No fish
 

On Sep 15, 1:18*pm, rw wrote:
Todd wrote:

I keep thinking about your letter. *All of the things you
list above can be traced back to someone's religious values.
Typically the ten commandments. *Atheist's values float, so
they do not apply here.

As a converted Pastafarian I subscribe to the eight "I'd Really Rather
You Didn'ts" that are the basis for the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti
Monster:

1.I'd Really Rather You Didn't Act Like a Sanctimonious Holier-Than-Thou
Ass When Describing My Noodly Goodness.

[SNIPPAGE]

RAMEN!
- Ken

No fish
 

Outdoors in Oregon wrote:
On Sep 15, 1:18 pm, rw wrote:

Todd wrote:


I keep thinking about your letter. All of the things you
list above can be traced back to someone's religious values.
Typically the ten commandments. Atheist's values float, so
they do not apply here.

As a converted Pastafarian I subscribe to the eight "I'd Really Rather
You Didn'ts" that are the basis for the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti
Monster:

1.I'd Really Rather You Didn't Act Like a Sanctimonious Holier-Than-Thou
Ass When Describing My Noodly Goodness.


[SNIPPAGE]

RAMEN!
- Ken

May you be touched by His noodly appendage.

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

No fish
 

Todd wrote:


If you would like an argument for
non-believers, watch a video on an unborn child being
murdered: they try to scream with their unformed
mouths.

oh jeezus fukkin christ todd...you're making me scream with my unformed
mouth.

No fish
 

On Sep 15, 11:46*am, "Fred" wrote:
On 15-Sep-2009, rw wrote:

You don't understand, Todd. Wolfgang's art is in being the most
obnoxious, self-important, asshole dick on ROFF that he can possibly be..
* *In a way it's a beautiful thing. Nearly perfection.

Art

Yeah, art.

I think not

This has been obvious for a long time.

He is like a child playing w his own excrement

Exactly! Damn, I just LOVE it when you do this! :)

Wolfie is just a pathetic buffoon and a fool.

Nah, I'm a funhouse mirror.....I just reflect.

And even more importantly - a apthetic creep

BOO!

Just killfile the moron

Yeah, like freddie did.....twice in the past day or so.

g.
this one's a lot like stevie......keeps on getting dumber and
dumber......and more and more impotently furious. we like
that. :)

No fish
 

On Sep 14, 11:34*pm, Bob Blean wrote:


Disclaimer: the following is...

Nicely said. Pearls before swine.....but very nicely put.

g.

No fish
 

On Sep 15, 2:17*pm, Todd wrote:

I keep thinking about your letter. *All of the things you
list above can be traced back to someone's religious values.
Typically the ten commandments. *Atheist's values float, so
they do not apply here.

Nonsense. Atheists' and agnostics' values are as central to their
lives as any of your supposedly god-given commandments.

In fact, those of us who don't believe in your god adhere to our
values not out of fear of some eternal damnation or fear of a holy
smiting, but because we understand that ideals such a "do unto
others", "don't steal", "don't kill", etc. are essential to living a
decent life and helping ensure that our society is one worth living
in.


Chuck Vance

No fish
 

Frank Reid wrote:
How's this one. With my first wife, we had a choice. We found out
during her 7th month of pregnancy that she had a birth defect that if
she gave birth to the baby, it had a 50% chance of killing her.
I chose not to tell her, because I believed she would choose an
abortion. I, a man, not the woman, made the choice for her. She gave
birth and died.

That totally sucks. I am so sorry that happened to you and your wife.

So, you're telling me that a man should make that determination of
life or death for a woman?

You are putting words into my mouth. I never said such a thing.
Everyone has the right to self defense. If your wife had know,
and decided to abort her child to save herself, it would have
been justified.

Have you ever made that choice for someone
you loved based upon moral principle? I did. My wife died.

Frank, not to be contentious, but you should have told your wife.

I WILL
not let you or any other man make that decision for a woman. If your
religion (an show me one that isn't headed up by a man) wishes to do
that, then I'm against it.

I am talking about society, both men and woman. Everyone
has the right to self defense. That those who
oppose us say different, is just dirty politics. They
misrepresent us on the stem cell debate too. We are
trying to stop the sale of children's dead body parts.
The researchers are awash in children's stem cells
from other sources. No one's life has been lost
do to the lack of children's stem cells.

And, yes, "society" should tell anyone that they do not
have the right to kill someone else because they are
causing them "inconvenience", they decide they want
to buy a motorcycle instead, they wanted a girl instead
of a boy, etc. etc. etc.. "Society" also has the
right to tell "a man" he can not leave babies to
die of exposure on hospital tables.

It sucks what happened to your wife. I am so sorry.

-T

No fish
 

Conan The Librarian wrote:
On Sep 15, 2:17 pm, Todd wrote:

I keep thinking about your letter. All of the things you
list above can be traced back to someone's religious values.
Typically the ten commandments. Atheist's values float, so
they do not apply here.

Nonsense. Atheists' and agnostics' values are as central to their
lives as any of your supposedly god-given commandments.

In fact, those of us who don't believe in your god adhere to our
values not out of fear of some eternal damnation or fear of a holy
smiting, but because we understand that ideals such a "do unto
others", "don't steal", "don't kill", etc. are essential to living a
decent life and helping ensure that our society is one worth living
in.


Chuck Vance
Hi Chuck,

Man left to his own devices will eventually find the correct path.
I do believe that was Robes Pierre. Look what it
has brought on us: Hitler and his merry band of socialists ~25
million murders, the Soviets socialists ~ 70 million murders,
Chinese socialists ~50 million, and on and on. Osama can only
dream of such numbers.

Please "share" my values and not theirs (I don't mean to imply
you do not).

-T

No fish
 

Tom Littleton wrote:
"Todd" wrote in message ...
I heard otherwise several places. I thought it was Rev. Abernathy
that I actually heard it from.

I'm utterly shocked that Ralph Abernathy converses with you.

I heard him over the radio. I was trying to stay accurate
with what I thought he had said. Have you never put
your foot in your mouth?

-T

No fish
 

Todd wrote:
Frank Reid wrote:

So, you're telling me that a man should make that determination of
life or death for a woman?

You are putting words into my mouth. I never said such a thing.
Everyone has the right to self defense. If your wife had know,
and decided to abort her child to save herself, it would have
been justified.
-T

now that's an interesting piece of reasoning todd... about as illogical,
but self-justifying, as one can find on the issue in my opinion. it sure
isn't based on any legal doctrine of self defense i'm familiar with.
so, uh, if you and i happen to be in a state of shared dire
circumstances, and killing you will save me, you'll understand that i
was simply defending myself when i abort your life...have i got that
right todd?

No fish
 

Crusades, inquisition, "the troubles"...

