On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 16:35:14 -0600, rw
wrote:

Ken Fortenberry wrote:

Well, OK then, you probably won't learn how to fish dry flies.
But maybe you can write a treatise on the "suppleness" of 3 ft.
of 6X versus 3 ft. of 4X. I mean if you can't fish you may as
well bloviate.

A treatise isn't necessary. Some challenging flyfishing experience and a
basic physical understanding and intuition will do. Three feet of 7x
floating on the surface is *far* more supple than three feet of 4x.

No, not necessarily, it isn't. "7x" and "4x" are simply another way of
stating diameters in thousandths of an inch, and that in no way speak to
material, physical properties or characteristics (other than diameter)
such as density, opacity (I think that's the word - how much light goes
through it and/or what else light does with regard to it), "strength,"
etc.

That said, this is a stupid argument (no surprise there). In this case
when women tell y'all, "oh, size isn't the only thing that is important,
sweetheart..." they're actually not just helping your weak egos and
lying to you. The fish don't think, "Hmmm...now one of those critters
looks OK, but that other, wooboy, lookada cable hanging on that sucker!
It's gotta be at least 4\2 or 3 thousands of inch bigger than that
barely noticeable wisp hanging from the first critter!" and take fly #1
while running from fly #2.

Fish are geared to go after what looks like what is probably food and
bolt from anything that might even hint that them _becoming_ food is at
hand. Something that doesn't just look like food could easily be simply
ignored - that's why there's not, oh, say, an "elk-hair twig" pattern
droned on and on about. At worst, such as with particularly wary fish,
they'll instinctively get away from what seems really unnatural. Either
way, an overly unnatural appearance is the problem, and the answer is
to use whatever will give (or really, allow) you the most natural
appearance possible and still have enough other necessary qualities
("strength," durability, etc.) for the quarry and circumstances.
Often, this will translate into "the smaller, the better" simply because
of what makes it to and survives in the marketplace, but if a given "4x"
produced about the same overall presentation as a particular "7x," I'd
say it would not make a difference whatsoever which you used...at least
to the fish - Ken, Steve, and Charlie might have all sorts of fits...

Heck, in some cases, you actually need a less-supple material to turn
the fly, so you can't just form some iron-clad math "hook size divided
by whatever" rule. Well, actually, I suppose you CAN, it just won't
work.

HTH,
R

"rw" wrote

.. As an experiment, I
just took a TMC 100 size 20 hook and threaded 2x (Rio Powerflex) tippet
through the eye with no problem at all. I could probably have threaded 1x
through it, but I don't have any.

Does that mean Ken recommends fishing #20 dry flies with 2x tippet, even
in challenging conditions?

no, of course not. there exists among the vast majority of us, a sense
of reasonableness, for lack of a better word. you, on the other hand, have
this astonishing need to be literally and precisely and anally "right", no
matter what the subject, or its rational parameters.

come on, now- suppose that you could get a shoestring through a 3/0 bass
worm hook, and you tied that hook with a stimulator pattern, with the
intention of fishing the railroad ranch section of henry's fork, or some
other legendary western water, do you really think that even forty would do
it?



It seems to on the face of it.

it seems so if you want to be irrationally contentious. all things,
taken "on the face" of them, are likely to be puzzling.


Does that
sound like good advice to you?

of course not; and no one else would consider the "advice" to be as you
set it up.


you really are a very strange person. not to say that i wouldn't fish
with you, or you with me. you are just very strange.

wayno

rw wrote in
m:

Scott Seidman wrote:

Well, actually, if you read Ken's original reply, he basically said
so long as presentation was good, use the biggest tippet you can. He
never said that there aren't cases when using a smaller tippet would
improve presentation. He also never said rw was wrong.

As you say, he recommended using the thickest tippet that would fit
through the eye of the hook. Those were his words.

To quote is original reply

"It's rare, *very* rare, when tippet size
puts off fish when everything else, ie presentation, fly
selection etc., is correct."

Your reply to him basically said that without a small tippet,
presentation can suck. Do we agree with that? Well, that falls outside
of the "presentation is correct" area. Only somebody going out of his
way to find fault would think that Ken rules out going smaller when
conditions so dictate.

Does that mean Ken recommends fishing #20 dry flies with 2x tippet,
even
in challenging conditions? It seems to on the face of it. Does that
sound like good advice to you?

Do you really think that Ken was advocating using 2x with a size 20 fly,
or are you really just trying to justify going out of your way to compete
in yet another ****ing match with Ken? If you insist on an answer to
your question, no, I don't think 2x would be very good advice, but I
wouldn't have a real problem with trying 5X, which is what I think Ken
would be using on a size 20, given some of his comments in this thread--
and then he'd try 6x if 5x wasn't working. I'll give his exaggeration,
if any, a free pass. The "biggest tippet you can poke through an eye"
advice is something I've read any number of times, though, sometimes
printed by people who catch more fish than me.

