish and had to cross to an island to get around another log jam.
> About 15 minutes later and 300 yards downstream he got the fish onto
> the rocks and held it up for me to photograph. I've posted the picture
> to ABPF. It's not one of my clearer pictures, but I was across the
> river, unwilling to attempt the crossing, so I used the 200mm zoom and
> had to shoot at 1/40 second. This is the best shot of 10.
>
> Chas
> remove fly fish to reply
> http://home.comcast.net/~chas.wade/wsb/html/view.cgi-home.html-.html
> San Juan Pictures at:
> http://home.comcast.net/~chasepike/wsb/index.html
>
>

[Yuji Sakuma]

Charles,



The following is a question, not a criticism, about steelhead. I have no
objection at all to killing and eating hatchery fish released into a put and
take fishery or to killing and eating wild fish that are deemed (hopefully
by science-based regulations) to be abundant. Presumably, hatchery fish are
being released into west coast rivers in an attempt to restore or increase
runs that are considered to be in decline. If hatchery fish reproduce in
the wild after their release, as I believe they do, it seems to me to make
just as much sense to release hatchery steelhead as it does to release wild
steelhead. I repeat, this is not a criticism - I am curious as to the
rationale for releasing wild fish but not hatchery fish.



Best regards,



Yuji Sakuma



================================================== ================

"Chas Wade" > wrote in message
news:qM1Vb.196025$nt4.872805@attbi_s51...

[Frank Reid]

> I've posted the picture
> to ABPF.
Its gonna take a big brick to knock that smile off his face. Great report
and awesome picture.
Frank Reid

[Tim J.]

"Chas Wade" wrote...
<snipped nice TR>
> I've posted the picture
> to ABPF. It's not one of my clearer pictures, but I was across the
> river, unwilling to attempt the crossing, so I used the 200mm zoom and
> had to shoot at 1/40 second. This is the best shot of 10.

There's nothing to apologize for in that shot! What a monster. Thanks, Chas.
--
TL,
Tim
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

[JR]

Yuji Sakuma wrote:
>
> Presumably, hatchery fish are
> being released into west coast rivers in an attempt to restore or increase
> runs that are considered to be in decline.

That is the "rationale" advanced by some--mostly by those with a vested
interest in the hatchery business or in the industries destroying
habitats necessary for wild fish--but it's a ruse. The preponderance of
evidence now is that the hatchery fish are just one more threat to the
survival (much less the recovery) of wild fish stocks.

http://www.nativefishsociety.org/docs/Biblio/bib.htm

The real reason hatchery fish are being released into west coast
fisheries is to keep fishermen lulled and happy while the wild fish
disappear. Natural resource management by fait accompli.

> If hatchery fish reproduce in
> the wild after their release, as I believe they do,

They will, which is why they should be killed before they can.

> it seems to me to make
> just as much sense to release hatchery steelhead as it does to release wild
> steelhead. I repeat, this is not a criticism - I am curious as to the
> rationale for releasing wild fish but not hatchery fish.

Wild steelhead (and salmon) are an integral part of what makes the PNW
unique. Hatchery fish are cheap toys that (if they must exist at all)
should be played with, then broken.

JR

[bruiser]

Great stuff Chas. Maybe you could post a pic to your site for those of us
who are "abpf challenged".

bruce h

[Yuji Sakuma]

Hello JR,

I am not sure that I understand the reasons for your opposition to trying to
restore disappearing natural runs with hatchery fish. These days, I
understand that hatchery stock, in order to maintain the purity of the gene
pool for a given river, is produced using eggs and milt from wild fish
returning to that river . From what I hear, hatchery fish do have a higher
early mortality than stream bred fish because despite having the same genes,
they will be less well adapted to wild conditions initially. However, if
they do manage to survive say, a year, it seems to me that they should be
the same in every way as stream-bred fish of the same age. Am I missing
something here? Sure, I too would like to see steelhead runs restored by
returning the environment to what it was a couple of centuries ago but let's
face it, that's not going to happen.



Best regards,



Yuji Sakuma



================================================== ===

"JR" > wrote in message ...

[Charlie Choc]

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 08:57:58 GMT, Chas Wade
> wrote:

> so I used the 200mm zoom and
>had to shoot at 1/40 second.

That's a steady hand, Chas. Great shot. What kind of lens is it?
--
Charlie...

[Chas Wade]

"bruiser" > wrote:
>Great stuff Chas. Maybe you could post a pic to your site for those
>of us
>who are "abpf challenged".
>

I've posted it on PhotoSig, try this:
http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/view?id=1148371

Let me know if there's any trouble with that, I'll put it on my sight
too later.

Thanks,

Chas
remove fly fish to reply
http://home.comcast.net/~chas.wade/wsb/html/view.cgi-home.html-.html
San Juan Pictures at:
http://home.comcast.net/~chasepike/wsb/index.html

[Chas Wade]

Charlie Choc > wrote:
>On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 08:57:58 GMT, Chas Wade
> wrote:
>
>> so I used the 200mm zoom and
>>had to shoot at 1/40 second.
>
>That's a steady hand, Chas. Great shot. What kind of lens is it?

Thanks Charlie, that's my work horse, Nikkor 28-200 zoom.

Chas
remove fly fish to reply
http://home.comcast.net/~chas.wade/wsb/html/view.cgi-home.html-.html
San Juan Pictures at:
http://home.comcast.net/~chasepike/wsb/index.html

[Willi]

Yuji Sakuma wrote:

> Hello JR,
>
> I am not sure that I understand the reasons for your opposition to trying to
> restore disappearing natural runs with hatchery fish. These days, I
> understand that hatchery stock, in order to maintain the purity of the gene
> pool for a given river, is produced using eggs and milt from wild fish
> returning to that river . From what I hear, hatchery fish do have a higher
> early mortality than stream bred fish because despite having the same genes,
> they will be less well adapted to wild conditions initially. However, if
> they do manage to survive say, a year, it seems to me that they should be
> the same in every way as stream-bred fish of the same age. Am I missing
> something here? Sure, I too would like to see steelhead runs restored by
> returning the environment to what it was a couple of centuries ago but let's
> face it, that's not going to happen.


There are places where what you say is true and that if runs are to be
reestablished, hatchery fish must be used. However, there are many
places where natural fish can re-establish healthy runs on their own.