Religion has enough heros of their own.
Frank Reid

No fish
 

Bob Blean wrote:
Todd wrote:
I did not mean to imply that only Christian religious beliefs
were valid. I do think it is a good thing to bring your
moral values to the arena of ideas, where ever you get them
from.

I am glad to hear you say that. Unfortunately some mean exactly that --
which is why I got so disturbed by the religious questioning of
political candidates in that last election. It appeared to me that a
candidate had little chance to get elected unless the candidate was
willing to profess a strong belief in a Christian God. That is not the
way things should be.

I found all the manure that got flung about over that one governor
being a Mormon to be a uncalled for as well. He actually followed
the moral code he professed. I liked that.

-T

No fish
 

On Sep 16, 3:35*pm, Todd wrote:
Bob Blean wrote:
Todd wrote:
* I did not mean to imply that only Christian religious beliefs
* were valid. *I do think it is a good thing to bring your
* moral values to the arena of ideas, where ever you get them
* from.

I am glad to hear you say that. *Unfortunately some mean exactly that --
which is why I got so disturbed by the religious questioning of
political candidates in that last election. *It appeared to me that a
candidate had little chance to get elected unless the candidate was
willing to profess a strong belief in a Christian God. *That is not the
way things should be.

I found all the manure that got flung about over that one governor
being a Mormon to be a uncalled for as well. *He actually followed
the moral code he professed.

Ted Bundy, the Duvaliers, Bill Clinton, Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin,
Ronald Reagan, Mao Tsedong, Jeffrey Dahmer, Caligula, Pol Pot, Richard
Daley, Ferdinand Marcos, Benito Mussolini, George Bush and Idi Amin
all followed the moral codes they professed.

I liked that.

Ooh....ooh.....surprise!

Imbecile

Pig.

g.

No fish
 

On Sep 16, 12:20*pm, Todd wrote:
Conan The Librarian wrote:
On Sep 15, 2:17 pm, Todd wrote:

I keep thinking about your letter. *All of the things you
list above can be traced back to someone's religious values.
Typically the ten commandments. *Atheist's values float, so
they do not apply here.

* *Nonsense. *Atheists' and agnostics' values are as central to their
lives as any of your supposedly god-given commandments.

* *In fact, those of us who don't believe in your god adhere to our
values not out of fear of some eternal damnation or fear of a holy
smiting, but because we understand that ideals such a "do unto
others", "don't steal", "don't kill", etc. are essential to living a
decent life and helping ensure that our society is one worth living
in.

* * * Chuck Vance

Hi Chuck,

Man left to his own devices will eventually find the correct path.
I do believe that was Robes Pierre. Look what it
has brought on us: Hitler and his merry band of socialists ~25
million murders, the Soviets socialists ~ 70 million murders,
Chinese socialists ~50 million, and on and on. *Osama can only
dream of such numbers.

Please "share" my values and not theirs (I don't mean to imply
you do not).

Pig.

Liar.

Filth.

g.

No fish
 

On Sep 16, 12:20*pm, Todd wrote:

Man left to his own devices will eventually find the correct path.
I do believe that was Robes Pierre. Look what it
has brought on us: Hitler and his merry band of socialists ~25

First of all, Hitler was not a socialist, he was a fascist. I know
right-wingers (especially your false idol, Rush) are trying to re-
write history and have us believe that Hitler was somehow a left-
winger, but it doesn't fly. They try to tell us he was socialist
because the party's name had National Socialist in it, but that's no
more the case than the old East Germany being democratic because it
had the word Democrat in its party name, or China being a republic
because it has the name "People's Republic".

I don't expect this will do any good, but I'd suggest you read up
on the Social Democrats in Germany in the 1920-30s, and compare and
contrast them to Hitler's National Socialist movement. The first
people Hitler went after were socialists, communists and other left-
wing types.

million murders, the Soviets socialists ~ 70 million murders,
Chinese socialists ~50 million, and on and on. *Osama can only
dream of such numbers.

Er, I hate to break it to you, but Osama's whole campaign is based
on religion. As were the Crusades and the Inquisition.

Please "share" my values and not theirs (I don't mean to imply
you do not).

My values say that it is wrong to murder, whether it's in the name
of your god or your government or your country.


Chuck Vance

No fish
 

Conan The Librarian wrote:
On Sep 16, 12:20 pm, Todd wrote:

Man left to his own devices will eventually find the correct path.
I do believe that was Robes Pierre. Look what it
has brought on us: Hitler and his merry band of socialists ~25

First of all, Hitler was not a socialist, he was a fascist. I know
right-wingers (especially your false idol, Rush) are trying to re-
write history and have us believe that Hitler was somehow a left-
winger, but it doesn't fly. They try to tell us he was socialist
because the party's name had National Socialist in it, but that's no
more the case than the old East Germany being democratic because it
had the word Democrat in its party name, or China being a republic
because it has the name "People's Republic".

Hi Chuck,

Watch the name calling. You can not convince me by insulting me.
It is also ill mannered.

The NAZI's were both socialist and fascist. Here is a good reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...rkers%27_Party

The part about them taking over charity and handling it by
the state is the same thing the Soviets did.

I don't expect this will do any good, but I'd suggest you read up
on the Social Democrats in Germany in the 1920-30s, and compare and
contrast them to Hitler's National Socialist movement. The first
people Hitler went after were socialists, communists and other left-
wing types.

You are correct, Hitler ate his competition. This is what happens
when you get to pick and choose your morality. The Soviets and
the NAZI's got along fine, dividing up Poland and all, until
Hitler attacked them. Britain had a hell of a time
getting support for the war out of their socialists
until that attack.

To argue over what flavor of socialist the NAZI were is to
miss my point. When you get to pick and choose what your
morality is, man's inhumanity to man can be a thing to
behold.

Add up all the number up you can find of all the stupid
things you can think of on all the world's religions
and you will not even scratch the surface of what
any one these above mentioned socialists perpetrated.

What morality did the Soviets use that allowed them
to murder 40 million Ukrainians with a forced famine?
The Soviets picked and choose their morality. Hint:
good = serves the cause (revolutionary); bad = oppose
the cause (counter revolutionary)

To get folk to following along with them to perpetrate
such inhumanity required the Soviets wipe out those
with built in moral restrains. (Oooops! Missed a few!)

Can you imagine standing guard over wheat field and
shotting anyone who tried find any leftover kernels
of wheat to feed themselves? Again, picking
and choosing one morality.

Trust me on this, all the stupid things religious
people have done over the years can not match this.

million murders, the Soviets socialists ~ 70 million murders,
Chinese socialists ~50 million, and on and on. Osama can only
dream of such numbers.

Er, I hate to break it to you, but Osama's whole campaign is based
on religion. As were the Crusades and the Inquisition.

You really do not see a difference Osama and the rest of
religious people? You would not step foot in a charity
hospital because of the Crusades? Do you discount any
and all of the good works Muslins have done because
of Osama?

