|
|
line choice for beginner
|
line choice for beginner
"George Adams" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ... From: "Mike Connor" These tests, including 36 hours mandatory classroom instruction, six hours casting instruction ( extra if you want to flyfish, the basic tests are only for spincasting), a valid and current first aid certificate, and a current police report, followed by the practical and theoretical tests, are a legal requirement before one may obtain a licence. WoW! That's more than I had to do to get a concealed carry handgun permit in the gun unfriendly People's Republic of Massachusetts. Is there any logic at all in imposing these requirements for a fishing license, or is it all emotional issues by the greens? (You Nader folks paying attention to this?) George Adams "All good fishermen stay young until they die, for fishing is the only dream of youth that doth not grow stale with age." ---- J.W Muller Well George, some of this stuff is very difficult to explain. First of all, for people here it is quite normal, because that is how it is. They donīt tend to get overly upset about it. They are obliged to do it, if they want to go fishing, and so they simply do it. There is some protest, about some things, especially the fact that juveniles can not fish, ( basically a matter of national law, which prohibits juveniles from killing vertebrate animals, and which can vary somewhat from Federal State to Federal State), but people generally are quite powerless to do anything about it, and so it is merely accepted. Doubtless, if anybody tried to impose something similar in America, at least in one fell swoop, then there would be a massive hue and cry! What you consider a "right" ( not sure it actually is one though ), is a privilege here. And it can be removed at any time. There are some very positive aspects about a mandatory examination. It ensures that those who wish to fish learn to do so properly. Quite independent of manufacturers, various blurb, advertising, bull**** etc etc. They learn a very great deal about fish, ecology, etc etc etc.They learn to cast properly. The tests are standardised to a considerable extent, and so everybody who passes the test is equally competent at first. There are no excuses for misbehaving on the water, maltreating fish, generally buggering about, or causing other problems. Most of which offences would in any case result in you losing your licence for life! Clubs control and regulate their own waters, including stocking, various ecological and other projects, and anybody who wishes to, ( of course this costs time and money) can qualify for supervising or carrying out these things. This is fascinating. In America, and many other places, this sort of thing is done by the authorities, and many anglers will never see what is done, or know why. They simply have no say in the matter. There are also some negative aspects. Catch and release is illegal ( is classed as cruelty to animals) and would cost you your licence and a heavy fine if you were caught doing it. Some restrictions seem petty. Clubs can make rules which restrict fishing even more ( and many do) but they can not rescind any Federal or national regulations. If you want to try something very very difficult, then try to get a permit for a handgun ( or any other gun!) here. It is quite impossible for a normal citizen. Things are different here, that is not to say they are bad, just different. This is a free country, just as yours is, but the freedoms and restrictions are different. TL MC |
line choice for beginner
"Mike Connor" wrote in message ... ...Things are different here... It should be noted that most of Europe is much more densely populated than most of North America.....and has been for a long time. By and large there's a lot less outdoor recreational resource per capita to go around. Naturally, access has to be rationed somehow. I'm not saying that this is behind the rather draconian measures (by our standards here in the US) taken by the Germans and, presumably, other Europeans but it certainly is a factor. Additionally, ownership and access to land and water as well as the animals that dwell on and in them has, for the most part, been tightly controlled for centuries throughout Europe. Anyone familiar with the legend of Robin Hood will remember that killing the King's deer was a capital offense. More or less the same sort of restrictions held sway on most of the continent for over a millennium. Again, not the only consideration, but an important precedent for highly restricted public use. Meanwhile, as Mike and others have pointed out, the Greens have certainly been instrumental in creating some of the resource use policies in effect in Germany today, but I suspect they would have been nowhere near as successful were the Germans not still suffering from a collective Nazi hangover. That said, it is also interesting that the Germans (irrespective of the conclusions they've arrived at and what may or may not change in the future) have at least confronted THE issue.....the one that NOBODY here wants to deal with.....the one that frequently manifests itself in the utterly laughable so-called C&R vs C&K "debate" because, non-issue that it is, it nevertheless always skirts perilously close to the precipice. Wolfgang who reminds his readers of the wisdom of the dictum to be careful what one asks for. :) |
line choice for beginner
"Wolfgang" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ... snip deal with.....the one that frequently manifests itself in the utterly laughable so-called C&R vs C&K "debate" because, non-issue that it is, it nevertheless always skirts perilously close to the precipice. Wolfgang who reminds his readers of the wisdom of the dictum to be careful what one asks for. :) That is a correct and insightful analysis. TL MC |
line choice for beginner
One point which has yet failed to come up here, is the fact that is is not
possible to mend a WF line, once the head is outside the rod rings.The same applies to a shooting head. Even though one may not cast more than thirty feet of flyline very often, one may drift a lot further, and mending is an essential technique on moving water. For this reason alone, I would not use a WF line. TL MC |
line choice for beginner
Mike Connor wrote:
