|
|
line choice for beginner
I want to start fly fishing and have rod (5 wt) and reel (7wt). I will buy a
5 wt floating line since this has recommended for me, but am wondering whether a weight forward or double taper would be appropriate. I see the advantage of the DT is that you get twice the use because you can reverse it eventually. I would also think that since my reel is a bit large for my rod/line weight that a double taper might be appropriate. Do you guys think it would be a good idea or should I just get a weight forward line? Also, does it matter which exactly one I get? I have been told to get the best or close to it. Do you have any specific recommendations as to brand? TIA Dan |
line choice for beginner
What rod are you using ? If you have a reel matched for a 7wt, it would probably not be a bad idea to fill it up with backing. That way your flyline will be less coiled (but remeber to stretch it before you go fishing). However depending on the reel it self it might might be a bit heavy for the rod, i.e. move the balance too far back. |
line choice for beginner
Bud, if you are just starting you won't notice any difference between a
double taper and a weight forward. Indeed, in average stream fishing, they are no different except in certain situations. Just get a five weight line, rather a name brand at a good price than the 'best' you can get. It is necessary for you to progress to the point where you can say, I don't like' this' or 'that' in my 'rod' or 'line' for your question to have any relevance. Go fish. worry more about your leader, tippet, knots and presentation. A good caster can take a lousy line on a good rod, or a good line on a lousy rod, or BOTH and catch fish. Easy big fellah, whoa Sea Biscuit.... . . .kiss my ass I've got a boat, I'm goin out to sea.... john "Dan" wrote in message ... I want to start fly fishing and have rod (5 wt) and reel (7wt). I will buy a 5 wt floating line since this has recommended for me, but am wondering whether a weight forward or double taper would be appropriate. I see the advantage of the DT is that you get twice the use because you can reverse it eventually. I would also think that since my reel is a bit large for my rod/line weight that a double taper might be appropriate. Do you guys think it would be a good idea or should I just get a weight forward line? Also, does it matter which exactly one I get? I have been told to get the best or close to it. Do you have any specific recommendations as to brand? TIA Dan |
line choice for beginner
Your logic is good. The advantage of a weight foreward is that you can cast
it further when you learn how to shoot line, and you can carry more backing. the latter is not a consideration if you have a larger reel to start with. Eventually you may find some discomfort with the size of the reel, and you may want to get one that would better balnace the reel as Sven suggested. If you're just getting started, I would worry to much about that yet. (unless money is no object) Which band and which model? A good a starting line is the Sci. Angler 333 available (or was) at Walmart for less than $30 If money is no object, most of the lines are good. The only line I don't like is the clear Cortland 555..too much memory! "Dan" wrote in message ... I want to start fly fishing and have rod (5 wt) and reel (7wt). I will buy a 5 wt floating line since this has recommended for me, but am wondering whether a weight forward or double taper would be appropriate. I see the advantage of the DT is that you get twice the use because you can reverse it eventually. I would also think that since my reel is a bit large for my rod/line weight that a double taper might be appropriate. Do you guys think it would be a good idea or should I just get a weight forward line? Also, does it matter which exactly one I get? I have been told to get the best or close to it. Do you have any specific recommendations as to brand? TIA Dan --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.602 / Virus Database: 383 - Release Date: 3/2/2004 |
line choice for beginner
..
"Sierra fisher" wrote in message ... If you're just getting started, I would worry to much about that yet. (unless money is no object)..money no object? I think that's it. I couldn't teach a hungry baby to suckle. I'd kill it first out of frustration. When I 'taught' my wife to flyfish, I showed her a cast or three. I cast, she watched. Then I showed her how to shake the line out of the rod tip. I turned and walked away. My point? Well, Unless you happen to have a professional, and be into some serious one on one, it doesn't really matter what you hit the water with. Watch a video from the library about casting and you can hit the water. Just don't cast. Later, when you want more line out, you'll learn. Hopefully, soon, you will have made acquaintances and you can try their rods with your line or whatever. Of course the sooner you meet those guys the better. But let's face it. We are doing ourselves a disservice here. I'd recommend this cyclic deprived Rod Stewart to buy some really expensive **** and I'll look for it in three weeks on ebay.... john |
line choice for beginner
Hi All,
There is a dramatic difference between fly line finishes. I have sold them all sense 1965 and have cast them all too. There are tons of real old technology lines out there for the low price point market that feel like sand paper when you cast them. We are always looking for the best value for the dollar. Fly lines like the old SA 'Aircel' and Cortland '333' are 1950s technology. You have to get to a certain level to get into the newer smoother finish lines that are not going to negatively effect your casting. We found that the Cortland '444' peach colored line (1964) has been the turning point for many years. Another newer line that is great for beginners in the SA/Master 'Head Start' (~year 2000) because it has the new 'AST' finish. We are talking $40 and up to get something that is real smooth and will cast very near like the best. The best lines in the world now are only $60USD so I don't know why anyone would not get the best? The best rods are $700 so that is understandable why most won't go there. For many years the common advise to put the most money towards a good fly line, secondly the rod and lastly the reel. -- Bill Kiene Kiene's Fly Shop Sacramento, CA, USA Web site: www.kiene.com "Sierra fisher" wrote in message ... Your logic is good. The advantage of a weight foreward is that you can cast it further when you learn how to shoot line, and you can carry more backing. the latter is not a consideration if you have a larger reel to start with. Eventually you may find some discomfort with the size of the reel, and you may want to get one that would better balnace the reel as Sven suggested. If you're just getting started, I would worry