Look for the good around you that religious people
have done. Hell, I am speaking to you respectfully
and you call me names.

Please "share" my values and not theirs (I don't mean to imply
you do not).

My values say that it is wrong to murder, whether it's in the name
of your god or your government or your country.

And you share these values with me why? Good that you do. Where did
you get them from? Somewhere along the line, you got them from
a religious value.

In a free society, that the majority of us (believes of one
stripe or another), come to the table with pre-built
moral restraints, allows us all to be governed with far
less imposed restraint by government. Makes us a freer
country. (I do believe the atheist Thomas Paine also made
this point, but I can not find the reference.)

And, dude, be respectful of others beliefs and opinions.
You are a fisherman, which by definition, means you
are suppose to be a "nice guy".

-T

No fish
 

On Sep 17, 12:22*pm, Todd wrote:

Conan The Librarian wrote:
On Sep 16, 12:20 pm, Todd wrote:

Man left to his own devices will eventually find the correct path.
I do believe that was Robes Pierre. Look what it
has brought on us: Hitler and his merry band of socialists ~25

* *First of all, Hitler was not a socialist, he was a fascist. *I know
right-wingers (especially your false idol, Rush) are trying to re-
write history and have us believe that Hitler was somehow a left-
winger, but it doesn't fly. *They try to tell us he was socialist
because the party's name had National Socialist in it, but that's no
more the case than the old East Germany being democratic because it
had the word Democrat in its party name, or China being a republic
because it has the name "People's Republic".

Hi Chuck,

Watch the name calling. *You can not convince me by insulting me.
It is also ill mannered.

Where did I call you names?

The NAZI's were both socialist and fascist. * Here is a good reference:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...rkers%27_Party

Actually, you might want to read your own source. They
specifically say they drew elements from the right, and opposed both
the Communists and Socialists.

The part about them taking over charity and handling it by
the state is the same thing the Soviets did.

Sure there are some elements that are similar, mostly relating to
control. But the ideology is not a socialistic one.

* *I don't expect this will do any good, but I'd suggest you read up
on the Social Democrats in Germany in the 1920-30s, and compare and
contrast them to Hitler's National Socialist movement. *The first
people Hitler went after were socialists, communists and other left-
wing types.

You are correct, Hitler ate his competition. *This is what happens
when you get to pick and choose your morality. *The Soviets and
the NAZI's got along fine, dividing up Poland and all, until
Hitler attacked them. *Britain had a hell of a time
getting support for the war out of their socialists
until that attack.

To argue over what flavor of socialist the NAZI were is to
miss my point. *When you get to pick and choose what your
morality is, man's inhumanity to man can be a thing to
behold.

Add up all the number up you can find of all the stupid
things you can think of on all the world's religions
and you will not even scratch the surface of what
any one these above mentioned socialists perpetrated.

What morality did the Soviets use that allowed them
to murder 40 million Ukrainians with a forced famine?
The Soviets picked and choose their morality. *Hint:
good = serves the cause (revolutionary); bad = oppose
the cause (counter revolutionary)

To get folk to following along with them to perpetrate
such inhumanity required the Soviets wipe out those
with built in moral restrains. *(Oooops! Missed a few!)

Can you imagine standing guard over wheat field and
shotting anyone who tried find any leftover kernels
of wheat to feed themselves? *Again, picking
and choosing one morality.

Actually, all the things you describe very closely approach the
blind devotion and zeal shown by many religious people. Mindless
devotion to any cause is dangerous.

* *Er, I hate to break it to you, but Osama's whole campaign is based
on religion. *As were the Crusades and the Inquisition.

You really do not see a difference Osama and the rest of
religious people? *You would not step foot in a charity
hospital because of the Crusades? *Do you discount any
and all of the good works Muslins have done because
of Osama?

Look for the good around you that religious people
have done. *Hell, I am speaking to you respectfully
and you call me names.

Please "share" my values and not theirs (I don't mean to imply
you do not).

* *My values say that it is wrong to murder, whether it's in the name
of your god or your government or your country.

And you share these values with me why? *Good that you do. Where did
you get them from? *Somewhere along the line, you got them from
a religious value.

It's mighty presumptuous of you to assume so. Both of my parents
were agnostic. They didn't teach me to believe in a god, but they
taught me to value and respect others as I do myself.

In a free society, that the majority of us (believes of one
stripe or another), come to the table with pre-built
moral restraints, allows us all to be governed with far
less imposed restraint by government. *Makes us a freer
country. *(I do believe the atheist Thomas Paine also made
this point, but I can not find the reference.)

And, dude, be respectful of others beliefs and opinions.
You are a fisherman, which by definition, means you
are suppose to be a "nice guy".

-T

No fish
 

Conan The Librarian wrote:
On Sep 17, 12:22 pm, Todd wrote:

Watch the name calling. You can not convince me by insulting me.
It is also ill mannered.
Where did I call you names?

"I know right-wingers (especially your false idol, Rush)"
Mild name calling, but still name calling. If you meant
that affectionately, then I do apologize. My liberal
friend calls me a "right wing nut". It means he
loves me. I tell his dog to pee on him. It means I
also love him too.

Actually, all the things you describe very closely approach the
blind devotion and zeal shown by many religious people. Mindless
devotion to any cause is dangerous.

Depends on what their devotion is to. Mindless devotion to being
nice to other people: don't see the problem. Some people
react rather badly to others being nice to them.

It's mighty presumptuous of you to assume so. Both of my parents
were agnostic. They didn't teach me to believe in a god, but they
taught me to value and respect others as I do myself.

Keep going back. They got it from somewhere. For instance:
"they taught me to value and respect others as I do myself"
would be traced back to Jesus' teaching: whatsoever you would
have others do unto you, do unto them. Other religions
have similar teaching. So keep digging.

-T

No fish
 

In message
,
Giles writes
On Sep 16, 3:35*pm, Todd wrote:
Bob Blean wrote:
Todd wrote:
* I did not mean to imply that only Christian religious beliefs
* were valid. *I do think it is a good thing to bring your
* moral values to the arena of ideas, where ever you get them
* from.

I am glad to hear you say that. *Unfortunately some mean exactly that --
which is why I got so disturbed by the religious questioning of
political candidates in that last election. *It appeared to me that a
candidate had little chance to get elected unless the candidate was
willing to profess a strong belief in a Christian God. *That is not the
way things should be.

I found all the manure that got flung about over that one governor
being a Mormon to be a uncalled for as well. *He actually followed
the moral code he professed.

Ted Bundy, the Duvaliers, Bill Clinton, Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin,
Ronald Reagan, Mao Tsedong, Jeffrey Dahmer, Caligula, Pol Pot, Richard
Daley, Ferdinand Marcos, Benito Mussolini, George Bush and Idi Amin
all followed the moral codes they professed.