Sorry, perhaps I did not make that clear enough. There is no difference between DT and WF lines of the same rating. A WF line one rating higher than the DT is of course heavier than the DT. snip In other words, the rod-loading characteristics of a DT and a WF line (of "standard" tapers, whatever those are) at short range will be exactly the same, and any argument or rule-of-thumb one should go "up one weight" when using a WF line is bogus, at least for short range. I used to use DT lines for ordinary trout fishing, but over the past couple of years I've switched to WF lines. One reason is that the economy of the DT lines isn't a big issue when I compare it to all my other fishing expenses. A more important reason is that I sometimes want to cast long distances. In fact, I frequently want to cast long distances when fishing lakes and when fishing larger rivers where I often can't wade very close to good lies. Sometimes, especially when the fishing is very hot -- to the point of getting boring -- I just like to cast a lot of line for the hell of it, and because I'm tired of wading, and because it's more challenging. A WF line is ideal, IMO, because it works well at all ranges. It's exactly the same as a DT at short range, it shoots better than a DT at long range, and the mid-range isn't messed up by some bulky line/running-line connection. It's better than a shooting head, for my purposes, because I really dislike that transition through the guides of the line/running-line connection. I suppose that connection could be made as smooth a silk, with enough time and effort, but I can't be bothered for the puny extra $30/year or so (at the most) that my WF lines cost me. The only disadvantage besides price, as far as I can tell, is that a WF won't roll cast AT LONG DISTANCES as well as a DT. Very little of my fishing involves long-distance roll casting. Furthermore, while a WF doesn't long-distance roll cost as well as a DT, it does roll cast better than a shooting head. Finally, to the specific subject of this thread, I think a WF line would be the best choice for a beginner. After he's learned the basics of casting at short range, which will be EXACTLY THE SAME as with a DT line, he can move on to hauling and double hauling and shooting. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
line choice for beginner
On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 20:04:19 +0200, "Mike Connor"
wrote: "George Adams" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ... *snippage* Things are different here, that is not to say they are bad, just different. This is a free country, just as yours is, but the freedoms and restrictions are different. TL MC When did the currents laws get enacted? g.c. |
line choice for beginner
"George Cleveland" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ... On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 20:04:19 +0200, "Mike Connor" wrote: "George Adams" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ... *snippage* Things are different here, that is not to say they are bad, just different. This is a free country, just as yours is, but the freedoms and restrictions are different. TL MC When did the currents laws get enacted? g.c. Most after the war. ( the second world war) Some are quite recent. The laws are not really the problem, it is the thinking and the power behind them which is the problem. Greens and others ( although I agree with some of their agenda, I just donīt like extremists of any colour), donīt actually need to be in power, they just need a few key positions, and they can force through whatever they want. Fishery officers have more actual power than elected politicians. They may be fruitcakes, but they are not stupid! :) TL MC |
line choice for beginner
In article , Mike Connor
wrote: One point which has yet failed to come up here, is the fact that is is not possible to mend a WF line, once the head is outside the rod rings.The same applies to a shooting head. Even though one may not cast more than thirty feet of flyline very often, one may drift a lot further, and mending is an essential technique on moving water. For this reason alone, I would not use a WF line. TL MC Mike, I would have to disagree with this. When I was a US Pacific Northwestern denzion and mostly salmon and steelhead fished, the resident line on my eight weight was a Teeny Nymph (I want to say an 800) although very fast sinking it is certainly possible to do a quick but useful large mend at the begining of the drift. You are certainly correct in saying a mend as such on a traditional floating line to get that last bit of drift is not possible but don't rule it out all together. Allen |
line choice for beginner
"rw" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ink.net... SNIP -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. I would disagree with some points,( indeed I already have), and I have already stated why, but otherwise, that is a reasonably fair synopsis. You donīt care much about the extra expense, or the known disadvantages, as you seem to have more advantages for your type of fishing, and you know what the things are for and how they work.Of course you are not a beginner, and apparently not gnawing on a hunger rag either. This can colour oneīs perceptions ! :) Objectivity can be very subjective! :) TL MC |
line choice for beginner
"Allen Epps" schrieb im Newsbeitrag et... Mike, I would have to disagree with this. When I was a US Pacific Northwestern denzion and mostly salmon and steelhead fished, the resident line on my eight weight was a Teeny Nymph (I want to say an 800) although very fast sinking it is certainly possible to do a quick but useful large mend at the begining of the drift. You are certainly correct in saying a mend as such on a traditional floating line to get that last bit of drift is not possible but don't rule it out all together. Allen True, even aerial mends are also a great help sometimes, but most beginners ( I hesitate to say "all", even I have my limits! :)), donīt even know what mending is, never mind being capable of actually doing it! Much less with a WF line at distance. Quoting specific circumstances is useful, and we may all learn something from it, indeed, after a while the specifics are of considerably greater interest than any generalisations, but beginners have no chance here, they donīt even know what you are talking about. If we get into extremely specific discussions about the suitability or otherwise of specific lines under specific circumstances, then this would undoubtedly be most enjoyable, and assuming that this thread does not morph into a discussion of the relative merits of blondes as opposed to redheads, we could go on for months in a similar vein. ( Or perhaps even then! ). Might I propose a simple question to this august body? Beginner or otherwise? If you were only allowed to use one line and one rod for all your fishing, which would these be? Further, independent of what you actually do, which do you consider to be the most versatile? State your preferences, and why. ( I believe tris is referred to as a "straw poll". Donīt worry, we are not electing a president, so you can be truthful). TL MC |