Even if you were dinging your catch rate by going up in tippet size,
there's still something to be said for it. Your catch might survive
better.

Personally, I'd use the biggest tippet I could if I fished one of those
perversions of nature, the tailwater of the west, where monster trout sip
tiny flies. I just don't think I'd enjoy fighting a big fish to near
death on a 7x or 8x tippet. I probably wouldn't catch many fish, but
that might be why I avoid conditions like that. That's not to say I
would break off a big fish the moment I realized I was undergunned, cause
I don't think I would, but if I knew I was as likely to catch an 18" fish
as a 12" fish, I'd feel bad to be using a tiny leader.

Scott

Scott

Ken Fortenberry wrote:

rw wrote:


This suppleness is especially important in downstream slack-cast
dry-fly presentations in spring-creek conditions, and super especially
important when fishing for educated trout.


In particularly rare conditions like you describe above it
may be necessary to use long, fine tippets, but in normal,
and even tougher than normal, dry fly situations a long tippet
of 4X or 5X will usually suffice.

Those conditions might be rare to you, but they aren't to me. Maybe you
need more experience.

And I would never fish a dry
fly downstream.

I figured that because you're an insufferable snob, albeit with very
little to be snobbish about.

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

"Wayne Harrison" wrote in news:lJ4pe.23051$_z6.1738231
@twister.southeast.rr.com:

it seems so if you want to be irrationally contentious. all things,
taken "on the face" of them, are likely to be puzzling.


Discourse is discourse, but taking anything anybody says about fishing in
the literal sense is a little like rising on a point of information in a
Parliamentary Debate competition. It ain't in the rulebook.

Scott

Wayne Harrison wrote:

of course not; and no one else would consider the "advice" to be as you
set it up.

It wasn't my advice. It was Fortenberry's

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

"rw" wrote in message
m...
Wayne Harrison wrote:

of course not; and no one else would consider the "advice" to be as
you set it up.

It wasn't my advice. It was Fortenberry's


no, it wasn't; it was your interpretive extension of fortenberry's
suggestion. or maybe you are right! i just think that fortenberry didn't
intend to be as literal as your interpretation.

he might well post and say, "well, of course i intended to suggest that
anyone with any sense would buy a hook with an enlarged eye, so that one
could tie on his 22 griffith gnat with an 02x leader". but i doubt it.

awh

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 23:10:09 GMT, "Wayne Harrison"
wrote:


"rw" wrote

. As an experiment, I
just took a TMC 100 size 20 hook and threaded 2x (Rio Powerflex) tippet
through the eye with no problem at all. I could probably have threaded 1x
through it, but I don't have any.

Does that mean Ken recommends fishing #20 dry flies with 2x tippet, even
in challenging conditions?

no, of course not. there exists among the vast majority of us, a sense
of reasonableness, for lack of a better word. you, on the other hand, have
this astonishing need to be literally and precisely and anally "right", no
matter what the subject, or its rational parameters.

come on, now- suppose that you could get a shoestring through a 3/0 bass
worm hook, and you tied that hook with a stimulator pattern, with the
intention of fishing the railroad ranch section of henry's fork, or some
other legendary western water, do you really think that even forty would do
it?

Um...how much alcohol is involved? Are there any camels or giraffes in
the area? How about folks (or camel or giraffes) having relations in
cars? Are cops honking at them? Are you packing a riot gun or a James
Bond special? I mean, you go and give only the merest of details and
expect us to make all sorts of wild guesses...


It seems to on the face of it.

it seems so if you want to be irrationally contentious. all things,
taken "on the face" of them, are likely to be puzzling.

I know what you mean...think about this: douches. I mean, I understand
that any normal, average woman wishing to be REALLY clean might think,
"hey, if I shoot some water up my heyhoo, it'll wash it out." But now,
add vinegar to the mix...on the face of it, that's just, well,
"puzzling" will do. Was the first gal who thought that up just going
through a salad dressing recipe or the pantry or ??? Yep, puzzling...


Does that
sound like good advice to you?

of course not; and no one else would consider the "advice" to be as you
set it up.


you really are a very strange person. not to say that i wouldn't fish
with you, or you with me. you are just very strange.

Oh...well, at least it's good to know, at least on the face of it, that
you wouldn't rule out _us_ fishing together...

TC,
R

wrote

Oh...well, at least it's good to know, at least on the face of it, that
you wouldn't rule out _us_ fishing together...

that's the problem with you ****ing texans: you all presume so much!

:)

yfitons
wayno