I liked that.

Ooh....ooh.....surprise!

Imbecile

Pig.

g.

While you guys are still chewing the fat, I went fishing yesterday -
only the second time this year. It was to a small put and take fishery
fishing for stocked Rainbow trout.

Fishing with a stiff NE wind blowing from behind me, I managed to bag 4
Rainbows the largest was just over 4 lbs and the total bag weighed 15
lbs.

They were caught on a small (by our standards Montana nymph.)

Sorry to interrupt - carry on arguing.
--
Bill Grey

No fish
 

On 17-Sep-2009, Bill Grey wrote:

While you guys are still chewing the fat, I went fishing yesterday -
only the second time this year. It was to a small put and take fishery
fishing for stocked Rainbow trout.

Fishing with a stiff NE wind blowing from behind me, I managed to bag 4
Rainbows the largest was just over 4 lbs and the total bag weighed 15
lbs.

They were caught on a small (by our standards Montana nymph.)

Sorry to interrupt - carry on arguing.

Great post and sounds like a good time fishing - Far better than arguing

Thanks
Fred

No fish
 

On 2009-09-17 15:28:59 -0400, Bill Grey said:


Sorry to interrupt - carry on arguing.

LOL. Who loves ya, Billy?

d;o)

No fish
 

In message 2009091721144743658-dplacourse@aolcom, David LaCourse
writes
On 2009-09-17 15:28:59 -0400, Bill Grey said:

Sorry to interrupt - carry on arguing.

LOL. Who loves ya, Billy?

d;o)





Speaking in the vernacular.......... "Aw shucks" :-)
--
Bill Grey

No fish
 

On Sep 17, 1:24*pm, Todd wrote:

Conan The Librarian wrote:

* *Where did I call you names?

"I know right-wingers (especially your false idol, Rush)"
Mild name calling, but still name calling. *

Are you not a right-winger?

* *Actually, all the things you describe very closely approach the
blind devotion and zeal shown by many religious people. *Mindless
devotion to any cause is dangerous.

Depends on what their devotion is to. *Mindless devotion to being
nice to other people: don't see the problem. *Some people
react rather badly to others being nice to them.

Mindless *anything* is a problem. Whether it's mindless devotion
to a radio talk show host, mindless following of a supreme being that
by its very nature is unknowable, or mindless praying to a holy tree
frog.

* *It's mighty presumptuous of you to assume so. *Both of my parents
were agnostic. *They didn't teach me to believe in a god, but they
taught me to value and respect others as I do myself.

Keep going back. *They got it from somewhere. *For instance:
"they taught me to value and respect others as I do myself"
would be traced back to Jesus' teaching: whatsoever you would
have others do unto you, do unto them. *Other religions
have similar teaching. So keep digging.

Again with the presumptions. I know my family's history and you
don't. My dad was born in Cuba. His parents were agnostic. My mom's
dad was German. He was an atheist. Her mom was not affiliated with
any religion.

Most *societies* have similar teaching. That's how they flourish.

I know you won't like this, but what the heck: Isn't it possible
that the folks who wrote the bible did nothing more than codify what
was already accepted as essential for the survival of their society?
That maybe this Jesus chap was just a good medium to get across these
ideas?


Chuck Vance

No fish
 

On Sep 17, 12:22*pm, Todd wrote:

...When you get to pick and choose what your
morality is, man's inhumanity to man can be a thing to
behold.

Yeah, ask a Cathar.

And, dude, be respectful of others beliefs and opinions.
You are a fisherman, which by definition, means you
are suppose to be a "nice guy".

Dumbass.

g.

No fish
 

Bill Grey wrote:

While you guys are still chewing the fat, I went fishing yesterday -
only the second time this year. It was to a small put and take fishery
fishing for stocked Rainbow trout.

Fishing with a stiff NE wind blowing from behind me, I managed to bag 4
Rainbows the largest was just over 4 lbs and the total bag weighed 15 lbs.

They were caught on a small (by our standards Montana nymph.)

Awesome! What size and style of hook did you use?

No fish
 

In message , Todd writes
Bill Grey wrote:

While you guys are still chewing the fat, I went fishing yesterday -
only the second time this year. It was to a small put and take
fishery fishing for stocked Rainbow trout.
Fishing with a stiff NE wind blowing from behind me, I managed to
bag 4 Rainbows the largest was just over 4 lbs and the total bag
weighed 15 lbs.
They were caught on a small (by our standards Montana nymph.)

Awesome! What size and style of hook did you use?

I'm not sure - it was a fly that's been in my box for a few years.
Probably size 12 . I'm not sure how this relates to your idea of hook
sizes.

We tend to tie flies on larger hooks when fishing for stocked Rainbows.
--
Bill Grey

No fish
 

Bill Grey wrote:
In message , Todd writes
Bill Grey wrote:

While you guys are still chewing the fat, I went fishing yesterday -
only the second time this year. It was to a small put and take
fishery fishing for stocked Rainbow trout.
Fishing with a stiff NE wind blowing from behind me, I managed to
bag 4 Rainbows the largest was just over 4 lbs and the total bag
weighed 15 lbs.
They were caught on a small (by our standards Montana nymph.)

Awesome! What size and style of hook did you use?

I'm not sure - it was a fly that's been in my box for a few years.
Probably size 12 . I'm not sure how this relates to your idea of hook
sizes.

We tend to tie flies on larger hooks when fishing for stocked Rainbows.

Actually, hook and shank. My "theory" is that a trout will stray
farther from his feeding lie based on the food value of what he is
chasing. In other words, if the fly is bigger, you don't have to be
such a good shot. If the fly is smaller, say a midge, you have to
hit the trout on the nose to get him to eat it. My "theory".

On the other hand, if the fly is too large, you risk the trout
attacking it as it would a minnow: from the side and shaking it
in his mouth. In which case, unless you gaff him, you can never
hook him. I can verify this from my own personal experience.

My "TMC 200BL. size: 12" seems to be the perfect size for
my weird upside down stones.

I have also never caught a single fish on a bead head fly
either. I have never caught so many fish as the day I
tossed all my bead headed flies in the trash. My "thoery":
head down, tail up is debris; head down, tail down, belly up is
a stone in catastrophic drift.

Another "theory" of mine: you have ~ 3/4 of a second to
react to a strike before the trout's food/debris instinct
spits your fly out. And a fly is always "debris".
Okay, now I am babbling on.

I need to go fishing.

-T

No fish
 

In message , Todd writes
Bill Grey wrote:
In message , Todd writes
Bill Grey wrote:

While you guys are still chewing the fat, I went fishing yesterday
only the second time this year. It was to a small put and take
fishery fishing for stocked Rainbow trout.
Fishing with a stiff NE wind blowing from behind me, I managed to
bag 4 Rainbows the largest was just over 4 lbs and the total bag
weighed 15 lbs.
They were caught on a small (by our standards Montana nymph.)