line choice for beginner
"Mike Connor" wrote in message ... ......If you were only allowed to use one line and one rod for all your fishing, which would these be? Further, independent of what you actually do, which do you consider to be the most versatile? State your preferences, and why. I've got a feeling I'm going to be in the minority here. I can cast about as poorly with one rig as another. Give me something between a three and a six weight in just about any length and whatever floating line. I WOULD have some preferences (though not very strong ones) for certain situations, but if it's got to be just one for all the fishing that I do it really doesn't matter much. Wolfgang |
line choice for beginner
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 03:03:45 +0200, "Mike Connor"
wrote: "George Cleveland" schrieb im Newsbeitrag .. . On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 20:04:19 +0200, "Mike Connor" wrote: "George Adams" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ... *snippage* Things are different here, that is not to say they are bad, just different. This is a free country, just as yours is, but the freedoms and restrictions are different. TL MC When did the currents laws get enacted? g.c. Most after the war. ( the second world war) Some are quite recent. The laws are not really the problem, it is the thinking and the power behind them which is the problem. Greens and others ( although I agree with some of their agenda, I just donīt like extremists of any colour), donīt actually need to be in power, they just need a few key positions, and they can force through whatever they want. Fishery officers have more actual power than elected politicians. They may be fruitcakes, but they are not stupid! :) TL MC I find it terribly sad that kids in Germany can't go fishing. One of my better memories of a trip our high school choir took to Sweden was going fishing with the son of the family I stayed with in Stockholm. Hopefully Swedish kids can still walk down to the Baltic and cast for pike. g.c. |
line choice for beginner
In . net rw wrote:
The only disadvantage besides price, as far as I can tell, is that a WF won't roll cast AT LONG DISTANCES as well as a DT. Very little of my fishing involves long-distance roll casting. Furthermore, while a WF doesn't long-distance roll cost as well as a DT, it does roll cast better than a shooting head. FWIW, a *lot* of the lake fishing I find myself doing *does* involve a lot of roll casting at distance, and (to probably nobody's suprise :-) I prefer a DT line. I've got a few WF lines, and use them too, but I find myself needing to make those roll casts out past the length of the head, often as not, and end up feeling hamstrung. For the same reason, I don't get all that excited over shooting heads, though there are times *they* would be of use. :-) The DT lines give me that little edge in flexability, and don't handicap me *too* much in the distance dept. Guess that's why I stick with them. :-) Maybe I'm a bit biased after all these years fishing DT lines, but I think Mike makes some valid points. Todd (remove hook to reply) |
line choice for beginner
As we all know, this ( ROFF) is not a democracy, and nobody is bound by majority decisions. If ninety percent of the contributors think I am a arsehole, this is not necessarily the truth, it is merely a majority decision. Although of course I may indeed be an arsehole anyway. None of you have any real way of knowing. Much the same applies in politics. Although nobody in their right mind would elect me as president of anything at all, and even if they did I would not accept, considering it is nevertheless an interesting intellectual exercise. However this may be, could it possibly be that you are trying to trap me Stephen? Lay on, and the devil take the hindmost. TL MC |
line choice for beginner
"George Cleveland" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ... Swedish kids can. So can most others in Europe. Germany is a pretty shocking example of restrictions, for reasons that Wolfgang outlined pretty well. I have nothing germane to add. For most people, wherever they live, things are simply as they are. One does not think about them constantly, and even if one did so, it is not likely that one could do much about it. You only learn to appreciate, or even notice many things, when you no longer have them. If you never had them, then you can not lose them. TL MC |
line choice for beginner
"Greg Pavlov" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ... On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 17:02:11 +0200, "Mike Connor" wrote: What you say is basically correct. A WF line is merely a shooting head with integrated running line, designed for long casting, and using a haul to shoot line. It will cast a lot further than a comparable DT, ( if you can use it!:)). But here we are talking about short range use, ( for beginners to boot!), and in such a case a heavier line loads the rod more easily. That makes sense, but I still don't understand what you meant by the following: This was usually a manufacturers recommendation that the rod would cast a DT#6 or a WF#7. This is because a WF line of the same rating as the DT would be too light to load the rod at short range, ... My apologies, I should have made it clearer. If you want a general purpose fishing line for a #6 rated rod, then you should use a #6 DT. If you want to use this rod for