to much about that yet. (unless money is no object) Which band and which model? A good a starting line is the Sci. Angler 333 available (or was) at Walmart for less than $30 If money is no object, most of the lines are good. The only line I don't like is the clear Cortland 555..too much memory! "Dan" wrote in message ... I want to start fly fishing and have rod (5 wt) and reel (7wt). I will buy a 5 wt floating line since this has recommended for me, but am wondering whether a weight forward or double taper would be appropriate. I see the advantage of the DT is that you get twice the use because you can reverse it eventually. I would also think that since my reel is a bit large for my rod/line weight that a double taper might be appropriate. Do you guys think it would be a good idea or should I just get a weight forward line? Also, does it matter which exactly one I get? I have been told to get the best or close to it. Do you have any specific recommendations as to brand? TIA Dan --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.602 / Virus Database: 383 - Release Date: 3/2/2004 |
line choice for beginner
Hi,
I would second Bill K's advice about the cost - you can buy an SA or Cortland and have a good quality line for less than $50-$60. I would say that the weight forward is MUCH easier to cast for a beginner, as the Double Taper does not put as much weight up front, and you will notice the difference in your casting, which at first will be 40 feet and under- this will be much easier with a WF line. The advantage of a double taper (reversing it) is really kind of silly - by the time the front wears out, do you think the rest of the line is still unblemished? A damaged line is a damaged line. The real advantage to a DT is that because it has less weight up front you can make more delicate (read - less splashy) casts when presenting dries at a distance. You won't be doing that for the first year or two probably, so go with the WF and have some fun! Bill http://www.tightlines.ca "Bill Kiene" wrote in message m... Hi All, There is a dramatic difference between fly line finishes. I have sold them all sense 1965 and have cast them all too. There are tons of real old technology lines out there for the low price point market that feel like sand paper when you cast them. We are always looking for the best value for the dollar. Fly lines like the old SA 'Aircel' and Cortland '333' are 1950s technology. You have to get to a certain level to get into the newer smoother finish lines that are not going to negatively effect your casting. We found that the Cortland '444' peach colored line (1964) has been the turning point for many years. Another newer line that is great for beginners in the SA/Master 'Head Start' (~year 2000) because it has the new 'AST' finish. We are talking $40 and up to get something that is real smooth and will cast very near like the best. The best lines in the world now are only $60USD so I don't know why anyone would not get the best? The best rods are $700 so that is understandable why most won't go there. For many years the common advise to put the most money towards a good fly line, secondly the rod and lastly the reel. -- Bill Kiene Kiene's Fly Shop Sacramento, CA, USA Web site: www.kiene.com "Sierra fisher" wrote in message ... Your logic is good. The advantage of a weight foreward is that you can cast it further when you learn how to shoot line, and you can carry more backing. the latter is not a consideration if you have a larger reel to start with. Eventually you may find some discomfort with the size of the reel, and you may want to get one that would better balnace the reel as Sven suggested. If you're just getting started, I would worry to much about that yet. (unless money is no object) Which band and which model? A good a starting line is the Sci. Angler 333 available (or was) at Walmart for less than $30 If money is no object, most of the lines are good. The only line I don't like is the clear Cortland 555..too much memory! "Dan" wrote in message ... I want to start fly fishing and have rod (5 wt) and reel (7wt). I will buy a 5 wt floating line since this has recommended for me, but am wondering whether a weight forward or double taper would be appropriate. I see the advantage of the DT is that you get twice the use because you can reverse it eventually. I would also think that since my reel is a bit large for my rod/line weight that a double taper might be appropriate. Do you guys think it would be a good idea or should I just get a weight forward line? Also, does it matter which exactly one I get? I have been told to get the best or close to it. Do you have any specific recommendations as to brand? TIA Dan --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.602 / Virus Database: 383 - Release Date: 3/2/2004 |
line choice for beginner
Hi,
Willi - that is what I said - casts at 40 feet for the beginning. It is as he stretches out to 50 and 60 feet that it is much easier with a WF, and very difficult with a DT, for a beginner. Going on the theory that the line will wear out in a few seasons, it is at that point that casting acumen may call for a DT. My main point is that the bit about being able to reverse a DT line is hooey. By the time someone uses the line that much, they are going to be into the sport enough to want a good line, and will probably have both a WF for long distance casting (which they already would have under my scenario) and a DT for fine distance casting of dry flies. Bill http://www.tightlines.ca "Willi" wrote in message ... Bill Curry wrote: Hi, I would second Bill K's advice about the cost - you can buy an SA or Cortland and have a good quality line for less than $50-$60. I would say that the weight forward is MUCH easier to cast for a beginner, as the Double Taper does not put as much weight up front, and you will notice the difference in your casting, which at first will be 40 feet and under- this will be much easier with a WF line. Although there are some individual difference, overall a double taper and a weight forward line are the same for about the first thirty five to forty feet. (This is true for SA, Cortland and Orvis standard lines - not their specialty lines) Add a leader to this and in the average stream fishing situation you'll never get to the place where the difference between the two will show up. The advantage of a double taper (reversing it) is really kind of silly - by the time the front wears out, do you think the rest of the line is still unblemished? A damaged line is a damaged line. I disagree. Almost all of the wear on a fly line is on the first ten feet or so. I do think that you get twice the utility out of a double taper line. When the line has worn enough, I'll reverse a double taper and the other section is in close to new condition. The real advantage to a DT is that because it has less weight up front you can make more delicate (read - less splashy) casts when presenting dries at a distance. You won't be doing that for the first year or two probably, so go with the WF and have some fun! This is only true on the "specialty" lines. With most manufacturers, the tapers on the weight forward and the double tapers are the same for the first 40 feet or so. So for trout fishing and streams and most rivers which 95% + of all casts are (or should be) under fifty feet, I recommend a DT line because you get two lines for the price of one. With heavier outfits where you're going to need to boom out casts, a WF is better. Willi |