Awesome! What size and style of hook did you use?
I'm not sure - it was a fly that's been in my box for a few years.
Probably size 12 . I'm not sure how this relates to your idea of hook
sizes.
We tend to tie flies on larger hooks when fishing for stocked
Rainbows.

Actually, hook and shank. My "theory" is that a trout will stray
farther from his feeding lie based on the food value of what he is
chasing. In other words, if the fly is bigger, you don't have to be
such a good shot. If the fly is smaller, say a midge, you have to
hit the trout on the nose to get him to eat it. My "theory".

On the other hand, if the fly is too large, you risk the trout
attacking it as it would a minnow: from the side and shaking it
in his mouth. In which case, unless you gaff him, you can never
hook him. I can verify this from my own personal experience.

My "TMC 200BL. size: 12" seems to be the perfect size for
my weird upside down stones.

I have also never caught a single fish on a bead head fly
either. I have never caught so many fish as the day I
tossed all my bead headed flies in the trash. My "thoery":
head down, tail up is debris; head down, tail down, belly up is
a stone in catastrophic drift.

Another "theory" of mine: you have ~ 3/4 of a second to
react to a strike before the trout's food/debris instinct
spits your fly out. And a fly is always "debris".
Okay, now I am babbling on.

I need to go fishing.

-T

Well you have your theories, but remember you are fishing in the USA I'm
in the UK. The fishing styles are totally different. I wasn't fishing a
stream - I was fishing a small lake where the stocked fish were there
for the taking.

Your casting doesn't have to be accurate - as long as you hit the pond
you're doing fine. Of course that is an exaggeration - I was casting
about 70 feet with an intermediate #8 line and allowing the fly to sink
then slowly retrieving. It was up to the trout to do the work of taking
the fly - and on my day they did.

The bead-headed flies sink well and it's on the bottom they do the
attracting.

I have to admit, there isn't a lot of skill required, - I can cast quite
well and I do know how to tempt the fish, but they are not wild fish as
you get in the rivers. The were all full tailed good fighters.
Rainbows in these conditions tend to chase anything when the mood takes
them.
--
Bill Grey

No fish
 

On 2009-09-19 15:52:39 -0400, Todd said:

Bill Grey wrote:
In message , Todd writes
Bill Grey wrote:

While you guys are still chewing the fat, I went fishing yesterday -
only the second time this year. It was to a small put and take fishery
fishing for stocked Rainbow trout.
Fishing with a stiff NE wind blowing from behind me, I managed to bag
4 Rainbows the largest was just over 4 lbs and the total bag weighed
15 lbs.
They were caught on a small (by our standards Montana nymph.)

Awesome! What size and style of hook did you use?

I'm not sure - it was a fly that's been in my box for a few years.
Probably size 12 . I'm not sure how this relates to your idea of hook
sizes.

We tend to tie flies on larger hooks when fishing for stocked Rainbows.

Actually, hook and shank. My "theory" is that a trout will stray
farther from his feeding lie based on the food value of what he is
chasing. In other words, if the fly is bigger, you don't have to be
such a good shot. If the fly is smaller, say a midge, you have to
hit the trout on the nose to get him to eat it. My "theory".

Nonsense. When I nymph on my home waters in Maine, I usually use
nymphs in the 18 - 24 range, and I am VERY successful with wild salmon
and brook trout. There is one caddis pupua I use that is a size 16,
but that is as large as I would go. Rarely have I seen anyone using
something as large as a size 12 except if they are mimicing a dry March
Brown or a stonefly. Roll over some rocks at the stream you fish and
look at how small the nymphs are. Most are smaller than 16s. My
theory is give them something small they've never seen. I have about 5
personally invented flies, none of them larger than 18, and they all
work.

I sight fished a big rainbow on the Big Horn one time. I used big
flies, small flies, and very tiny flies. I was determined to catch
this fish. I watched him move aside to avoid the fly. *Finally* I put
on something that he wanted - a size 20 tied by a friend, and the big
rainbow took it. There was nothing different in the drift - he just
wanted that particular lure.

The same thing happened in Labrador with one of my grandsons, only this
time it was a dry fly. We both saw the fish finning in an eddy and
drifted dry flies past it. It ignored every fly - two from my grandson
and two from me, all size 16. We must have each made four or five
casts with each fly. I gave my grandson a size 18 black Goddard Caddis
and on the first cast, we saw the fish move up and away to take the
lure. It was a five pound brook trout.

Dave

No fish
 

David LaCourse wrote:
On 2009-09-19 15:52:39 -0400, Todd said:

Actually, hook and shank. My "theory" is that a trout will stray
farther from his feeding lie based on the food value of what he is
chasing. In other words, if the fly is bigger, you don't have to be
such a good shot. If the fly is smaller, say a midge, you have to
hit the trout on the nose to get him to eat it. My "theory".


Nonsense. When I nymph on my home waters in Maine, I usually use nymphs
in the 18 - 24 range, and I am VERY successful with wild salmon and
brook trout. There is one caddis pupua I use that is a size 16, but
that is as large as I would go. Rarely have I seen anyone using
something as large as a size 12 except if they are mimicing a dry March
Brown or a stonefly. Roll over some rocks at the stream you fish and
look at how small the nymphs are. Most are smaller than 16s. My theory
is give them something small they've never seen. I have about 5
personally invented flies, none of them larger than 18, and they all work.

I think Tom has a point with his "theory" about larger flies in one
situation: trout opportunistically feeding on terrestrials or whatever
else comes along on the surface. I run into this often when fishing for
cutthroat in relatively infertile freestone rivers like the Middle Fork
of the Salmon in Idaho and similar places. The fish hold deep in
gin-clear water. A Big Ugly is usually the best choice to bring them up.
I especially like the Madam X, Turk's Tarantula, and big stimulators.
Rarely use hoppers, per se.

In my experience trout usually feed opportunistically and erratically,
but often enough they're keyed into a rhythmic feeding pattern on a
small but numerous bug, whether a dry or a nymph. Sometimes, on a
fertile stream, there will be multiple simultaneous "hatches" but the
trout are focused exclusively on one bug -- I think because they have a
energy-conserving, rhythmic feeding pattern. In that situation you'd
better have the right fly and the right presentation.