Using the milt and eggs from the wild fish returning to the river is the
best way if man must interfere. However, since man is choosing which
fish will have offspring, instead of the environment, we are likely to
be inadvertently selecting for specific traits. Because such an
unnaturally high number of artificially inseminated eggs will survive,
far fewer fish are needed and are being chosen to contribute to the gene
pool. Since many fish in the stocking would have died in the wild for
one reason or another before they would have reached "stocking" size,
the selection bias is even more pronounced.

Willi

[Willi]

Chas Wade wrote:

> "bruiser" > wrote:
>
>>Great stuff Chas. Maybe you could post a pic to your site for those
>>of us
>>who are "abpf challenged".
>>
>
>
> I've posted it on PhotoSig, try this:
> http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/view?id=1148371


Thanks Chas. Now I see what everyone was raving about great picture,
even better in conjunction with your story.

Willi

[Chas Wade]

"Yuji Sakuma" > wrote:
>Hello JR,
>
>I am not sure that I understand the reasons for your opposition to
>trying to
>restore disappearing natural runs with hatchery fish. These days, I
>understand that hatchery stock, in order to maintain the purity of the
>gene
>pool for a given river, is produced using eggs and milt from wild fish
>returning to that river . From what I hear, hatchery fish do have a
>higher
>early mortality than stream bred fish because despite having the same
>genes,
>they will be less well adapted to wild conditions initially. However,
>if
>they do manage to survive say, a year, it seems to me that they should
>be
>the same in every way as stream-bred fish of the same age. Am I
>missing
>something here? Sure, I too would like to see steelhead runs restored
>by
>returning the environment to what it was a couple of centuries ago but
>let's
>face it, that's not going to happen.
>

Yuji,

JR is right on the money here, but you are too. The problem os that
only some of the hatcheries actually take wild fish for their brood
stock. Most of the rivers have two distinct runs of fish, the early
run is the hatchery fish, they are smaller, and the descendants of
hatchery fish first introduced from other rivers many years ago. The
later run natives are the vestige if the original stock and need to be
protected.

In a few instances hatcheries have converted to supporting the native
fishery, and in most of those cases they don't mark the smolts before
releasing them so we see them as natives when they return.

Thanks for asking some good questions,

Chas
remove fly fish to reply
http://home.comcast.net/~chas.wade/wsb/html/view.cgi-home.html-.html
San Juan Pictures at:
http://home.comcast.net/~chasepike/wsb/index.html

[Charlie Choc]

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 17:58:17 GMT, Chas Wade
> wrote:

>Thanks Charlie, that's my work horse, Nikkor 28-200 zoom.
>
I've been looking at that lens, as well as the Tamron 28-300 XR. I've
seen some shots taken with it that are really nice too. I want to get
something with a little more 'reach' than my 24-85mm Nikkor for when I
go out west this summer.
--
Charlie...

[daytripper]

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 08:57:58 GMT, Chas Wade >
wrote:

>My son Andy always seems to catch the biggest fish. He's also a
>fearless wader. Imagine someone who wades like Warren, but is 6 foot 3
>inches tall.
[snipped fantastic action sequence]
> I've posted the picture
>to ABPF. It's not one of my clearer pictures, but I was across the
>river, unwilling to attempt the crossing, so I used the 200mm zoom and
>had to shoot at 1/40 second. This is the best shot of 10.

Legendary!

[rw]

That's a terrific photo, Chas. The look on Andy's face is priceless. The
fish isn't too shabby, either.

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

[rw]

On 2004-02-07 11:04:31 -0700, Chas Wade >
said:

> "Yuji Sakuma" > wrote:
> >Hello JR,
> >
> >I am not sure that I understand the reasons for your opposition to
>trying to
> >restore disappearing natural runs with hatchery fish. These days, I
> >understand that hatchery stock, in order to maintain the purity of the
>gene
> >pool for a given river, is produced using eggs and milt from wild fish
> >returning to that river . From what I hear, hatchery fish do have a
>higher
> >early mortality than stream bred fish because despite having the same
>genes,
> >they will be less well adapted to wild conditions initially. However,
>if
> >they do manage to survive say, a year, it seems to me that they should
>be
> >the same in every way as stream-bred fish of the same age. Am I
>missing
> >something here? Sure, I too would like to see steelhead runs restored
>by
> >returning the environment to what it was a couple of centuries ago but
>let's
> >face it, that's not going to happen.
> >
>
> Yuji,
>
> JR is right on the money here, but you are too. The problem os that only
some of the hatcheries actually take wild fish for their brood stock. Most
of the rivers have two distinct runs of fish, the early run is the hatchery
fish, they are smaller, and the descendants of hatchery fish first
introduced from other rivers many years ago. The later run natives are the
vestige if the original stock and need to be protected.

I don't think the problem is that hatchery steelhead (bred from wild stock)
have inferior genetics at conception. They have the same genetics as wild
fish. The problem is that they're raised "in bulk," protected from the
vissicitudes of nature, such as predators, weather, and disease, until
they're smolts., and then they're released. They haven't gone through the
culling that they're wild cousins endure, so they have inferior genetics
when they're released.

IMO, of course. I'm just an armchair fisheries biologist. :-)

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

[Willi]

rw wrote:

> I don't think the problem is that hatchery steelhead (bred from wild
> stock) have inferior genetics at conception. They have the same genetics
> as wild fish.


They do have different genetics from wild fish because we're choosing
which fish will reproduce instead of nature. It's as close as we can get
to reproducing what would have ocurred naturally, but the genetics
aren't the same.

Willi

[Chas Wade]

Willi > wrote:
>
>
>rw wrote:
>
>> I don't think the problem is that hatchery steelhead (bred from wild
>> stock) have inferior genetics at conception. They have the same
>>genetics
>> as wild fish.
>
>
>They do have different genetics from wild fish because we're choosing
>which fish will reproduce instead of nature. It's as close as we can
>get
>to reproducing what would have ocurred naturally, but the genetics
>aren't the same.
>
This is certainly a grey area Willi, but I know of one recent study
that supports what you're talking about. It seems that in the wild a
large majority (90% I think) of the fertilized chinook eggs were
fertilized by jacks. I've seen video of the jacks sneaking in and
going the deed right under the big bucks. In a hatchery they take a
big buck and use his milt to fertilize the eggs from several hens in a
bucket.