line choice for beginner
"Bill Curry" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ... SNIP The real advantage to a DT is that because it has less weight up front you can make more delicate (read - less splashy) casts when presenting dries at a distance. You won't be doing that for the first year or two probably, so go with the WF and have some fun! Bill http://www.tightlines.ca There is no difference between the front tapers of most DT and WF lines. The term WF ( weight forward) is in any case a misnomer. A WF line is merely a shooting head with integrated running line. As there is no difference, there are no special advantages to either at close range. For longer range casting, a WF can be useful. But I canīt imagine anybody "presenting" dry flies at a distance which would make a WF line necessary. TL MC |
line choice for beginner
HI,
Guys - here is what the difference between a WF and a DT is: A WF line by almost any major manufacturer has 30 feet of front end taper, and you are correct, that at that point there is no difference. Beyond the 30 feet is where the WF line comes into play. A DT line simply levels the belly through until the other end, where a WF tapers down to more of a running line at 30 feet, thus giving the WF two big advantages at distance of over 30 feet: 1. The WF then casts much easier, especially for someone starting out, say casting to 50 feet. 2. The WF is particularly beneficial in the wind as a WF line can also punch the wind easier - remember this is a beginner with one set-up we are talking about. Go here to see hte set up: http://www.3m.com/us/home_leisure/sc...esigning.jhtml It is true that with modern WF lines, the old dry fly thing is lessened a bit, as modern WF tapers can be cast very delicately, and, in fact, most people would never be able to tell the difference. On the other hand, I want you all to go do something for me - go pace out 30 feet. That would be 10 or 11 steps, or better yet measure 30 feet. Don't tell me "most" of your fishing is that close - go measure 30 feet. Now stand there and tell me "most" of your fishing is inside that distance. You may WANT it to be, and as Willi says, ideally it SHOULD be, but in reality I'll bet you will see that 30 feet is VERY close. If you really want to prove my point do this with a WF line and a DT line and then cast beyond 30 feet, like I do all the time - we won't be having this debate then, I'll wager. I'll stand by my advice, and I'll quote you someone else: http://www.orvis.com/detail.asp?subj...d=&g roup_id= Bill Curry Nova Scotia Professional Master Guide http://www.tightlines.ca Mike Connor" wrote in message ... "Bill Curry" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ... SNIP The real advantage to a DT is that because it has less weight up front you can make more delicate (read - less splashy) casts when presenting dries at a distance. You won't be doing that for the first year or two probably, so go with the WF and have some fun! Bill http://www.tightlines.ca There is no difference between the front tapers of most DT and WF lines. The term WF ( weight forward) is in any case a misnomer. A WF line is merely a shooting head with integrated running line. As there is no difference, there are no special advantages to either at close range. For longer range casting, a WF can be useful. But I canīt imagine anybody "presenting" dry flies at a distance which would make a WF line necessary. TL MC |
line choice for beginner
Bill Curry wrote: HI, Guys - here is what the difference between a WF and a DT is: A WF line by almost any major manufacturer has 30 feet of front end taper, and you are correct, that at that point there is no difference. Beyond the 30 feet is where the WF line comes into play. A DT line simply levels the belly through until the other end, where a WF tapers down to more of a running line at 30 feet, thus giving the WF two big advantages at distance of over 30 feet: 1. The WF then casts much easier, especially for someone starting out, say casting to 50 feet. 2. The WF is particularly beneficial in the wind as a WF line can also punch the wind easier - remember this is a beginner with one set-up we are talking about. Go here to see hte set up: http://www.3m.com/us/home_leisure/sc...esigning.jhtml It is true that with modern WF lines, the old dry fly thing is lessened a bit, as modern WF tapers can be cast very delicately, and, in fact, most people would never be able to tell the difference. Well according to your article neither can Orvis. (Which was my point) On the other hand, I want you all to go do something for me - go pace out 30 feet. That would be 10 or 11 steps, or better yet measure 30 feet. Don't tell me "most" of your fishing is that close - go measure 30 feet. Now stand there and tell me "most" of your fishing is inside that distance. You may WANT it to be, and as Willi says, ideally it SHOULD be, but in reality I'll bet you will see that 30 feet is VERY close. If you really want to prove my point do this with a WF line and a DT line and then cast beyond 30 feet, like I do all the time - we won't be having this debate then, I'll wager. I'll stand by my advice, and I'll quote you someone else: http://www.orvis.com/detail.asp?subj...d=&g roup_id= I do over 90% of my stream and river fishing with less than 30 feet of FLY LINE out. Here's a newer Orvis page and it seems that their tapers go to 37 feet now. http://www.orvis.com/detail.asp?subj...d=&grou p_id= Add a nine foot leader and you're up to 46 feet before there's any difference. Then there's another 7 feet of fly line taper before you get to the running line, so there'll be VERY little difference for the next seven feet. Cortland's tapers for a five weight are 40 feet. I think that one of the best pieces of information that you can give a beginner for trout fishing in moving water is forget those booming casts and to learn to fish in close and develop control of your presentation and drift. In moving water it is VERY difficult for even an advanced angler to control a cast of over forty feet. We're just going to disagree on this one. Personally I use a DT on my lighter outfits because I get two lines for the price of one and a WF on my heavier outfits where I'm going to be looking for distance. In terms of marketing, I think you're right, I'm guessing DT lines aren't very popular anymore. What we're seeing now, are more and more specialty taper lines. It seems that the companies want us to buy a different line for each species of fish we go after as well as a different line for different types of water. Willi |