distance casting, then you would be better served with a #7WF, or even a #8 ST. This gets complicated! If you want to cast at close range, then you need a heavier line to load the rod. The manufacturer indicates here that either a DT#6 or a WF#7 should be used. One is for general purpose fishing ( The DT#6) and the other is for distance casting ( The WF#7). If you want to distance cast, then you need a line that loads the rod, but also allows you to cast and shoot without overloading the rod. DT lines are not the best lines for distance casting. The belly is heavy, and thus more difficult to shoot, and every foot of line you have outside the rings adds considerable weight. This can be cast ( as in a roll cast, which does not load the rod to any appreciable extent), or mended, or overhead cast, ( which adds rod load for every foot of line outside the rings), but it is very difficult to shoot any appreciable amount of it. A WF line only has a thirty foot head, the rest is thin running line. It is easier to shoot such running line, but impossible to cast it. The same applies to a shooting head. These are distance casting lines. The crux of this discussion is that beginners simply want to catch fish as quickly as possible. They can not cast any distance, and so a line designed for distance casting ( A WF or shooting head) is more or less useless. They also have other disadvantages, which have already been mentioned here. If they use a heavier WF line, then they will be able to load the rod at relatively close range, but are still unable to gain any distance, as they can not cast very well. They would generally ( and are)better served with a DT . I know that this whole thing appears complex, but really it is not. It is merely a matter of grasping the basic facts. One must also ignore various blurb which one has heard, and only look at the facts. Line properties ( although only the weight is of importance here), and rod properties, ( even though they may be difficult to quantify sensibly), are fixed. Which line one uses on a particular ros is governed by what one wishes to achieve. It is pointless for a beginner to use a WF or an ST, as these are specifically designed for distance. He is unable to cast any distance, therefore, he is better served with a DT, which is also more versatile than either of the other lines. TL MC |
line choice for beginner
"Wolfgang" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ... "Mike Connor" wrote in message ... ......If you were only allowed to use one line and one rod for all your fishing, which would these be? Further, independent of what you actually do, which do you consider to be the most versatile? State your preferences, and why. I've got a feeling I'm going to be in the minority here. I can cast about as poorly with one rig as another. Give me something between a three and a six weight in just about any length and whatever floating line. I WOULD have some preferences (though not very strong ones) for certain situations, but if it's got to be just one for all the fishing that I do it really doesn't matter much. Wolfgang Interesting, as long as I can fish, I too will use any old ****. The fishing is important, not the gear. Mind you, and excuse me for blowing my own trumpet, but I can cast better with any old **** than most people can with very expensive gear! :) Mind you, I always knew you were a loony as well. TL MC |
line choice for beginner
"Mike Connor" wrote... snip If you were only allowed to use one line and one rod for all your fishing, which would these be? Well, *that* takes all the fun out of the sport now, doesn't it? :) Further, independent of what you actually do, which do you consider to be the most versatile? State your preferences, and why. If I only had one, I'd have to go with a med/fast 5wt with a DT. It would get me to most of the places I fish, which really only require a lighter weight, and give some additional distance should I need it. The DT roll casts nicely and, as stated, mends more easily at longer distance. But I don't cast worth a damn, so never mind. -- TL, Tim http://css.sbcma.com/timj |
line choice for beginner
"Tim J." schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:LEnec.118476$w54.835549@attbi_s01... SNIP If I only had one, I'd have to go with a med/fast 5wt with a DT. It would get me to most of the places I fish, which really only require a lighter weight, and give some additional distance should I need it. The DT roll casts nicely and, as stated, mends more easily at longer distance. But I don't cast worth a damn, so never mind. -- TL, Tim http://css.sbcma.com/timj Bloody beginners! :) TL MC |
line choice for beginner
Mike Connor wrote:
However this may be, could it possibly be that you are trying to trap me Stephen? Of course not. It's merely a difference of opinion about fly lines. Sheesh! :-) -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
line choice for beginner
HI,
Mike - RW has put out the same opinion as mine, and you insist that a beginner will not find the WF useful. You mentioned as well the casting requirement in Germany, I believe it was. So, a question - what standard did these people have to cast to? In my experience, and this is where we seem to diverge in our outlook, I can get most (I'd say 90- 95%) of my clients to cast to 30 to 40 feet in one day-long, private, session and maybe 75% of a group class (4-10 people per instructor) will do the same. It is therefore very reasonable for me to assume that a WF does have advantages, because they will then be able fairly quickly to cast the 40 -50 feet where the WF line IS an advantage. I would be interested in hearing the standard as I also teach Guides to cast, and we have a standard they have to pass - almost all elect to use a WF line to hit the 45 feet, and some of these people are not very experienced fly fishers, as Guides in Nova Scotia can and do specialize in spinning or other gear for bass and the like. Bill http://www.tightlines.ca "Mike Connor" wrote in message ... "rw" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ink.net... SNIP -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. I would disagree with some points,( indeed I already have), and I have already stated why, but otherwise, that is a reasonably fair synopsis. You donīt care much about the extra expense, or the known disadvantages, as you seem to have more advantages for your type of fishing, and you know what the things are for and how they work.Of course you are not a beginner, and apparently not gnawing on a hunger rag either. This can colour oneīs perceptions ! :) Objectivity can be very subjective! :) TL MC |