Monday I watched the guys at the Cascade River steelhead hatchery
stripping the eggs from a dozen 3 to 5 pound steelhead into a bucket,
and then collecting the milt from a few bucks in a zip lock bag. The
hatchery fish on this river are all small and return early. I don't
know, but I think they're Skamania river fish. The Skamania is about
300 miles away and dumps into the Columbia. Eggs from that hatchery
represent most of the steelhead in the midwest, and also most of the
hatchery fish in the northwest.

Chas
remove fly fish to reply
http://home.comcast.net/~chas.wade/wsb/html/view.cgi-home.html-.html
San Juan Pictures at:
http://home.comcast.net/~chasepike/wsb/index.html

[Chas Wade]

Charlie Choc > wrote:
>On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 17:58:17 GMT, Chas Wade
> wrote:
>
>>Thanks Charlie, that's my work horse, Nikkor 28-200 zoom.
>>
>I've been looking at that lens, as well as the Tamron 28-300 XR. I've
>seen some shots taken with it that are really nice too. I want to get
>something with a little more 'reach' than my 24-85mm Nikkor for when I
>go out west this summer.
>--

I don't have any experience with the Tamron. I will say that the
Nikkor is not their best quality lens. I like it, and it's good, but
there is a little chromatic aberation, and it's not quite as sharp as
the 18-35, and not nearly as nice as the 60mm Macro. The Tamron might
be as good, or even a better lens, I don't know.

Chas
remove fly fish to reply
http://home.comcast.net/~chas.wade/wsb/html/view.cgi-home.html-.html
San Juan Pictures at:
http://home.comcast.net/~chasepike/wsb/index.html

[Chas Wade]

rw > wrote:
>That's a terrific photo, Chas. The look on Andy's face is priceless.
>The
>fish isn't too shabby, either.
>
I guess it's clear that Andy is happier than the fish.

Come on over and catch one like his and we'll see if we can put a smile
like that on your face.

Thanks,

Chas
remove fly fish to reply
http://home.comcast.net/~chas.wade/wsb/html/view.cgi-home.html-.html
San Juan Pictures at:
http://home.comcast.net/~chasepike/wsb/index.html

[Wayne Harrison]

"Charlie Choc" > wrote

> I've been looking at that lens, as well as the Tamron 28-300 XR. I've
> seen some shots taken with it that are really nice too. I want to get
> something with a little more 'reach' than my 24-85mm Nikkor for when I
> go out west this summer.
> --
> Charlie...

duc: if you want the sharpest long lens for your nikon, check out the
180/2.8 nikkor. it may well be the sharpest lens of *any* length that i
have ever seen, from nikon.

of course, if you just want something for 4x5 prints, then either of the
lens, above, will do just fine.

yfitons
wayno

[Charlie Choc]

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 19:00:01 GMT, Chas Wade
> wrote:

>I don't have any experience with the Tamron.

I've not used the Tamron either, but it has gotten some pretty good
reviews. I'm going to see if I can get a chance to try one out at a
local camera shop.
--
Charlie...

[Roger Ohlund]

"Charlie Choc" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 17:58:17 GMT, Chas Wade
> > wrote:
>
> >Thanks Charlie, that's my work horse, Nikkor 28-200 zoom.
> >
> I've been looking at that lens, as well as the Tamron 28-300 XR. I've
> seen some shots taken with it that are really nice too. I want to get
> something with a little more 'reach' than my 24-85mm Nikkor for when I
> go out west this summer.
> --
> Charlie...

Keep the 24-85 and add a Nikkor AF 80-200 f2.8D ED to your collection.
A classic lens and among the sharpest there is.
The problem with lenses like 28-200 and/or 28-300 is that they often enough
aren't all that light sensitive and equally often have distortion problems
in the wide angle range.
In a purely photo-technical point of view you may get much better
performance using two lenses. Then there is the issue about carrying more
than one lens on your fishing trip, in which case the two earlier mentioned
lenses would be preffered.

/Roger

[jlp]

a variety of references are available at
http://www.nativefishsociety.org/search.htm
a search for hatchery, hatcheries, genetics etc. will provide a number of
pointers
to the current science. Also,
http://www.nativefishsociety.org/docs/Biblio/bib.htm

--
Jeff

Kamchatka
http://home.teleport.com/~salmo/K2000/
NFS
http://NativeFishSociety.org


"Willi" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> rw wrote:
>
> > I don't think the problem is that hatchery steelhead (bred from wild
> > stock) have inferior genetics at conception. They have the same genetics
> > as wild fish.
>
>
> They do have different genetics from wild fish because we're choosing
> which fish will reproduce instead of nature. It's as close as we can get
> to reproducing what would have ocurred naturally, but the genetics
> aren't the same.
>
> Willi
>
>
>
>
>

[Charlie Choc]

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 19:52:28 GMT, "Roger Ohlund"
> wrote:

>Keep the 24-85 and add a Nikkor AF 80-200 f2.8D ED to your collection.
>A classic lens and among the sharpest there is.

I've been looking at that lens too. I also have an 18-35mm Nikkor for
panoramas and such.

>The problem with lenses like 28-200 and/or 28-300 is that they often enough
>aren't all that light sensitive and equally often have distortion problems
>in the wide angle range.

The other lenses aren't that fast, true, but from the reviews I've
seen the distortion isn't bad either.

>In a purely photo-technical point of view you may get much better
>performance using two lenses. Then there is the issue about carrying more
>than one lens on your fishing trip, in which case the two earlier mentioned
>lenses would be preffered.
>
Carrying multiple lenses isn't as much an issue with me as having to
change them often, especially with a digital SLR where each change
adds the risk of dust on the CCD. You don't get a fresh array every
24-36 shots like you do with film.

I realize there are compromises in any approach, of course. Clearly
the best solutions is to just buy all the lenses available. <g>
--
Charlie...

[Chas Wade]

Charlie Choc > wrote:
>On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 19:52:28 GMT, "Roger Ohlund"
> wrote:
>
>>Keep the 24-85 and add a Nikkor AF 80-200 f2.8D ED to your collection.
>>A classic lens and among the sharpest there is.
>
I looked that one up too, and it looks good. I wonder about the new
70-300 ED lens, B&H has a page on it:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=149607&is=GREY

The price is great, but I have no review info. ED should fix the
chromatic aberation. I have to say that the chromatic aberation is
slight, and often invisible in the 28-200. I use it most of the time.