line choice for beginner
"Bill Curry" wrote in message ... HI, Guys - here is what the difference between a WF and a DT is: A WF line by almost any major manufacturer has 30 feet of front end taper, and you are correct, that at that point there is no difference. Beyond the 30 feet is where the WF line comes into play. A DT line simply levels the belly through until the other end, Wrong! The DT does not "simply levels the belly through to the other end," It tapers back over the last (approx) 30 feet of line just like the other end of the DT. That may be why its called a DT. where a WF tapers down to more of a running line at 30 feet, thus giving the WF two big advantages at distance of over 30 feet: 1. The WF then casts much easier, especially for someone starting out, say casting to 50 feet. 2. The WF is particularly beneficial in the wind as a WF line can also punch the wind easier - remember this is a beginner with one set-up we are talking about. Go here to see hte set up: http://www.3m.com/us/home_leisure/sc...esigning.jhtml It is true that with modern WF lines, the old dry fly thing is lessened a bit, as modern WF tapers can be cast very delicately, and, in fact, most people would never be able to tell the difference. On the other hand, I want you all to go do something for me - go pace out 30 feet. That would be 10 or 11 steps, or better yet measure 30 feet. Don't tell me "most" of your fishing is that close - go measure 30 feet. Now stand there and tell me "most" of your fishing is inside that distance. You may WANT it to be, and as Willi says, ideally it SHOULD be, but in reality I'll bet you will see that 30 feet is VERY close. If you really want to prove my point do this with a WF line and a DT line and then cast beyond 30 feet, like I do all the time - we won't be having this debate then, I'll wager. Wrong again, Bill. I'll bet that over 90% of my fishing is done with less than 30 feet of flyline out of the tip. How many shiny new nickles do you have? Having been a newbie not that long ago, and having met newbies on a rather frequent basis over the last few years, I would highly recommend a DT vs a WF. And a cheap one at that. If for no other reason, a newbie is more likely to "wear out" the front end of a flyline by doing all those newbie things like wrapping the line around rocks, limbs, friends and family, stepping on the line 27 times an hour with those neat studded wading shoes, tying and retying bad knots in the end of the line, and all of those other things that "Professional Master Guides" never do. I'll stand by my advice, and I'll quote you someone else: http://www.orvis.com/detail.asp?subj...t_id=&g roup_ id= Aye, do stand by. Bill Curry Nova Scotia Professional Master Guide http://www.tightlines.ca Danl |
line choice for beginner
"Bill Curry" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ... HI, Guys - here is what the difference between a WF and a DT is: A WF line by almost any major manufacturer has 30 feet of front end taper, and you are correct, that at that point there is no difference. Beyond the 30 feet is where the WF line comes into play. A DT line simply levels the belly through until the other end, where a WF tapers down to more of a running line at 30 feet, thus giving the WF two big advantages at distance of over 30 feet: 1. The WF then casts much easier, especially for someone starting out, say casting to 50 feet. 2. The WF is particularly beneficial in the wind as a WF line can also punch the wind easier - remember this is a beginner with one set-up we are talking about. Go here to see hte set up: http://www.3m.com/us/home_leisure/sc...esigning.jhtml It is true that with modern WF lines, the old dry fly thing is lessened a bit, as modern WF tapers can be cast very delicately, and, in fact, most people would never be able to tell the difference. On the other hand, I want you all to go do something for me - go pace out 30 feet. That would be 10 or 11 steps, or better yet measure 30 feet. Don't tell me "most" of your fishing is that close - go measure 30 feet. Now stand there and tell me "most" of your fishing is inside that distance. You may WANT it to be, and as Willi says, ideally it SHOULD be, but in reality I'll bet you will see that 30 feet is VERY close. If you really want to prove my point do this with a WF line and a DT line and then cast beyond 30 feet, like I do all the time - we won't be having this debate then, I'll wager. I'll stand by my advice, and I'll quote you someone else: http://www.orvis.com/detail.asp?subj...d=&g roup_id= Bill Curry Nova Scotia Professional Master Guide http://www.tightlines.ca 30 feet of flyline + nine feet of leader ( or even more)+ nine feet of rod = 48 feet. As there is no difference in the tapers at this distance, ( on standard lines)there are no advantages or disadvantages with either line when casting into a wind. People can not tell the difference, for the simple reason that there is no difference. Some special tapers may bring various advantages, but these lines are not suitable for beginners, certainly not as a "one line" setup. Somebody starting out is not going to be casting dry flies fifty feet into the wind. Furthermore, beyond the front taper, it is extremely difficult to roll cast a WF ( for most beginners quite impossible), and also, although it is possible to shoot line more easily than with a DT, as it is thin running line, for optimum use of a WF, hauling is required, and most beginners can not do this either. Many beginners have very considerable difficulty casting WF lines beyond the head section, as they are ( without tricks), unable to judge the overhang, and could not carry any anyway. Personally, I would not accept a WF line as a gift, for any purpose whatsoever. I use either DTīs, or shooting heads. I cut the DTīs in half as well, and get two lines for the price of one, instead of paying for a WF, where I get less than half a flyline attached to cheap running line for the same price as a DT. This also saves a lot of weight and space, allows me to use smaller and lighter reels, or more backing, whichever happens to take my fancy. If you consistently cast much greater distances than the head section of a WF line, then you would be better served with a shooting head, and so would anybody else in the same situation. For general purpose river fly-fishing, a DT is the best line, simply because it is the most versatile line for the job. It is quite immaterial whether the person using it is a beginner or not. In my considered opinion, your advice is based on obviously incorrect data, and is therefore unsound. TL MC |