line choice for beginner
"Bill Curry" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ... HI, Mike - RW has put out the same opinion as mine, and you insist that a beginner will not find the WF useful. You mentioned as well the casting requirement in Germany, I believe it was. So, a question - what standard did these people have to cast to? In my experience, and this is where we seem to diverge in our outlook, I can get most (I'd say 90- 95%) of my clients to cast to 30 to 40 feet in one day-long, private, session and maybe 75% of a group class (4-10 people per instructor) will do the same. It is therefore very reasonable for me to assume that a WF does have advantages, because they will then be able fairly quickly to cast the 40 -50 feet where the WF line IS an advantage. I would be interested in hearing the standard as I also teach Guides to cast, and we have a standard they have to pass - almost all elect to use a WF line to hit the 45 feet, and some of these people are not very experienced fly fishers, as Guides in Nova Scotia can and do specialize in spinning or other gear for bass and the like. Bill http://www.tightlines.ca They have to make five casts of 15 metres or more, for which no points are given, it just has to be accomplished, within 6 minutes, and they have to make ten accuracy casts to a target from 5, 8, 10, 12 and 15 meters. The minimum score to pass the test is 60 points. Maximum possible score is 100. The center of the target is 0,75 m in diameter, and counts ten points, the next ring is larger, 1,35/1,95/2,55/3,15 m and counts less etc etc. The target is a so called "Arenberg Scheibe". Any rod and line may be used. A leader of nine feet is used, and a size ten fly with the hook bend clipped off. All my pupils use a nine foot #5 wt rod with #5 DT floater The test is carried out on grass. I metre = 3.28 feet Before people may take the fly-fishing test, they must complete the baitcast ing/ spincasting test. Rod no longer than 1,5 m. Standard open faced spinning reel. Weight : Plastic bomb 7,5 g Cast technique : Pendulum cast / Sidecast right / Overhead cast / Sidecast left / freestyle Time limit : 5:00 Minutes Number of casts : 1 x 5 x 2 Points : 10, 8, 6, 4, 2 / Hits Possible points : 100 Minimum pass score 60 points Start= 5. Type : Startboard Dimensions : L 1,00 / H 0,10 m Target :1 Type five ring Arenberg target Measurements : Dm. 0,75/1,35/1,95/2,55/3,15 m Distance :Start - Target : 10, 12, 18, 14, 16 m There is not much point in my repeating what I have already written several times. If you believe the WF has advantages, then you believe it, and there is nothing at all to be done about it. I donīt think the WF is of advantage to a beginner, and I have explained why I think so. Here is why I think the DT is better. 1. It can be cast up to sixty feet at least with no problems. It must not be shot. Indeed, given the necessary skill, one may cast the whole line. 2. It can be mended at any distance. 3. It is not necessary to retrieve before recasting. 4. It can be reversed when worn, or even cut in half to start with. And is therefore cheaper. 5. It does not wear out so quickly. 7. It handles somewhat better than running line, and is less prone to tangle. 6. It is available everywhere as a "standard" line. 7. It can be roll cast quite easily. Here is why I think the WF is not better. 1. Once the head is outside the rings, the line must be shot 2. Once the head is outside the rings, the line can not be mended 3. It is necessary to retrieve the head before recasting. 4. Once the head is outside the rings it can not be roll cast. 5. It wears out much more quickly. 6. The handling is not as good as a DT, the running line is thinner, and more prone to tangle. 7. For maximum efficiency, a haul must be used. This is very difficult for beginners. 8. In order to load the rod better at close range, heavier WF lines are used. This is bad for presentation. So, I think that was about it. TL MC |
line choice for beginner
Mike Connor wrote:
5. It wears out much more quickly. I recall you claiming at one point that it was not practical to switch a DT around on the reel after one side end wore out. Have you changed your opinion about that? -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
line choice for beginner
"Mike Connor" wrote in message ... "DaveMohnsen" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ink.net... "Allen Epps" wrote in message et... In article , Mike Connor wrote: snipped With regard to the "thousands" of people I have taught to cast. This sounds ridiculous of course, but is a fact. Where I live, people are obliged to take a number of tests before they can go fishing. For a long time I instructed large numbers of people wishing to do this. Often up to a hundred or more at a time, and several times a year. Normally, most could cast well enough to pass the test after two Saturday mornings instruction, and a couple of days practicing on their own. TL MC Mike, A bit off topic for the subject but I was intrigued by the idea of required instruction prior to taking up fishing. Driving, sure (in fact, most in the US ought to go back for a refresher! ) Hunting, makes good sense as you're dealing with potentially lethal mistakes, but fishing? Is it conservation that they want to teach or is it a safety issue? I fish with Frank Reid regularly so no one is more aware of the dangers of fishing than me (and I've pulled some pretty stupid stuff myself I just don't share it!) but I can't think of any classroom or on-the-water course that would have saved me. Happy Easter Allen Catonsville, MD Hi Allen, Mike and I had a little bit of recollection a few years ago as I recall about fishing in Germany. As you were in the military, as me, certain "rules", at the time were made much easier for US military personnel. Certainly the standard Germany bureaucratic things happen, but as I recall, I had to only show a US license, from any state, spend a long time waiting in an office, a military ID, then