Chas
remove fly fish to reply
http://home.comcast.net/~chas.wade/wsb/html/view.cgi-home.html-.html
San Juan Pictures at:
http://home.comcast.net/~chasepike/wsb/index.html

[Yuji Sakuma]

Willi,



Thanks for pointing out a consideration, natural versus human selection,
that I had not previously heard mentioned with respect to fisheries
management. It always makes me happy to learn something new.



People sometimes have an non-sensical bias against hatchery fish though.
Whenever that bias comes to my mind, I think of the wild brown trout of
North America that I love to fish for and remember that each and every one
of those beauties, without exception, is descended from a hatchery fish.



Yuji Sakuma



================================================== ==============

"Willi" > wrote in message
...

> There are places where what you say is true and that if runs are to be
> reestablished, hatchery fish must be used. However, there are many
> places where natural fish can re-establish healthy runs on their own.
>
>
> Using the milt and eggs from the wild fish returning to the river is the
> best way if man must interfere. However, since man is choosing which
> fish will have offspring, instead of the environment, we are likely to
> be inadvertently selecting for specific traits. Because such an
> unnaturally high number of artificially inseminated eggs will survive,
> far fewer fish are needed and are being chosen to contribute to the gene
> pool. Since many fish in the stocking would have died in the wild for
> one reason or another before they would have reached "stocking" size,
> the selection bias is even more pronounced.
>
> Willi
>
>

[Roger Ohlund]

"Charlie Choc" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 19:52:28 GMT, "Roger Ohlund"
> > wrote:
>
> >Keep the 24-85 and add a Nikkor AF 80-200 f2.8D ED to your collection.
> >A classic lens and among the sharpest there is.
>
> I've been looking at that lens too. I also have an 18-35mm Nikkor for
> panoramas and such.
>

Is it any good?
I've started to look for a used Nikkor 20-35mm f2.8 D IF ED but they seem to
be very expensive.

/Roger

[Charlie Choc]

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 20:26:52 GMT, "Roger Ohlund"
> wrote:

>
>"Charlie Choc" > wrote in message
...
>> I've been looking at that lens too. I also have an 18-35mm Nikkor for
>> panoramas and such.
>>
>
>Is it any good?
>I've started to look for a used Nikkor 20-35mm f2.8 D IF ED but they seem to
>be very expensive.
>
I've been happy with it. Here are some reviews of the lens:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/1835.htm
http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom.html
http://www.popphoto.com/assets/download/5202003163659.pdf
One of them mentions its' distortion would limit the use for
architecture, but it hasn't been noticeable to me in any of the shots
I've taken.
--
Charlie...

[Wayne Harrison]

"Roger Ohlund" > wrote

> I've started to look for a used Nikkor 20-35mm f2.8 D IF ED but they seem
to
> be very expensive.
>
> /Roger

there's a reason for that. best damn wide angle zoom ever made. it's
my favorite lens. that, the 180/2.8, and the 60 micro, and you got all you
will ever need.

yfitons
wayno
>
>

[Steve_sullivan]

In article >,
"Yuji Sakuma" > wrote:

> Charles,
>
>
>
> The following is a question, not a criticism, about steelhead. I have no
> objection at all to killing and eating hatchery fish released into a put and
> take fishery or to killing and eating wild fish that are deemed (hopefully
> by science-based regulations) to be abundant. Presumably, hatchery fish are
> being released into west coast rivers in an attempt to restore or increase
> runs that are considered to be in decline. If hatchery fish reproduce in
> the wild after their release, as I believe they do, it seems to me to make
> just as much sense to release hatchery steelhead as it does to release wild
> steelhead. I repeat, this is not a criticism - I am curious as to the
> rationale for releasing wild fish but not hatchery fish.

I believe the california fish and game DOES NOT WANT hatchery fish to
spawn with the natives. The cdfg actually WANTS people to catch and
keep the hatchery steelhead.

I dont know this for a fact, I heard that they sent a letter to
stealhead license holders last year saying this (and this is my first
year steelheading)

--
"He that would exchange liberty for temporary safety
deserves neither liberty nor safety. Ben Franklin
"Those who are ready to sacrifice freedom for security
ultimately will lose both" - Abraham Lincoln

[Steve_sullivan]

In article >,
rw > wrote:

> > JR is right on the money here, but you are too. The problem os that only
> some of the hatcheries actually take wild fish for their brood stock. Most
> of the rivers have two distinct runs of fish, the early run is the hatchery
> fish, they are smaller, and the descendants of hatchery fish first
> introduced from other rivers many years ago. The later run natives are the
> vestige if the original stock and need to be protected.
>
> I don't think the problem is that hatchery steelhead (bred from wild stock)
> have inferior genetics at conception. They have the same genetics as wild
> fish. The problem is that they're raised "in bulk," protected from the
> vissicitudes of nature, such as predators, weather, and disease, until
> they're smolts., and then they're released. They haven't gone through the
> culling that they're wild cousins endure, so they have inferior genetics
> when they're released.
>
> IMO, of course. I'm just an armchair fisheries biologist. :-)

Well why dont they just release the steelhead into the river at a
earlier time? I guess it would be preety hard to implant the eggs into
redds, but they could release the salmon fry. Of course they would have
to release alot more (something like 100 times more salmon fry than 1
year old's?)

--
"He that would exchange liberty for temporary safety
deserves neither liberty nor safety. Ben Franklin
"Those who are ready to sacrifice freedom for security
ultimately will lose both" - Abraham Lincoln

[Roger Ohlund]

"Wayne Harrison" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Roger Ohlund" > wrote
>
> > I've started to look for a used Nikkor 20-35mm f2.8 D IF ED but they
seem
> to
> > be very expensive.
> >
> > /Roger
>
> there's a reason for that. best damn wide angle zoom ever made. it's
> my favorite lens. that, the 180/2.8, and the 60 micro, and you got all
you
> will ever need.
>
> yfitons
> wayno

I have the Nikkor 35-70mm f2.8D and the Nikkor 80-200mm f2.8D but, as I'm
often in the mountains fishing, I have been lacking a wide angle for
panorama shots. I was thinking to buy the Nikkor 24mm 2.8D when I found out
about the Nikkor 20-35mm f2.8D and since then I've been watching Ebay for
one. I'm not surprised they're that expensive but I'm still having second
thoughts about it since the Nikkor 24mm 2.8D is quite a lot cheaper.