line choice for beginner
Hi,
Agreed (that we can disagree...:-) - and I understand your point very well. I try to keep my clients who are learning to casts of under 30-40 feet, as presentation is of course the key goal when teaching someone to fly fish successfully. I guess the conditions up here must be a bit different than what I am seeing people respond to ( the ones who are making valid points anyway - I won't even respond to those who say I have it wrong - but then go on about so many feet of line, plus leader, plus the line in the rod - that doesn't count - and we woon't even get started on those who didn't bother to actually read the article and find out about line constryuction...). In Nova Scotia, most of our trout fishing is done in fairly open conditions, our rivers are not huge, but most of our fishing is in spots where there is some space - like a hundred feet or so. In many cases deeper wading is not possible - due to fast currents, and we don't do much "drift boat" style fishing here, so longer casts do become a necessity. I would be interested in hearing what lines someone would use in drift boat situations, that is something I haven't experienced, but if it's like fishing from a canoe, like up here - except more stable I suspect - again, would not the WF line be an advantage? You are also correct that we have a lot of specialty lines and tapers coming on now - I am not as sold on them yet. I tried a salt water taper in Florida, and found that snook, at least in the Indian River, are a lot like the trout up here, and demanded a pretty fine presentation. I used a WF 7 for most of the trip after that and had a blast! Bill http://www.tightlines.ca "Willi" wrote in message ... Bill Curry wrote: HI, Guys - here is what the difference between a WF and a DT is: A WF line by almost any major manufacturer has 30 feet of front end taper, and you are correct, that at that point there is no difference. Beyond t he 30 feet is where the WF line comes into play. A DT line simply levels the belly through until the other end, where a WF tapers down to more of a running line at 30 feet, thus giving the WF two big advantages at distance of over 30 feet: 1. The WF then casts much easier, especially for someone starting out, say casting to 50 feet. 2. The WF is particularly beneficial in the wind as a WF line can also punch the wind easier - remember this is a beginner with one set-up we are talking about. Go here to see hte set up: http://www.3m.com/us/home_leisure/sc...esigning.jhtml It is true that with modern WF lines, the old dry fly thing is lessened a bit, as modern WF tapers can be cast very delicately, and, in fact, most people would never be able to tell the difference. Well according to your article neither can Orvis. (Which was my point) On the other hand, I want you all to go do something for me - go pace out 30 feet. That would be 10 or 11 steps, or better yet measure 30 feet. Don't tell me "most" of your fishing is that close - go measure 30 feet. Now stand there and tell me "most" of your fishing is inside that distance. You may WANT it to be, and as Willi says, ideally it SHOULD be, but in reality I'll bet you will see that 30 feet is VERY close. If you really want to prove my point do this with a WF line and a DT line and then cast beyond 30 feet, like I do all the time - we won't be having this debate then, I'll wager. I'll stand by my advice, and I'll quote you someone else: http://www.orvis.com/detail.asp?subj...d=&g roup_id= I do over 90% of my stream and river fishing with less than 30 feet of FLY LINE out. Here's a newer Orvis page and it seems that their tapers go to 37 feet now. http://www.orvis.com/detail.asp?subj...d=&grou p_id= Add a nine foot leader and you're up to 46 feet before there's any difference. Then there's another 7 feet of fly line taper before you get to the running line, so there'll be VERY little difference for the next seven feet. Cortland's tapers for a five weight are 40 feet. I think that one of the best pieces of information that you can give a beginner for trout fishing in moving water is forget those booming casts and to learn to fish in close and develop control of your presentation and drift. In moving water it is VERY difficult for even an advanced angler to control a cast of over forty feet. We're just going to disagree on this one. Personally I use a DT on my lighter outfits because I get two lines for the price of one and a WF on my heavier outfits where I'm going to be looking for distance. In terms of marketing, I think you're right, I'm guessing DT lines aren't very popular anymore. What we're seeing now, are more and more specialty taper lines. It seems that the companies want us to buy a different line for each species of fish we go after as well as a different line for different types of water. Willi |
line choice for beginner
Hi,
Danl - Do two "wrongs" make a right? I said that the DT has the taper and goes through the belly to the other end where OBVIOUSLY it tapers again, I was not implying (or wrong) that it is a straight line - that's why I put the link in there, so people could see it... Also - you still haven't answered the question of a measured 30 feet - which you say is wrong again - you say "you bet" 90% of your fishing is done with "less than" 30 feet of line out - go measure, I am not a betting person! Seriously - I do understand about the desire for economy, and can see where people would mess up the first ten or twenty feet of line, and so would like to be able to reverse the line - it's just that in all my experience there is a real difference in the ability of the people I have fished with to cast a WF line, but we can disagree as Willi says. I disagree with the "cheap line" method, though, as the line will not act as well or float as well. The term cheap is relative anyway - is $30-40 expensive, because that's what a good line sells for up here. That's a days green's fees for those other sports... Bill http://www.tightlines.ca "Danl" wrote in message ... "Bill Curry" wrote in message ... HI, Guys - here is what the difference between a WF and a DT is: A WF line by almost any major manufacturer has 30 feet of front end taper, and you are correct, that at that point there is no difference. Beyond the 30 feet is where the WF line comes into play. A DT line simply levels the belly through until the other end, Wrong! The DT does not "simply levels the belly through to the other end," It tapers back over the last (approx) 30 feet of line just like the other end of the DT. That may be why its called a DT. where a WF tapers down to more of a running line at 30 feet, thus