get a license. . .with a small fee. Of course, most areas after that were pay as you go, and stocked trout, but kinda neat, if flyfishing was allowed. ( generally couldn't catch and release) Residents have to go through a much more regulated process to get a license. . .uhhh . . .with money. BestWishes, DaveMohnsen Denver It is not actually all that expensive to get a licence. Most clubs charge about thirty dollars for the complete course. Registered and examined instructors give their time free. ( Although some try to make money flogging gear, or "sponsoring" tackle shops!). The licence itself is also cheap enough, although this varies from State to State. In some places it must be renewed ( for a fee) yearly, in others at three year intervals, and in still others it is for life. German fishery law is governed federally, but national law overrides it. As a foreigner, you can get a licence relatively easily, but you will still have problems finding somewhere to fish, as most clubs, ( who have the best water) will not allow anybody to fish who has not passed the test, even if they have a licence! Catch 22. You can fish put and takes, and private water for a fee, as long as you have a licence. For more info, have a look here; http://www.cybertrout.com/germany.htm http://www.users.odn.de/~odn03061/ TL MC Hi Mike, Thanks for the links. DaveMohnsen |
line choice for beginner
dave - as a partisan and advocate for top posting, let me simply say if
ever there was an argument in favor of top posting, your response to mike and allen in the thread below is the best evidence i can find. of course, i like tp'ing because it's contrarian *and* it bothers fortenberry G. jeff DaveMohnsen wrote: "Mike Connor" wrote in message ... "DaveMohnsen" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ink.net... "Allen Epps" wrote in message t.net... In article , Mike Connor wrote: snipped With regard to the "thousands" of people I have taught to cast. This sounds ridiculous of course, but is a fact. Where I live, people are obliged to take a number of tests before they can go fishing. For a long time I instructed large numbers of people wishing to do this. Often up to a hundred or more at a time, and several times a year. Normally, most could cast well enough to pass the test after two Saturday mornings instruction, and a couple of days practicing on their own. TL MC Mike, A bit off topic for the subject but I was intrigued by the idea of required instruction prior to taking up fishing. Driving, sure (in fact, most in the US ought to go back for a refresher! ) Hunting, makes good sense as you're dealing with potentially lethal mistakes, but fishing? Is it conservation that they want to teach or is it a safety issue? I fish with Frank Reid regularly so no one is more aware of the dangers of fishing than me (and I've pulled some pretty stupid stuff myself I just don't share it!) but I can't think of any classroom or on-the-water course that would have saved me. Happy Easter Allen Catonsville, MD Hi Allen, Mike and I had a little bit of recollection a few years ago as I recall about fishing in Germany. As you were in the military, as me, certain "rules", at the time were made much easier for US military personnel. Certainly the standard Germany bureaucratic things happen, but as I recall, I had to only show a US license, from any state, spend a long time waiting in an office, a military ID, then get a license. . .with a small fee. Of course, most areas after that were pay as you go, and stocked trout, but kinda neat, if flyfishing was allowed. ( generally couldn't catch and release) Residents have to go through a much more regulated process to get a license. . .uhhh . . .with money. BestWishes, DaveMohnsen Denver It is not actually all that expensive to get a licence. Most clubs charge about thirty dollars for the complete course. Registered and examined instructors give their time free. ( Although some try to make money flogging gear, or "sponsoring" tackle shops!). The licence itself is also cheap enough, although this varies from State to State. In some places it must be renewed ( for a fee) yearly, in others at three year intervals, and in still others it is for life. German fishery law is governed federally, but national law overrides it. As a foreigner, you can get a licence relatively easily, but you will still have problems finding somewhere to fish, as most clubs, ( who have the best water) will not allow anybody to fish who has not passed the test, even if they have a licence! Catch 22. You can fish put and takes, and private water for a fee, as long as you have a licence. For more info, have a look here; http://www.cybertrout.com/germany.htm http://www.users.odn.de/~odn03061/ TL MC Hi Mike, Thanks for the links. DaveMohnsen |
line choice for beginner
Jeff wrote:
... i like tp'ing because it's contrarian *and* it bothers fortenberry G. Dave reposted that whole damn thing just to add "Thanks Mike", which makes him every bit as clueless and stupid as your typical top-poster. My mentioning this should not be construed as being "bothered" by it. I wasn't going to weigh in on this thread, but since my name has been invoked I will. I lived on the Lamar River, have fished every friggin' foot of it from the Mirror Plateau to the confluence of the Yellowstone and, stories from Canuckian guides notwithstanding, I have NEVER found it necessary to make a 65' cast to catch a fish. That's silly. Having said that, I can cast a 5WF farther than a 5DT with the same fly rod and I think that's why some recommend WF lines to beginners. I no longer buy anything but DT. -- Ken Fortenberry |
line choice for beginner
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message ... Jeff wrote: ... i like tp'ing because it's contrarian *and* it bothers fortenberry G. Dave reposted that whole damn thing just to add "Thanks Mike", which makes him every bit as clueless and stupid as your typical top-poster. My mentioning this should not be construed as being "bothered" by it. I wasn't going to weigh in on this thread, but since my name has been invoked I will. I lived on the Lamar River, have fished every friggin' foot of it from the Mirror Plateau to the confluence of the Yellowstone and, stories from Canuckian guides notwithstanding, I have NEVER found it necessary to make a 65' cast to catch a fish. That's silly. Having said that, I can cast a 5WF farther than a 5DT with the same fly rod and I think that's why some recommend WF lines to beginners. I no longer buy anything but DT. -- Ken Fortenberry Thanks, Ken. -- TL, Tim ------------------------ http://css.sbcma.com/timj |