/Roger

[Chas Wade]

Steve_sullivan > wrote:
>
>Well why dont they just release the steelhead into the river at a
>earlier time? I guess it would be preety hard to implant the eggs
>into
>redds, but they could release the salmon fry. Of course they would
>have
>to release alot more (something like 100 times more salmon fry than 1
>year old's?)
>
We had a discussion about this with some folks from Washington Trout.
They got all excited about the selection that goes on getting the eggs
to stay in the redd, and all that stuff. I think you'd find it would
take closer to 1000 times as many eggs to get the fish up to 10 inches
safely, and the 10 inch size is what they release. Any process of
inserting the eggs in the redds would be horibly expensive to implement.

Chas
remove fly fish to reply
http://home.comcast.net/~chas.wade/wsb/html/view.cgi-home.html-.html
San Juan Pictures at:
http://home.comcast.net/~chasepike/wsb/index.html

[Wolfgang]

"rw" > wrote in message
. ..

> I don't think the problem is that hatchery steelhead (bred from wild
stock)
> have inferior genetics at conception. *They have the same genetics as wild
> fish.* The problem is that they're raised "in bulk," protected from the
> vissicitudes of nature, such as predators, weather, and disease, until
> they're smolts., and then they're released. They haven't gone through the
> culling that they're wild cousins endure, so *they have inferior genetics
> when they're released.*
>
> IMO, of course. I'm just an armchair fisheries biologist. :-)

Well now, that's as fine a muddle headed example of neo-Lamarckian gibberish
as we've seen here all day.

Wolfgang
*emphasis added*

[Peter Charles]

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 20:53:48 GMT, "Wayne Harrison"
> wrote:

>
>"Roger Ohlund" > wrote
>
>> I've started to look for a used Nikkor 20-35mm f2.8 D IF ED but they seem
>to
>> be very expensive.
>>
>> /Roger
>
> there's a reason for that. best damn wide angle zoom ever made. it's
>my favorite lens. that, the 180/2.8, and the 60 micro, and you got all you
>will ever need.
>
> yfitons
> wayno
>>
>>
>
jeez wayno, I think we're the only ones here who still know how to
focus all by their lone's self . . . .

**** zooms, primes rule!!!



Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

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

[Peter Charles]

nice shot, nice fish, btw

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

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

[asadi]

negatory.... didn't have the 'hatcheries' then that we do now....those
were more of the transplant variety

john

"Yuji Sakuma" > wrote in message
. ..
> Willi,
>
>
>
> Thanks for pointing out a consideration, natural versus human selection,
> that I had not previously heard mentioned with respect to fisheries
> management. It always makes me happy to learn something new.
>
>
>
> People sometimes have an non-sensical bias against hatchery fish though.
> Whenever that bias comes to my mind, I think of the wild brown trout of
> North America that I love to fish for and remember that each and every one
> of those beauties, without exception, is descended from a hatchery fish.
>
>
>
> Yuji Sakuma
>
>
>
> ================================================== ==============
>
> "Willi" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > There are places where what you say is true and that if runs are to be
> > reestablished, hatchery fish must be used. However, there are many
> > places where natural fish can re-establish healthy runs on their own.
> >
> >
> > Using the milt and eggs from the wild fish returning to the river is the
> > best way if man must interfere. However, since man is choosing which
> > fish will have offspring, instead of the environment, we are likely to
> > be inadvertently selecting for specific traits. Because such an
> > unnaturally high number of artificially inseminated eggs will survive,
> > far fewer fish are needed and are being chosen to contribute to the gene
> > pool. Since many fish in the stocking would have died in the wild for
> > one reason or another before they would have reached "stocking" size,
> > the selection bias is even more pronounced.
> >
> > Willi
> >
> >
>
>

[Peter Charles]

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 02:07:04 GMT, (Greg Pavlov)
wrote:

>On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 19:49:20 -0500, Peter Charles
> wrote:
>
>>
>>**** zooms, primes rule!!!
>>
>
> "20 - 35" sounds like a zoom.

yup, I'm just trying to move the "luditite vs. early accepter"
argument back about three decades. Digital vs. film was starting to
bore and in the process, I'm skipping right over MF vs. AF and AE vs.
Manual.

Peter (happiest with a black cloth over his head)

[Dave LaCourse]

Peter writes:

>Peter (happiest with a black cloth over his head)
>

Change "cloth" to "slip" and, voila, you have wayno.
Dave

http://hometown.aol.com/davplac/myhomepage/index.html

[Wayne Harrison]

"Peter Charles" > wrote

> jeez wayno, I think we're the only ones here who still know how to
> focus all by their lone's self . . . .

no doubt.
>
> **** zooms, primes rule!!!

trust me on this: the 20-35/2.8 is as good as anything you will ever
see. better than a 24 olympus prime that i tested it against, with 100asa
transparencies.

yfitons
wayno
>
>
>
> Peter
>
> turn mailhot into hotmail to reply
>
> Visit The Streamer Page at
http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

[Willi]

Peter Charles wrote:

> nice shot, nice fish, btw

"even though it was taken with a zoom" ?

Willi

[Wayne Harrison]

"Dave LaCourse" > wrote in message
...
> Peter writes:
>
> >Peter (happiest with a black cloth over his head)
> >
>
> Change "cloth" to "slip" and, voila, you have wayno.
> Dave

some things simply cannot be denied.

yfitons
wayno

[Peter Charles]

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 19:39:09 -0700, Willi > wrote:

>
>
>Peter Charles wrote:
>
>> nice shot, nice fish, btw
>
>"even though it was taken with a zoom" ?
>
>Willi

>
>
>
>
well, we all make have to make allowances once in a while. :)

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

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

[Peter Charles]

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 02:20:40 GMT, "Wayne Harrison"
> wrote:

>
>"Peter Charles" > wrote
>
>> jeez wayno, I think we're the only ones here who still know how to
>> focus all by their lone's self . . . .
>
> no doubt.
>>
>> **** zooms, primes rule!!!
>
> trust me on this: the 20-35/2.8 is as good as anything you will ever
>see. better than a 24 olympus prime that i tested it against, with 100asa
>transparencies.
>
>yfitons
>wayno
>>
>>
>
wayno, work with me here -- we know that there are a few good zooms
out there but do we have to admit it????