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

No fish
 

In message 200909191912368930-dplacourse@aolcom, David LaCourse
writes
On 2009-09-19 15:52:39 -0400, Todd said:

Bill Grey wrote:
In message , Todd writes
Bill Grey wrote:

While you guys are still chewing the fat, I went fishing yesterday
only the second time this year. It was to a small put and take
fishery fishing for stocked Rainbow trout.
Fishing with a stiff NE wind blowing from behind me, I managed to
bag 4 Rainbows the largest was just over 4 lbs and the total bag
weighed 15 lbs.
They were caught on a small (by our standards Montana nymph.)
Awesome! What size and style of hook did you use?
I'm not sure - it was a fly that's been in my box for a few years.
Probably size 12 . I'm not sure how this relates to your idea of hook
sizes.
We tend to tie flies on larger hooks when fishing for stocked
Rainbows.
Actually, hook and shank. My "theory" is that a trout will stray
farther from his feeding lie based on the food value of what he is
chasing. In other words, if the fly is bigger, you don't have to be
such a good shot. If the fly is smaller, say a midge, you have to
hit the trout on the nose to get him to eat it. My "theory".

Nonsense. When I nymph on my home waters in Maine, I usually use
nymphs in the 18 - 24 range, and I am VERY successful with wild salmon
and brook trout. There is one caddis pupua I use that is a size 16,
but that is as large as I would go. Rarely have I seen anyone using
something as large as a size 12 except if they are mimicing a dry March
Brown or a stonefly. Roll over some rocks at the stream you fish and
look at how small the nymphs are. Most are smaller than 16s. My
theory is give them something small they've never seen. I have about 5
personally invented flies, none of them larger than 18, and they all work.

I sight fished a big rainbow on the Big Horn one time. I used big
flies, small flies, and very tiny flies. I was determined to catch
this fish. I watched him move aside to avoid the fly. *Finally* I put
on something that he wanted - a size 20 tied by a friend, and the big
rainbow took it. There was nothing different in the drift - he just
wanted that particular lure.

The same thing happened in Labrador with one of my grandsons, only this
time it was a dry fly. We both saw the fish finning in an eddy and
drifted dry flies past it. It ignored every fly - two from my grandson
and two from me, all size 16. We must have each made four or five
casts with each fly. I gave my grandson a size 18 black Goddard Caddis
on the first cast, we saw the fish move up and away to take the lure.
It was a five pound brook trout.

Dave



In an attempt to clarify, even justify, the hook size I used, let me
refer you to:-

http://www.jannsnetcraft.com/Content...zing_chart.pdf

then on page 5 see size 10 Sproat hook. That seems to compare well with
my fly.

It must be remembered that my fly is a lure not a representation of a
natural. I'm not sue if there is difference in classification of hook
sizes between the USA and the UK ?
--
Bill Grey

No fish
 

On 2009-09-19 20:52:58 -0400, rw said:

David LaCourse wrote:
On 2009-09-19 15:52:39 -0400, Todd said:

Actually, hook and shank. My "theory" is that a trout will stray
farther from his feeding lie based on the food value of what he is
chasing. In other words, if the fly is bigger, you don't have to be
such a good shot. If the fly is smaller, say a midge, you have to
hit the trout on the nose to get him to eat it. My "theory".


Nonsense. When I nymph on my home waters in Maine, I usually use
nymphs in the 18 - 24 range, and I am VERY successful with wild salmon
and brook trout. There is one caddis pupua I use that is a size 16,
but that is as large as I would go. Rarely have I seen anyone using
something as large as a size 12 except if they are mimicing a dry March
Brown or a stonefly. Roll over some rocks at the stream you fish and
look at how small the nymphs are. Most are smaller than 16s. My
theory is give them something small they've never seen. I have about 5
personally invented flies, none of them larger than 18, and they all
work.

I think Tom has a point with his "theory" about larger flies in one
situation: trout opportunistically feeding on terrestrials or whatever
else comes along on the surface. I run into this often when fishing for
cutthroat in relatively infertile freestone rivers like the Middle Fork
of the Salmon in Idaho and similar places. The fish hold deep in
gin-clear water. A Big Ugly is usually the best choice to bring them
up. I especially like the Madam X, Turk's Tarantula, and big
stimulators. Rarely use hoppers, per se.

Yeah, it's called "match the hatch". :) Of course they are not going
to take a size 22 hopper or Madam X (if such a lure could be tied). No
argument there. I am speaking of consistently taking trout, big trout,
on very small ties. When I switched from 12, 14, 16 nymphs to 18 - 24,
my catch improved. Our friend Bruiser got me started with very tiny
nmphs when he gave me a fly he named in my honor, The Pirate. An easy
tie - just thread, but the size of he hook - 22- is the key. He gave
me an entire box of very small ties and when I used them on the Rapid,
I was astounded at their success. Over the years I have experimented
with soft hackle on very small nymphs and that has improved my
connections.

I've been using Harry's Killer Caddis dry. I have it in size 12 - 16,
and have a friend who ties it in size 18 (the body material comes from
(I think) Harrop. Anyhooo, I have noticed a big difference between
large and small hooks in this tie. There is, of course, that long
argument about color and size. I think size is more important.

In my experience trout usually feed opportunistically and erratically,
but often enough they're keyed into a rhythmic feeding pattern on a
small but numerous bug, whether a dry or a nymph. Sometimes, on a
fertile stream, there will be multiple simultaneous "hatches" but the
trout are focused exclusively on one bug -- I think because they have a
energy-conserving, rhythmic feeding pattern. In that situation you'd
better have the right fly and the right presentation.

I agree. They are very opportunistic, especially on the Rapid. That
is why I said that when I give them a fly they have never seen, they go
crazy for it. Something as simple as a head with orange thread rather
than the normal brown is enough to make them key on that fly. This
river is also famous for its streamer fishing, and just the opposite is
true. If you fish streamers, the bigger the better. A size 2, 10X, is
the norm. I believe that Carrie Stevens discovered this on these
waters many years ago.

I just reread what Todd and Bill were talking about and noticed
something that I omitted. They are speaking of stocked trout, while my
experience is the same as yours, wild trout (sorry T-bone). I rarely
fish for stockies, but when I do, the more traditional sizes work best.
A number of years ago I showed a bait fisherman how to quickly take
his limit. I gathered a handful of small pepples (pellets) and threw
them in the water. I told the guy to cast him worm into the middle of
the pepple pattern. He did and immediately caught a 12 inch rainbow.
Surprise, surprise. The hatchery fish were used to being fed with
pellets thrown (like my pepples). I erred in showing this to this guy
because the next time I fished this water (White's Pond in Concord,
MA), two bait fishermen were doing the pepple trick. I didn't tell the
first guy that it works only after the stocking truck has deposited its
cargo.

Dave

No fish
 

In message 2009092008451350878-dplacourse@aolcom, David LaCourse
writes
I just reread what Todd and Bill were talking about and noticed
something that I omitted. They are speaking of stocked trout, while my
experience is the same as yours, wild trout (sorry T-bone). I rarely
fish for stockies, but when I do, the more traditional sizes work best.
A number of years ago I showed a bait fisherman how to quickly take his
limit. I gathered a handful of small pepples (pellets) and threw them
in the water.

Very true! Fish that are stocked into a river or pond are conditioned
to having food pellets thrown at them and the respond violently.