line choice for beginner
Tim J. wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote: snip Having said that, ... Thanks, Ken. You and Jeff appear to be intent on making the same point, that is, bottom-posters can be just as clueless and stupid as top-posters. I concede the point. -- Ken Fortenberry |
line choice for beginner
In Mike Connor wrote:
Here is why I think the DT is better. 1. It can be cast up to sixty feet at least with no problems. It must not be shot. Indeed, given the necessary skill, one may cast the whole line. Indeed. If anybody decides to try casting the entire line, one *may* want to use a heavier rod while practicing on this. Broke a 7 wt. fiberglass rod once with a whole DT7F in the air... :-/ It was pretty, until the rod went "CRRRRRICK....". Todd (remove hook to reply) |
line choice for beginner
Hi Ken,
I have photos if you like! I was on the far side of the stream, casting toward the road, I can't tell you where along the stream becuase I don't know, but we were heading out the NE exit of the Park. Had I been on the road side I could have made a 15 foot cast, but we were on the far side and I know distance quite well - it was 60 feet plus if it was an inch... If you like I can send you the photos and you can do the conversion math. :-) Bill http://www.tightlines.ca "Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message ... Jeff wrote: ... i like tp'ing because it's contrarian *and* it bothers fortenberry G. Dave reposted that whole damn thing just to add "Thanks Mike", which makes him every bit as clueless and stupid as your typical top-poster. My mentioning this should not be construed as being "bothered" by it. I wasn't going to weigh in on this thread, but since my name has been invoked I will. I lived on the Lamar River, have fished every friggin' foot of it from the Mirror Plateau to the confluence of the Yellowstone and, stories from Canuckian guides notwithstanding, I have NEVER found it necessary to make a 65' cast to catch a fish. That's silly. Having said that, I can cast a 5WF farther than a 5DT with the same fly rod and I think that's why some recommend WF lines to beginners. I no longer buy anything but DT. -- Ken Fortenberry |
line choice for beginner
Hi,
Oh - and I forgot to mention - This was a "picture tour" dealie, not a trout trip (but I had a pack rod along of course - which was why I could wait for the fellows to go along - had to have the correct lighting you know!) - I had no waders so I was standing on the bank side - I probably could have gone deeper than the rock I stood on, but then there is the distinct possibility of an "Uncle Don", a famous relative who simply can not fish without getting all wet by always stepping that other foot... Bill "Bill Curry" wrote in message ... Hi Ken, I have photos if you like! I was on the far side of the stream, casting toward the road, I can't tell you where along the stream becuase I don't know, but we were heading out the NE exit of the Park. Had I been on the road side I could have made a 15 foot cast, but we were on the far side and I know distance quite well - it was 60 feet plus if it was an inch... If you like I can send you the photos and you can do the conversion math. :-) Bill http://www.tightlines.ca "Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message ... Jeff wrote: ... i like tp'ing because it's contrarian *and* it bothers fortenberry G. Dave reposted that whole damn thing just to add "Thanks Mike", which makes him every bit as clueless and stupid as your typical top-poster. My mentioning this should not be construed as being "bothered" by it. I wasn't going to weigh in on this thread, but since my name has been invoked I will. I lived on the Lamar River, have fished every friggin' foot of it from the Mirror Plateau to the confluence of the Yellowstone and, stories from Canuckian guides notwithstanding, I have NEVER found it necessary to make a 65' cast to catch a fish. That's silly. Having said that, I can cast a 5WF farther than a 5DT with the same fly rod and I think that's why some recommend WF lines to beginners. I no longer buy anything but DT. -- Ken Fortenberry |
line choice for beginner
In article , Mike Connor
wrote: All beginners want to cast further, but they can not do so at first, and as this is the case, a WF line is completely superfluous, as it is primarily designed for distance casting. I agree on this. I think that for purposes of fishing wanting to cast further is a fault that needs correcting - certainly for river trout fishing. I spend a lot of time trying to persuade beginners that casting delicately to between say eight and,fourteen yards is a) hard enough for anyone - including me, and b) the best way to catch fish. I must admit that although I own WF lines I rarely use them - even for salmon fishing, where distance is needed. I find the advantages outweighed by the disadvantages. Lazarus -- Remover the rock from the email address |
line choice for beginner
And thank you, Tim. Tim J. wrote: "Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message ... Jeff wrote: ... i like tp'ing because it's contrarian *and* it bothers fortenberry G. Dave reposted that whole damn thing just to add "Thanks Mike", which makes him every bit as clueless and stupid as your typical top-poster. My mentioning this should not be construed as being "bothered" by it. I wasn't going to weigh in on this thread, but since my name has been invoked I will. I lived on the Lamar River, have fished every friggin' foot of it from the Mirror Plateau to the confluence of the Yellowstone and, stories from Canuckian guides notwithstanding, I have NEVER found it necessary to make a 65' cast to catch a fish. That's silly. Having said that, I can cast a 5WF farther than a 5DT with the same fly rod and I think that's why some recommend WF lines to beginners. I no longer buy anything but DT. -- Ken Fortenberry Thanks, Ken. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
line choice for beginner
no, thank you, steve...