Peter (just getting warmed up in his new luditite t-shirt and the rug
gets pulled)

looking for a new gig . . . . .

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

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

[troutbum_mt]

says...
> My son Andy always seems to catch the biggest fish.
<snipped>

Damn Chas, THAT'S a fish! Tell Andy I said hello and congrats on the
hog. Nice pic btw.
--
Warren
(use troutbum_mt (at) yahoo to reply via email)
For Conclave Info:
http://www.geocities.com/troutbum_mt3/MadisonConclave.html

[Chas Wade]

troutbum_mt > wrote:
>
>Damn Chas, THAT'S a fish! Tell Andy I said hello and congrats on the
>hog. Nice pic btw.
>--
Thanks Warren, I'll pass on the note. If you can get out here in the
next 6 weeks, I'll put you over one of these babies.

Chas
remove fly fish to reply
http://home.comcast.net/~chas.wade/wsb/html/view.cgi-home.html-.html
San Juan Pictures at:
http://home.comcast.net/~chasepike/wsb/index.html

[Yuji Sakuma]

I dunno, I have visited the site at Caledonia, New York, from which Seth
Green is said to have introduced salmo trutta to America. It still exists
and it is still operating. Sure looks like a hatchery to me.

Yuji Sakuma,

========================================
"asadi" > wrote in message
...
> negatory.... didn't have the 'hatcheries' then that we do now....those
> were more of the transplant variety
>
> john
>

[JR]

Yuji Sakuma wrote:
>
> Hello JR,

Hey, Yuji.

> I am not sure that I understand the reasons for your opposition to trying to
> restore disappearing natural runs with hatchery fish. These days, I
> understand that hatchery stock, in order to maintain the purity of the gene
> pool for a given river, is produced using eggs and milt from wild fish
> returning to that river .

Sometimes yes, sometimes no, but even in cases where it is, if hatchery
fish breed with wild fish, the genetic structure of the population of
so-called "wild" fish changes over time.

> From what I hear, hatchery fish do have a higher
> early mortality than stream bred fish because despite having the same genes,
> they will be less well adapted to wild conditions initially. However, if
> they do manage to survive say, a year, it seems to me that they should be
> the same in every way as stream-bred fish of the same age. Am I missing
> something here?

At some point, it is useful to think less about the adaptation of
individual fish and more about the fitness of populations of fish to the
entire range of environmental conditions they face throughout their life
history.
Very many eggs, alevins and fingerlings do not survive the particular
conditions of hatchery life before the fish are released into the wild.
Those that do are, pretty much by definition, those that were "better
adapted" (for whatever mix of reasons) to those artificial hatchery
conditions, just as the population of smolts bred in the wild that
manage to survive to smoltification are those better adapted to whatever
conditions happened to exist where they were bred.

From that point forward, these two groups of fish (hatchery-bred and
stream-bred) are going to face pretty much the same environmental
conditions during migration to and from the sea. Some will survive,
some won't. Those from a hatchery, *if* the brood stock was truly,
entirely wild, would in theory be no more or less adapted to these
later, post-release environmental conditions than fish bred in the wild.

But, and this is a big BUT, if hatchery-bred fish are allowed to breed
with wild fish, this presumptive source of truly wild brood stock
inevitably changes over time. Over time, the genetic structure of the
population of *wild* fish is increasingly influenced by genes from fish
better adapted, in their early life history, to a hatchery environment
rather than a wild environment. Over time, the population as a whole
becomes increasingly one that is better adapted, in its early life
stages, to hatchery ponds and less well adapted to the quite different
conditions of natural redds and shoreline shallows that eggs, alevins
and young fingerlings develop in.

In addition, over time, the genetic structure of the population--for
what should be obvious reasons--will become one decreasingly contributed
to by the offspring of those individual breeding adults better adapted
(for whatever mix of reasons) to the rigors of finding suitable breeding
grounds and then building and/or defending their redds. Over time, the
so-called "wild" brood stock, even if the effort is made to take
breeding adults from the wild, becomes less and less "wild" in its
overall composition. Over time, the population as a whole becomes
increasingly domesticated, increasingly dependent on the intervention of
humans in a significant portion of its life cycle.

> Sure, I too would like to see steelhead runs restored by
> returning the environment to what it was a couple of centuries ago but let's
> face it, that's not going to happen.

I think this "either/or" idea, the idea that maintenance or restoration
of habitats conducive to wild fish can only mean "returning the
environment to what it was a couple of centuries ago" is a straw man.
If the survival of wild fish comes to depend entirely on massive
influxes of hatchery fish as the sole counterpoint to dozens of other
factors destroying wild habitats (which is the direction current
policies tend toward), then wild steelhead and Pacific salmon are simply
doomed.

JR

[JR]

Yuji Sakuma wrote:
>
> People sometimes have an non-sensical bias against hatchery fish though.
> Whenever that bias comes to my mind, I think of the wild brown trout of
> North America that I love to fish for and remember that each and every one
> of those beauties, without exception, is descended from a hatchery fish.

I think the value hatchery programs is highly location-specific,
goal-specific. Being for *or* against hatchery fish in general is
pretty pointless. The introduction of exotic species raises a different
set of concerns (potential impact on native species, for example), than
the introduction of hatchery supplements to help restore declining wild
populations of the same species.

JR

[Peter Charles]

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 14:46:11 GMT, (Greg Pavlov)
wrote:

>On 08 Feb 2004 02:16:49 GMT, (Dave LaCourse)
>wrote:
>
>>Peter writes:
>>
>>>Peter (happiest with a black cloth over his head)
>>
>>Change "cloth" to "slip" and, voila, you have wayno.
>>Dave
>
>
> Peter puts the black cloth over his head when he
> comes off the water at the end of the day, for
> obvious reasons.


True, my mother always taught me never to gloat and sometimes it's
damn hard. . . . the cloth comes in handy.

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

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

[Joe McIntosh]

"Charlie Choc" > wrote in message
...
> seen some shots taken with it that are really nice too. I want to get
> something with a little more 'reach' than my 24-85mm Nikkor for when I
> go out west this summer.
> --
> Charlie...