To give you three quite separate examples:-

1) while fishing at a stocked reservoir using a worm set up, I
noticed a trout take the worm almost as soon as it hit the water. It
responded to the splash.


2 ) While walking Geraint (my Labrador) along the local river bank, I
noticed newly stocked trout rising quite freely. I tossed a small dog
food pellet at the rise and I got a rise for each pellet I threw in.
Some kids wanted to try tying a pellet sized "fly" . Quite possible with
deer hair!

3 ) On another occasion A fisherman was seen chucking a handful of clay
dust (small particles) into a reservoir - It was noticed that he was the
only one who was catching.

The above deception doesn't work with wild trout, or trout that have
been stocked and have lived for some time in the water.



--
Bill Grey

No fish
 

David LaCourse wrote:
On 2009-09-19 20:52:58 -0400, rw said:


I think Tom has a point with his "theory" about larger flies in one
situation: trout opportunistically feeding on terrestrials or whatever
else comes along on the surface. I run into this often when fishing
for cutthroat in relatively infertile freestone rivers like the Middle
Fork of the Salmon in Idaho and similar places. The fish hold deep in
gin-clear water. A Big Ugly is usually the best choice to bring them
up. I especially like the Madam X, Turk's Tarantula, and big
stimulators. Rarely use hoppers, per se.


Yeah, it's called "match the hatch". :) Of course they are not going
to take a size 22 hopper or Madam X (if such a lure could be tied). No
argument there.

I guess we have different ideas about what "match the hatch" means. A
Turk's Tarantula doesn't match any hatch I'm familiar with.

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

No fish
 

David LaCourse wrote:

Yeah, it's called "match the hatch". :)

I am not "matching the hatch". I am matching the "drift".
Whole different mind set. I match what floats by their
nose, which is what is normally growing in the and
not going through some kind of metamorphosis.

Of course they are not going
to take a size 22 hopper or Madam X (if such a lure could be tied). No
argument there. I am speaking of consistently taking trout, big trout,
on very small ties. When I switched from 12, 14, 16 nymphs to 18 - 24,
my catch improved. Our friend Bruiser got me started with very tiny
nmphs when he gave me a fly he named in my honor, The Pirate. An easy
tie - just thread, but the size of he hook - 22- is the key. He gave me
an entire box of very small ties and when I used them on the Rapid, I
was astounded at their success. Over the years I have experimented with
soft hackle on very small nymphs and that has improved my connections.

I've been using Harry's Killer Caddis dry. I have it in size 12 - 16,
and have a friend who ties it in size 18 (the body material comes from
(I think) Harrop. Anyhooo, I have noticed a big difference between
large and small hooks in this tie. There is, of course, that long
argument about color and size. I think size is more important.

Awesome feedback. Thank you!


In my experience trout usually feed opportunistically and erratically,
but often enough they're keyed into a rhythmic feeding pattern on a
small but numerous bug, whether a dry or a nymph. Sometimes, on a
fertile stream, there will be multiple simultaneous "hatches" but the
trout are focused exclusively on one bug -- I think because they have
a energy-conserving, rhythmic feeding pattern. In that situation you'd
better have the right fly and the right presentation.

I agree. They are very opportunistic, especially on the Rapid. That is
why I said that when I give them a fly they have never seen, they go
crazy for it. Something as simple as a head with orange thread rather
than the normal brown is enough to make them key on that fly. This
river is also famous for its streamer fishing, and just the opposite is
true. If you fish streamers, the bigger the better. A size 2, 10X, is
the norm. I believe that Carrie Stevens discovered this on these waters
many years ago.

Speaking of the "drift", we have these three inch Stones in my river.
Black in the water and dark red in the air. Look like a huge flying
red ant in the air. Scare the hell out of you when they land on
the back of your neck. Anyway, the argument among the "hatchers"
at the fly shop was that they should match the full size three
inch adult. So they tied me a stone with a #6 hook. The trout
attached them from the side like a they would a minnow. Lots of
action, no hook ups. As I am the only "drifter", I finally
convinced them that it took these stones three years to grow to
that size. So, finally got my #12's. And, I have caught zillions of
fish on them. The idea was to match what is living in the
water on a day by day basis, not what is hatching once or
twice a year.

A tip from a "drifter": do not forget the white nymph.
Nymphs shuck their exoskeletons several times a year as
they grow. Until they readjust, they are cream colored.
If I can not get my trout to pay attention, I switch to
white or cream color. More yummy, less crunch.



I just reread what Todd and Bill were talking about and noticed
something that I omitted. They are speaking of stocked trout, while my
experience is the same as yours, wild trout (sorry T-bone). I rarely
fish for stockies, but when I do, the more traditional sizes work best.
A number of years ago I showed a bait fisherman how to quickly take his
limit. I gathered a handful of small pepples (pellets) and threw them
in the water. I told the guy to cast him worm into the middle of the
pepple pattern. He did and immediately caught a 12 inch rainbow.
Surprise, surprise. The hatchery fish were used to being fed with
pellets thrown (like my pepples). I erred in showing this to this guy
because the next time I fished this water (White's Pond in Concord, MA),
two bait fishermen were doing the pepple trick. I didn't tell the first
guy that it works only after the stocking truck has deposited its cargo.

Dave

My section of river only gets stocked once a year. Twice if they have
too many trout at the hatchery. They call it a gift. The stockers
only last about three weeks. So, most of the time I have the river
all to my self and I play with the remaining wild trout. The wild ones
are easy to tell apart by their fins, colors, and attitude.

-T

No fish
 

Todd wrote:
My section of river only gets stocked once a year. Twice if they have
too many trout at the hatchery. They call it a gift. The stockers
only last about three weeks. So, most of the time I have the river
all to my self and I play with the remaining wild trout. The wild ones
are easy to tell apart by their fins, colors, and attitude.

If your river is stocked annually it's likely your river does
not have a sustaining population of wild trout. I don't know
where you are, but most states have stopped dumping stockers
in waters with wild trout. What's left after three weeks or
into the next season would be holdovers.

--
Ken Fortenberry

No fish
 

In message , Ken Fortenberry
writes
Todd wrote:
My section of river only gets stocked once a year. Twice if they have
too many trout at the hatchery. They call it a gift. The stockers
only last about three weeks. So, most of the time I have the river
all to my self and I play with the remaining wild trout. The wild ones
are easy to tell apart by their fins, colors, and attitude.

If your river is stocked annually it's likely your river does
not have a sustaining population of wild trout. I don't know
where you are, but most states have stopped dumping stockers
in waters with wild trout. What's left after three weeks or
into the next season would be holdovers.