rw wrote: And thank you, Tim. Tim J. wrote: "Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message ... Jeff wrote: ... i like tp'ing because it's contrarian *and* it bothers fortenberry G. Dave reposted that whole damn thing just to add "Thanks Mike", which makes him every bit as clueless and stupid as your typical top-poster. My mentioning this should not be construed as being "bothered" by it. I wasn't going to weigh in on this thread, but since my name has been invoked I will. I lived on the Lamar River, have fished every friggin' foot of it from the Mirror Plateau to the confluence of the Yellowstone and, stories from Canuckian guides notwithstanding, I have NEVER found it necessary to make a 65' cast to catch a fish. That's silly. Having said that, I can cast a 5WF farther than a 5DT with the same fly rod and I think that's why some recommend WF lines to beginners. I no longer buy anything but DT. -- Ken Fortenberry Thanks, Ken. |
line choice for beginner
"rw" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ink.net... Mike Connor wrote: 5. It wears out much more quickly. I recall you claiming at one point that it was not practical to switch a DT around on the reel after one side end wore out. Have you changed your opinion about that? -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. No I have not, I use mainly half lines in any case, so there is nothing to switch around. This also allows me to use smaller and lighter reels. The wear problem on WFīs is on the thin running line, just after the head, which is hauled on, and wears out very quickly. TL MC |
line choice for beginner
Mike Connor wrote:
"rw" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ink.net... Mike Connor wrote: 5. It wears out much more quickly. I recall you claiming at one point that it was not practical to switch a DT around on the reel after one side end wore out. Have you changed your opinion about that? -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. No I have not, In that case, you shouldn't claim that WFs wear out more quickly than DTs. Every fly line I've ever worn out has worn out on the very end. I have NEVER had a WF line wear out in the middle, behind the WF part. I don't credit that claim. Also, having switched around several DT lines, and using them to good effect, I don't even understand your claim to begin with. I use mainly half lines in any case, so there is nothing to switch around. OK. But now you're talking about shooting heads, not DTs. You previously listed the advantages of DTs: begin quote Here is why I think the DT is better. 1. It can be cast up to sixty feet at least with no problems. It must not be shot. Indeed, given the necessary skill, one may cast the whole line. 2. It can be mended at any distance. 3. It is not necessary to retrieve before recasting. 4. It can be reversed when worn, or even cut in half to start with. And is therefore cheaper. 5. It does not wear out so quickly. 7. It handles somewhat better than running line, and is less prone to tangle. 6. It is available everywhere as a "standard" line. 7. It can be roll cast quite easily. end quote None of those advantages apply to shooting heads. None of them. Not a single one. None. You can't have it both ways. Argue either for DTs vs. WFs, or for shooting heads vs. WFs. Please stop confusing the two. It's not helpful to beginners. My point of view on WF lines is that they occupy an important niche between DTs and shooting heads. They work just like DTs at short range, but they can be cast longer distances, and they can still be mended and roll casted, although not as well as DTs. You pay a premium for this, of course. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
line choice for beginner
"rw" schrieb im Newsbeitrag nk.net... SNIP You pay a premium for this, of course. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. You should read the thread properly. Most esepcially the title. My arguments in favour of DT lines for beginners ( and quite a few others)are quite clear, and it seems that most had no trouble understanding them. Including a couple of beginners who e-mailed me thanking me for the clarification. They may be beginners, but they are not stupid. What I or anybody else uses has no real bearing on the matter. WF lines wear out more quickly behind the head where the line is hauled through the rings. You may credit it or otherwise, it is no skin off my nose, I donīt use WF lines for fishing. Half a DT is simply half a DT. It gives a normal casting range of at least 63 feet with a normal rod and leader, with all the advantages of a DT, and none of the disadvantages of a WF line. If you are skillful enough, you can also aerialise the whole half line, haul it, and shoot a lot more. If you only use half a DT, you get two good lines for the price of one, keep one in reserve, the combination of which, with any luck at all, will last you for quite a number of years, and also reduce weight and bulk on your reel, allowing you to use a smaller lighter reel. I object to paying unnecessary premiums for anything at all. Although you often behave like a child, you can hardly be classed as a beginner, and what you use is your own affair. You seem to be the one who is confused. Whatīs the matter, feeling uncertain in your important niche? You are wasting your time trying to trip me up. Even if I changed my opinions twice a day, which I donīt, I would still be very careful what I said, and how I argued, especially around dumbos bent on malicious intent. TL MC |
line choice for beginner
"rw" schrieb im Newsbeitrag nk.net... Apart from a lot of useless and confused waffling about niches, shooting heads, and what have you. Why donīt you try presenting your arguments in favour of WF lines for beginners? Or donīt you have any? I would be most interested in hearing them. TL MC |
line choice for beginner
Ken Fortenberry wrote: every bit as clueless and stupid as your typical top-poster. hmm...well, ok, there was that brake fluid thing and... well ok, my name is jeff and i *am* clueless and stupid dammit... but, imo ...and that's all that matters on this issue... it's much more convenient for me to top post and to read new posts at the top... i'll scroll down if i'm interested, stupid, or clueless about what prompted the top post... My mentioning this should not be construed as being "bothered" by it. damned-near ascetic of you... g jeff |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:47 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Đ2004 - 2006 FishingBanter