giving the WF two big advantages at distance of over 30 feet: 1. The WF then casts much easier, especially for someone starting out, say casting to 50 feet. 2. The WF is particularly beneficial in the wind as a WF line can also punch the wind easier - remember this is a beginner with one set-up we are talking about. Go here to see hte set up: http://www.3m.com/us/home_leisure/sc...esigning.jhtml It is true that with modern WF lines, the old dry fly thing is lessened a bit, as modern WF tapers can be cast very delicately, and, in fact, most people would never be able to tell the difference. On the other hand, I want you all to go do something for me - go pace out 30 feet. That would be 10 or 11 steps, or better yet measure 30 feet. Don't tell me "most" of your fishing is that close - go measure 30 feet. Now stand there and tell me "most" of your fishing is inside that distance. You may WANT it to be, and as Willi says, ideally it SHOULD be, but in reality I'll bet you will see that 30 feet is VERY close. If you really want to prove my point do this with a WF line and a DT line and then cast beyond 30 feet, like I do all the time - we won't be having this debate then, I'll wager. Wrong again, Bill. I'll bet that over 90% of my fishing is done with less than 30 feet of flyline out of the tip. How many shiny new nickles do you have? Having been a newbie not that long ago, and having met newbies on a rather frequent basis over the last few years, I would highly recommend a DT vs a WF. And a cheap one at that. If for no other reason, a newbie is more likely to "wear out" the front end of a flyline by doing all those newbie things like wrapping the line around rocks, limbs, friends and family, stepping on the line 27 times an hour with those neat studded wading shoes, tying and retying bad knots in the end of the line, and all of those other things that "Professional Master Guides" never do. I'll stand by my advice, and I'll quote you someone else: http://www.orvis.com/detail.asp?subj...t_id=&g roup_ id= Aye, do stand by. Bill Curry Nova Scotia Professional Master Guide http://www.tightlines.ca Danl |
line choice for beginner
"Bill Curry" wrote in message ... Hi, Danl - Do two "wrongs" make a right? I said that the DT has the taper and goes through the belly to the other end where OBVIOUSLY it tapers again, I was not implying (or wrong) that it is a straight line - that's why I put the link in there, so people could see it... Also - you still haven't answered the question of a measured 30 feet - which you say is wrong again - you say "you bet" 90% of your fishing is done with "less than" 30 feet of line out - go measure, I am not a betting person! OK,Bill, coffee in hand I just marked off 30 feet in my back yard. And now I will say again, the vast majority of the fishing I do is within 30 feet. This year I have made several trips to the Sierra area, a few to our local mountains, and one to the San Juan. I would estimate well over 90% of the casts I have made this year were to targets less than 30 feet from me. Now, Bill, that has absolutely nothing to do with what you are trying to say about DT vs WF. You have agreed and provided links to data that supports that the first 30 feet of BOTH FLY LINES are identical. Therefore, until a fisherperson has MORE THAN 30 FEET OF FLYLINE out of the rod, the conditions and results must be identical. The 30 feet of flyline plus 9 feet of flyrod plus 9 - 12 feet of leader/tippet equals roughly 50 feet of fishing distance before any difference between a DT and a WF. What percentage of worldwide freshwater fly fishing do you believe is done inside vs outside 50 feet? Danl Seriously - I do understand about the desire for economy, and can see where people would mess up the first ten or twenty feet of line, and so would like to be able to reverse the line - it's just that in all my experience there is a real difference in the ability of the people I have fished with to cast a WF line, but we can disagree as Willi says. I disagree with the "cheap line" method, though, as the line will not act as well or float as well. The term cheap is relative anyway - is $30-40 expensive, because that's what a good line sells for up here. That's a days green's fees for those other sports... I wish green fees were that cheap here! I pay $12 US for most of my flylines. Danl |
line choice for beginner
"Bill Curry" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ... SNIP You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, but if you offer advice to beginners on a newsgroup like this one, then you must expect at least some feedback. I have never been to Nova Scotia, but conditions for general purpose river flyfishing are much the same everywhere, as are beginners to flyfishing. Obviously you use, and apparently like, WF lines. This is fair enough, but it says nothing at all about their general utility or suitability for any given purpose. My own opinion, which you probably donīt want to hear, is that WF lines are mainly a marketing ploy to make more money for the manufacturers. I am not a guide, nor am I engaged in any "professional" capacity with regard to flyfishing, but over the years I have instructed some several thousand beginners, and usually rank beginners, who have never cast a line before. All the beginners who have learned from me, have learned using DTīs. Up to now, all have been at least moderately successful, and in a fairly short time. Much difficulty in flyfishing is caused by people being misled, or failing to understand nomenclature etc etc. The term "weight forward" is quite nonsensical, as a standard weight forward line has no more weight up front than a DT. At the same rating, it will not load the rod sooner or better than a DT, nor will it cast any better. It is merely a shooting head, with integrated running line. If you cut off thirty feet of a DT, and attach it to shooting line, then you have much the same thing, only better, cheaper, and longer lasting. Longer lasting, because if the shooting line starts to wear, you merely change it. This is very difficult to do with integrated running line, unless you simply cut the head off, and attach shooting line, which you then might just as well have done in the first place. Furthermore, you can tailor such a line to your specific needs. When you maintain that something is better, especially for beginners, then you must perforce offer grounds for so doing. You have not offered any, because there are none. The "differences" you quoted are not extant. Quoting "special conditions" in Nova Scotia is not a valid recommendation of much at all, because most beginning flyfishers, even if your points were valid, do not fish under "special conditions" in Nova Scotia. As you have in the meantime agreed, there is no difference in the front tapers of WF and DT lines, hence, and based on pure logic, there can be no difference in their behaviour under similar conditions, quite irrespective of where those conditions pertain, or who is subject to them. Based on these premises, it is not even necessary to try such lines, or listen to various opinions on them, the results are a foregone conclusion. Refusing to answer people whose opinions differ from yours, in no way validates your opinion, it merely suggests that you are unwilling to engage in sensible discourse, and that you are wearing blinders in regard to that opinion. I have no problem at all with that, but I do have a problem with people giving spurious and ill-founded advice to beginners. TL MC |