Ij--Gee Charlie guess you will have to get a trailer to haul all
these lenses behind the "terminator"
Anyone want to suggest the cheapest digital camera that I should get to
replace my film loading Stylis that sank off the side of my kayak.
Needed for camp scenes, creek pictures, and once in awhile for fish
picture.. Got a lesson in New Zealand on full extension of arms forward
when enlarging fish takes.
Joe

[Charlie Choc]

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 15:07:26 GMT, "Joe McIntosh"
> wrote:

>Ij--Gee Charlie guess you will have to get a trailer to haul all
>these lenses behind the "terminator"

Just want to make sure I'm ready to get the shots of your big fish.

>Anyone want to suggest the cheapest digital camera that I should get to
>replace my film loading Stylis that sank off the side of my kayak.

Not super cheap, but the Olympus Stylus (300 and 400) and the Pentax
Optio 33WR are water resistant. I don't think they float, though.
--
Charlie...

[Willi]

JR wrote:

The introduction of exotic species raises a different
> set of concerns (potential impact on native species, for example), than
> the introduction of hatchery supplements to help restore declining wild
> populations of the same species.

I agree it is different but that doesn't mean that using hatchery
supplements to restore declining wild populations is benign. Just
because a fish is wild doesn't mean it's native. Supplementing
populations of wild fish with stocking can and will affect native fishes
especially if the fish being stocked aren't native. For many years
Colorado stocked its streams and rivers with Rainbow trout. They became
wild, self sustaining populations which were supplemented each year with
massive stockings of catchable Rainbow trout. This was one of the
primary causes of the near extinction of Colorado's native Cutts.

Even when it is native fishes that are stocked, there will still be an
impact on the other native fishes in the system. IMO, if it is necessary
to have an ongoing stocking program, this means that there are
underlying causes for this need that must be addressed in order for such
a program to have any success beyond raising domesticated fish.

Even though I do believe there are times and places where stocking is
needed, based on my experiences with it and research on it in the
Rockies, it can cause unforeseen consequences such as the introduction of
WD. Even though it appears illogical, research has also shown that
stocking can decrease rather than increase the population of the fish
that are stocked. Montana did a series of studies showing that the
stocking of catchable Rainbows in streams and rivers that already have
self sustaining populations, decreases the number and size of the fish
that the body of water will carry. Since the introduction of WD,
Colorado has stopped stocking in almost all streams and rivers. It's my
experience, and I think Charlie W. will concur, that the fishing has
improved in most places.

Willi

[JR]

Willi wrote:
>
> JR wrote:
>
> The introduction of exotic species raises a different
> > set of concerns (potential impact on native species, for example), than
> > the introduction of hatchery supplements to help restore declining wild
> > populations of the same species.
>
> I agree it is different but that doesn't mean that using hatchery
> supplements to restore declining wild populations is benign.

Which is what I argue at length in another thread. In the case of
current hatchery policies that impact wild steelhead and Pacific salmon
in the PNW, the effect is far from benign.

JR

[asadi]

I was speaking in the sense that the brown trout of today (with notable
exceptions) are a wild (if transplanted) fish. Naturally reproducing for
some many generations and that they were not the product of 'modern'
hatcheries....hatcheries having somewhat of a ....tarnished...reputation in
my book.

That by and large the trout you catch today have genetically adapted to
their environment and aren't something released every year in every river
system.

I guess to get technical we should find out if the eggs Seth got from Europe
were..'Hatchery' eggs or eggs from the harvesting of wild brown trout.

anybody?....john

[asadi]

'course then again I thought he just hatched and released....did he breed in
captivity?

john

"asadi" > wrote in message
...
> I was speaking in the sense that the brown trout of today (with notable
> exceptions) are a wild (if transplanted) fish. Naturally reproducing for
> some many generations and that they were not the product of 'modern'
> hatcheries....hatcheries having somewhat of a ....tarnished...reputation
in
> my book.
>
> That by and large the trout you catch today have genetically adapted to
> their environment and aren't something released every year in every river
> system.
>
> I guess to get technical we should find out if the eggs Seth got from
Europe
> were..'Hatchery' eggs or eggs from the harvesting of wild brown trout.
>
> anybody?....john
>
>
>

[David Snedeker]

"Yuji Sakuma" > wrote in message
. ..
> Willi,
>
>
>
> Thanks for pointing out a consideration, natural versus human selection,
> that I had not previously heard mentioned with respect to fisheries
> management. It always makes me happy to learn something new.
>

Another reason is that the hatchery fish are notorious disease spreaders.
Another reason is that the hatchery fish can be more aggressive in
fertilizing the redds, but the eggs thus fertilized are thought to be less
survivable.
In sum, Moma Nature does it better for these and other reasons we probably
are clueless about. Result . . . best we don't intervene- better we back off
the pressure when the runs get scanty.

Also note, the State of Washington just ordered a 2 year wild steelhead
release Statewide starting April,'04.

Dave

[Jeff Miller]

y'all also owe seth a thanks for the pacific shad run, don't you? won't
be long before the poor man's tarpon begins the excitement in eastern nc...

Yuji Sakuma wrote:

> I dunno, I have visited the site at Caledonia, New York, from which Seth
> Green is said to have introduced salmo trutta to America. It still exists
> and it is still operating. Sure looks like a hatchery to me.
>
>>

[Chas Wade]

Jeff Miller > wrote:
>y'all also owe seth a thanks for the pacific shad run, don't you?
>won't
>be long before the poor man's tarpon begins the excitement in eastern
>nc...
>
According to John McPhee you're right about that. I intend to try
fishing for them this year.

Chas
remove fly fish to reply
http://home.comcast.net/~chas.wade/wsb/html/view.cgi-home.html-.html
San Juan Pictures at:
http://home.comcast.net/~chasepike/wsb/index.html

[Jeff Miller]

if you've never done it before, you're in for a treat... esp. on light
tackle or flyrod... peter charles did a nice job of catching them during
his visit to rainy carolina.

jeff

Chas Wade wrote:

>
>
> According to John McPhee you're right about that. I intend to try
> fishing for them this year.
>
>

[Chas Wade]

Jeff Miller > wrote:
>if you've never done it before, you're in for a treat... esp. on light
>tackle or flyrod... peter charles did a nice job of catching them
>during
>his visit to rainy carolina.
>
I'm a bit concerned with it out hee, because the river is huge and I
don't know what I'm doing. But that never stopped me before! I have
caught one hickory shad, about a pound, in New Jersey when I was
fishing for stripers. Not much fight on a 10wt with 15 pound leader.

