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 WF´s 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 don´t 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. What´s 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 don´t, 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 don´t you try presenting your arguments in
favour of WF lines for beginners? Or don´t 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