line choice for beginner
Hi,
Mike - While true that I expect feedback, I would also hope that this forum engages in real debate and information, not as you seem to want it, to simply impugn people whose ideas do not fit with yours. You are right that I use a WF, and I also use a DT, a shooting head and many of the specialty lines. You state that a WF is "no different" than a DT, and then in another post you have said, and I quote: ....beyond the front taper, it is extremely difficult to roll cast a WF ( for most beginners quite impossible), and also, although it is possible to shoot line more easily than with a DT... So, which is it Mike? Is there a difference? Or do you only cast at a distance while using a roll cast? For one thing, you split a fine hair when in the other post you say: "30 feet of flyline + nine feet of leader ( or even more)+ nine feet of rod = 48 feet." This means on most WF lines you are using the WF part - it is in your rod, and it is loading the rod, for most WF lines have about 30 feet before they taper to the running line. And, yes, the new higher end lines do have more taper and may be 37 or so feet to the runner, so you could mean that, but you are stretching it pretty thin to say you stay close, and then you have to count the line in the rod to make your point. The less exoensive lines that were also being couselled, and were the initial reason I replied, are the ones with the 30 feet... There is a difference, though, and it appears at over 40 feet (49 feet if you include the leader, and 57.5 feet if you are using and counting the line in my 5 weight rod with a WF line) - which was the reason for my advice to the beginner. As you have said, and as I said in my very first post to the thread, there is no difference unitl you get to 40 feet. My opinion is simply that most beginners, and I have also taught many (perhaps a couple hundred, not thousands like yourself), will at some time, and I feel it to be sooner rather than later, want to cast to 60 or so feet. I have fished in many states in the US and every Province in Canada and have used DT,WF, Shooting Heads and many specialty tapers and find the WF line is useful to most people when you try to get delicate to a fish at say 60 or so feet. The reason they are going to longer tapers on the WF line is to allow the finer casts, than a ST, at even greater distances. As I said before, it is ideal to get closer, but it is not always practical and here in NS, as it is in all of Canada and many places I have fished, it is common to want to cast to that fish at 60 feet. You are wrong that there is no difference between a WF and a Shooting Head, by the way - the Shooting Head is a shorter tapered section, and the running line on most ST is lighter than on the WF line. It is very difficult to cast delicately with a shooting head, especially for a beginner. I also offer personal experience when replying - Two years ago on Lamar Creek in Yellowstone I saw three people trying to catch a fish on the other side of the creek. Lamar drops off the banks very quickly, and you simply could not wade where the fish was rising - on the far side behind a rock, a distance of about 65 feet. I watched as all three fellows tried but could not get cloes enough to the rise to get the fish to take, and eventually they put the fish down. After about a half an hour they wandered on down the stream and about 10 minutes later the fish started rising again. I caught him on the 2nd cast, on the first drift that went over him. Chalk one up for a WF line - and I know that that particular fish would probably have spooked without a very delicate cast, one which would have been next to impossible with a Shooting Head. I am not sure I could have reached him with a DT line - Wait - what a great excuse to go back - "Honey, I have to perform an experiment, so I have to go back to Yellowstone..." Thanks for the excuse, Mike! Bill http://www.tightlines.ca "Mike Connor" wrote in message ... "Bill Curry" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ... SNIP You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, but if you offer advice to beginners on a newsgroup like this one, then you must expect at least some feedback. I have never been to Nova Scotia, but conditions for general purpose river flyfishing are much the same everywhere, as are beginners to flyfishing. Obviously you use, and apparently like, WF lines. This is fair enough, but it says nothing at all about their general utility or suitability for any given purpose. My own opinion, which you probably donīt want to hear, is that WF lines are mainly a marketing ploy to make more money for the manufacturers. I am not a guide, nor am I engaged in any "professional" capacity with regard to flyfishing, but over the years I have instructed some several thousand beginners, and usually rank beginners, who have never cast a line before. All the beginners who have learned from me, have learned using DTīs. Up to now, all have been at least moderately successful, and in a fairly short time. Much difficulty in flyfishing is caused by people being misled, or failing to understand nomenclature etc etc. The term "weight forward" is quite nonsensical, as a standard weight forward line has no more weight up front than a DT. At the same rating, it will not load the rod sooner or better than a DT, nor will it cast any better. It is merely a shooting head, with integrated running line. If you cut off thirty feet of a DT, and attach it to shooting line, then you have much the same thing, only better, cheaper, and longer lasting. Longer lasting, because if the shooting line starts to wear, you merely change it. This is very difficult to do with integrated running line, unless you simply cut the head off, and attach shooting line, which you then might just as well have done in the first place. Furthermore, you can tailor such a line to your specific needs. When you maintain that something is better, especially for beginners, then you must perforce offer grounds for so doing. You have not offered any, because there are none. The "differences" you quoted are not extant. Quoting "special conditions" in Nova Scotia is not a valid recommendation of much at all, because most beginning flyfishers, even if your points were valid, do not fish under "special conditions" in Nova Scotia. As you have in the meantime agreed, there is no difference in the front tapers of WF and DT lines, hence, and based on pure logic, there can be no difference in their behaviour under similar conditions, quite irrespective of where those conditions pertain, or who is subject to them. Based on these premises, it is not even necessary to try such lines, or listen to various opinions on them, the results are a foregone conclusion. Refusing to answer people whose opinions differ from yours, in no way validates your opinion, it merely suggests that you are unwilling to engage in sensible discourse, and that you are wearing blinders in regard to that opinion. I have no problem at all with that, but I do have a problem with people giving spurious and ill-founded advice to beginners. TL MC |