No, I didn't catch a striper, so I'll have to go back.

Chas
remove fly fish to reply
http://home.comcast.net/~chas.wade/wsb/html/view.cgi-home.html-.html
San Juan Pictures at:
http://home.comcast.net/~chasepike/wsb/index.html

[Jeff]

McPhee gave you some good hints about big water (I think the Delaware is
big in the lower stretches he wrote about) - look for seams and
currents, holding spots in holes and behind rocks or logs or trees in
the stream/river. get the fly down in the water column (although i've
caught shad near the top) and bump it along. the take is actually more
like a tug than a hit...they aren't eating, just smacking or trying to
move the fly, dart or spoon. i bet some of those redfish spoon flies
big dale's friend makes down in louisiana would work. In NC, we usually
go back into areas with lots of cypress trees and swamps with a good
current or a runoff moving the water. Pretty places, but you need a
boat. In other spots (like along the roanoke river near weldon), you
can stand on the bank of the river and reach them using spinning rods,
but those places get to be assholes-to-elbows (and i don't mean
scientists) with humanity when the run is on and just aren't any fun. a
boat is generally the way to go if the water is suitable. i'll be
interested in hearing your view of the shad fishery since you do so much
with salmon and steelhead.

jeff

Chas Wade wrote:
> Jeff Miller > wrote:
>
>>if you've never done it before, you're in for a treat... esp. on light
>>tackle or flyrod... peter charles did a nice job of catching them
>>during
>>his visit to rainy carolina.
>>
>
> I'm a bit concerned with it out hee, because the river is huge and I
> don't know what I'm doing. But that never stopped me before! I have
> caught one hickory shad, about a pound, in New Jersey when I was
> fishing for stripers. Not much fight on a 10wt with 15 pound leader.
>
> No, I didn't catch a striper, so I'll have to go back.
>
> Chas
> remove fly fish to reply
> http://home.comcast.net/~chas.wade/wsb/html/view.cgi-home.html-.html
> San Juan Pictures at:
> http://home.comcast.net/~chasepike/wsb/index.html
>
>

[Chas Wade]

Jeff > wrote:
>McPhee gave you some good hints about big water (I think the Delaware
>is
>big in the lower stretches he wrote about) - look for seams and
>currents, holding spots in holes and behind rocks or logs or trees in
>the stream/river. get the fly down in the water column (although i've
>caught shad near the top) and bump it along. the take is actually
>more
>like a tug than a hit...they aren't eating, just smacking or trying to
>move the fly, dart or spoon. i bet some of those redfish spoon flies
>big dale's friend makes down in louisiana would work. In NC, we
>usually
>go back into areas with lots of cypress trees and swamps with a good
>current or a runoff moving the water. Pretty places, but you need a
>boat. In other spots (like along the roanoke river near weldon), you
>can stand on the bank of the river and reach them using spinning rods,
>but those places get to be assholes-to-elbows (and i don't mean
>scientists) with humanity when the run is on and just aren't any fun.
>a
>boat is generally the way to go if the water is suitable. i'll be
>interested in hearing your view of the shad fishery since you do so
>much
>with salmon and steelhead.
>
>
Thanks Jeff, I do remember this sort of hint, but good written hints
are never the same as on the river experience, and regardless of the
reassurances, a really big river can be intimidating. I've played some
with the COlumbia near Vantage and caught trout, bass, and Carp. I
think I'm ready to give this a try this spring. I also have a friend
who's moved to Roseburg Oregon, and I may visit him to fish one of
those smaller rivers like the Rogue.

Chas
remove fly fish to reply
http://home.comcast.net/~chas.wade/wsb/html/view.cgi-home.html-.html
San Juan Pictures at:
http://home.comcast.net/~chasepike/wsb/index.html

[Bob Weinberger]

"Chas Wade" > wrote in message
news:WjcWb.267719$I06.2857826@attbi_s01...
> Jeff > wrote:

<snip>
> I also have a friend
> who's moved to Roseburg Oregon, and I may visit him to fish one of
> those smaller rivers like the Rogue.
>
> Chas
> remove fly fish to reply
> http://home.comcast.net/~chas.wade/wsb/html/view.cgi-home.html-.html
> San Juan Pictures at:
> http://home.comcast.net/~chasepike/wsb/index.html
>
Chas,
The Umpqua which runs right thru Roseburg is supposed to have a pretty good
shad run.
The only place I've tried for them is right below McNary Dam on the
Columbia, and I didn't know what I was doing. The current was way too
strong for me to get a fly down to their level even with a Hi-D sink tip.
I'll have to read up on the technique and try for them in a more FF friendly
location.


--
Bob Weinberger
La, Grande, OR

place a dot between bobs and stuff and remove invalid to send email

[B J Conner]

I have done well on them at Ice Harbor dam. Well being a relative term.
What good is a horse trough of shad? A certain percentage of the ones you
catch must die and provide food for Sturgeon.
"Bob Weinberger" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Chas Wade" > wrote in message
> news:WjcWb.267719$I06.2857826@attbi_s01...
> > Jeff > wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > I also have a friend
> > who's moved to Roseburg Oregon, and I may visit him to fish one of
> > those smaller rivers like the Rogue.
> >
> > Chas
> > remove fly fish to reply
> > http://home.comcast.net/~chas.wade/wsb/html/view.cgi-home.html-.html
> > San Juan Pictures at:
> > http://home.comcast.net/~chasepike/wsb/index.html
> >
> Chas,
> The Umpqua which runs right thru Roseburg is supposed to have a pretty
good
> shad run.
> The only place I've tried for them is right below McNary Dam on the
> Columbia, and I didn't know what I was doing. The current was way too
> strong for me to get a fly down to their level even with a Hi-D sink tip.
> I'll have to read up on the technique and try for them in a more FF
friendly
> location.
>
>
> --
> Bob Weinberger
> La, Grande, OR
>
> place a dot between bobs and stuff and remove invalid to send email
>
>