Quite so Ken! One local club tends to stock with brown up to 3 lbs in
weight. To me that is ridiculous. For the kids that catch them then
it's all good fun but ecologically the river just can't sustain such
creatures when you consider the few indigenous fish that survive don't
grow to more than about 12 inches - if they're lucky.
--
Bill Grey

No fish
 

On 2009-09-20 12:59:00 -0400, rw said:

David LaCourse wrote:
On 2009-09-19 20:52:58 -0400, rw said:


I think Tom has a point with his "theory" about larger flies in one
situation: trout opportunistically feeding on terrestrials or whatever
else comes along on the surface. I run into this often when fishing for
cutthroat in relatively infertile freestone rivers like the Middle Fork
of the Salmon in Idaho and similar places. The fish hold deep in
gin-clear water. A Big Ugly is usually the best choice to bring them
up. I especially like the Madam X, Turk's Tarantula, and big
stimulators. Rarely use hoppers, per se.


Yeah, it's called "match the hatch". :) Of course they are not going
to take a size 22 hopper or Madam X (if such a lure could be tied). No
argument there.

I guess we have different ideas about what "match the hatch" means. A
Turk's Tarantula doesn't match any hatch I'm familiar with.

I was speaking more about the hopper flies. The only time I've used a
hopper or a Madam X was out west. I took some ugly carp out of the
lake above the Bighorn. It was lots of fun but not very sporting.

No fish
 

On 2009-09-20 13:06:35 -0400, Todd said:

David LaCourse wrote:

Yeah, it's called "match the hatch". :)

I am not "matching the hatch". I am matching the "drift".
Whole different mind set. I match what floats by their
nose, which is what is normally growing in the and
not going through some kind of metamorphosis.

I wasn't refering to your post. I was answer Steve.


Of course they are not going to take a size 22 hopper or Madam X (if
such a lure could be tied). No argument there. I am speaking of
consistently taking trout, big trout, on very small ties. When I
switched from 12, 14, 16 nymphs to 18 - 24, my catch improved. Our
friend Bruiser got me started with very tiny nmphs when he gave me a
fly he named in my honor, The Pirate. An easy tie - just thread, but
the size of he hook - 22- is the key. He gave me an entire box of very
small ties and when I used them on the Rapid, I was astounded at their
success. Over the years I have experimented with soft hackle on very
small nymphs and that has improved my connections.

I've been using Harry's Killer Caddis dry. I have it in size 12 - 16,
and have a friend who ties it in size 18 (the body material comes from
(I think) Harrop. Anyhooo, I have noticed a big difference between
large and small hooks in this tie. There is, of course, that long
argument about color and size. I think size is more important.

Awesome feedback. Thank you!


In my experience trout usually feed opportunistically and erratically,
but often enough they're keyed into a rhythmic feeding pattern on a
small but numerous bug, whether a dry or a nymph. Sometimes, on a
fertile stream, there will be multiple simultaneous "hatches" but the
trout are focused exclusively on one bug -- I think because they have a
energy-conserving, rhythmic feeding pattern. In that situation you'd
better have the right fly and the right presentation.

I agree. They are very opportunistic, especially on the Rapid. That
is why I said that when I give them a fly they have never seen, they go
crazy for it. Something as simple as a head with orange thread rather
than the normal brown is enough to make them key on that fly. This
river is also famous for its streamer fishing, and just the opposite is
true. If you fish streamers, the bigger the better. A size 2, 10X, is
the norm. I believe that Carrie Stevens discovered this on these
waters many years ago.

Speaking of the "drift", we have these three inch Stones in my river.
Black in the water and dark red in the air. Look like a huge flying
red ant in the air. Scare the hell out of you when they land on
the back of your neck. Anyway, the argument among the "hatchers"
at the fly shop was that they should match the full size three
inch adult. So they tied me a stone with a #6 hook. The trout
attached them from the side like a they would a minnow. Lots of
action, no hook ups. As I am the only "drifter", I finally
convinced them that it took these stones three years to grow to
that size. So, finally got my #12's. And, I have caught zillions of
fish on them. The idea was to match what is living in the
water on a day by day basis, not what is hatching once or
twice a year.
d;o) You haven't been fishing very long, have you. There is a hatch
almost every day. I just walked down to the river and there are bwo
and tan egg laying caddis all over the place. A few fish rising, and
some takes on emergers. After dinner I will tie on a size 20 soft
hackle PT and catch fish. When the light is almost gone I will switch
to a dry tan caddis, size 16

A tip from a "drifter": do not forget the white nymph.
Nymphs shuck their exoskeletons several times a year as
they grow. Until they readjust, they are cream colored.
If I can not get my trout to pay attention, I switch to
white or cream color. More yummy, less crunch.

(??????)



I just reread what Todd and Bill were talking about and noticed
something that I omitted. They are speaking of stocked trout, while my
experience is the same as yours, wild trout (sorry T-bone). I rarely
fish for stockies, but when I do, the more traditional sizes work best.
A number of years ago I showed a bait fisherman how to quickly take his
limit. I gathered a handful of small pepples (pellets) and threw them
in the water. I told the guy to cast him worm into the middle of the
pepple pattern. He did and immediately caught a 12 inch rainbow.
Surprise, surprise. The hatchery fish were used to being fed with
pellets thrown (like my pepples). I erred in showing this to this guy
because the next time I fished this water (White's Pond in Concord,
MA), two bait fishermen were doing the pepple trick. I didn't tell the
first guy that it works only after the stocking truck has deposited its
cargo.

Dave

My section of river only gets stocked once a year. Twice if they have
too many trout at the hatchery. They call it a gift. The stockers
only last about three weeks. So, most of the time I have the river
all to my self and I play with the remaining wild trout. The wild ones
are easy to tell apart by their fins, colors, and attitude.

-T

I don't fish for stocked trout, and no, I am not an eliteist.

Dave

No fish
 

On 2009-09-20 15:29:32 -0400, Bill Grey said:

In message , Ken Fortenberry
writes
Todd wrote:
My section of river only gets stocked once a year. Twice if they have
too many trout at the hatchery. They call it a gift. The stockers
only last about three weeks. So, most of the time I have the river
all to my self and I play with the remaining wild trout. The wild ones
are easy to tell apart by their fins, colors, and attitude.

If your river is stocked annually it's likely your river does
not have a sustaining population of wild trout. I don't know
where you are, but most states have stopped dumping stockers
in waters with wild trout. What's left after three weeks or
into the next season would be holdovers.


Quite so Ken! One local club tends to stock with brown up to 3 lbs in
weight. To me that is ridiculous. For the kids that catch them then
it's all good fun but ecologically the river just can't sustain such
creatures when you consider the few indigenous fish that survive don't
grow to more than about 12 inches - if they're lucky.

They used to do that when I was a kid in Springfield, Mass. They'd
stock big rainbows, what they called "strippers", meaning that they
were used only to strip the eggs from them. They usually put them in
"kid's" water. I can remember catching a couple on spin tackle when I
was 10 or 12.

Dave