line choice for beginner
"Bill Curry" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ... Hi, Mike - While true that I expect feedback, I would also hope that this forum engages in real debate and information, not as you seem to want it, to simply impugn people whose ideas do not fit with yours. You are right that I use a WF, and I also use a DT, a shooting head and many of the specialty lines. You state that a WF is "no different" than a DT, and then in another post you have said, and I quote: ...beyond the front taper, it is extremely difficult to roll cast a WF ( for most beginners quite impossible), and also, although it is possible to shoot line more easily than with a DT... So, which is it Mike? Is there a difference? Or do you only cast at a distance while using a roll cast? For one thing, you split a fine hair when in the other post you say: "30 feet of flyline + nine feet of leader ( or even more)+ nine feet of rod = 48 feet." This means on most WF lines you are using the WF part - it is in your rod, and it is loading the rod, for most WF lines have about 30 feet before they taper to the running line. And, yes, the new higher end lines do have more taper and may be 37 or so feet to the runner, so you could mean that, but you are stretching it pretty thin to say you stay close, and then you have to count the line in the rod to make your point. The less exoensive lines that were also being couselled, and were the initial reason I replied, are the ones with the 30 feet... There is a difference, though, and it appears at over 40 feet (49 feet if you include the leader, and 57.5 feet if you are using and counting the line in my 5 weight rod with a WF line) - which was the reason for my advice to the beginner. As you have said, and as I said in my very first post to the thread, there is no difference unitl you get to 40 feet. My opinion is simply that most beginners, and I have also taught many (perhaps a couple hundred, not thousands like yourself), will at some time, and I feel it to be sooner rather than later, want to cast to 60 or so feet. I have fished in many states in the US and every Province in Canada and have used DT,WF, Shooting Heads and many specialty tapers and find the WF line is useful to most people when you try to get delicate to a fish at say 60 or so feet. The reason they are going to longer tapers on the WF line is to allow the finer casts, than a ST, at even greater distances. As I said before, it is ideal to get closer, but it is not always practical and here in NS, as it is in all of Canada and many places I have fished, it is common to want to cast to that fish at 60 feet. You are wrong that there is no difference between a WF and a Shooting Head, by the way - the Shooting Head is a shorter tapered section, and the running line on most ST is lighter than on the WF line. It is very difficult to cast delicately with a shooting head, especially for a beginner. I also offer personal experience when replying - Two years ago on Lamar Creek in Yellowstone I saw three people trying to catch a fish on the other side of the creek. Lamar drops off the banks very quickly, and you simply could not wade where the fish was rising - on the far side behind a rock, a distance of about 65 feet. I watched as all three fellows tried but could not get cloes enough to the rise to get the fish to take, and eventually they put the fish down. After about a half an hour they wandered on down the stream and about 10 minutes later the fish started rising again. I caught him on the 2nd cast, on the first drift that went over him. Chalk one up for a WF line - and I know that that particular fish would probably have spooked without a very delicate cast, one which would have been next to impossible with a Shooting Head. I am not sure I could have reached him with a DT line - Wait - what a great excuse to go back - "Honey, I have to perform an experiment, so I have to go back to Yellowstone..." Thanks for the excuse, Mike! Bill http://www.tightlines.ca Mr. Curry, I have not impugned anybody at all. I disagreed with your ( obviously incorrect) conclusions, which could be construed as "impugning" these "facts", and stated my reasons for so doing as clearly as possible. Your advice was for beginners, based on incorrect assumptions, to which you later agreed. I have not split any hairs either. 30 feet + 9 feet+9 feet = 48 feet. This is an immutable fact. There is no hair, fine or otherwise, to split. Backpedalling, or attempting to qualify specifically, what you previously stated as general absolutes, is not going to get us anywhere at all, and indeed, the whole discussion is not at all conducive to helping a beginner. He merely becomes confused, as he does not know who is right, or who to believe. Cast length is measured from the casters feet to where the fly lands. Unless you keep your rod vertical on the final forward cast, ( which will then of course fail miserably), the rod length is part of that distance. If you aerialise forty feet of flyline, and add the leader, and the rod length, then you have 40+9+9 assuming a leader length of nine feet, a rod length of nine feet, and a straight line to the fly, then that is exactly 58 feet. Beginners do not cast to difficult fish rising behind rocks at distances of sixty-five feet with any real chance of success, and would probably not even attempt it. Beginners are not able to cast sixty-five feet, if they could, they would not be beginners, and would not need either my advice or yours. 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. UNDER NORMAL CONDITIONS IN GENERAL RIVER FLYFISHING A WF LINE OFFERS A BEGINNER NO ADVANTAGE WHATSOEVER IN COMPARISON TO A STANDARD DT OF THE SAME RATING, AND MAY INDEED BE DELETERIOUS UNDER A NUMBER OF CIRCUMSTANCES. What you can or can not do, or what I can or can not do, has no bearing whatsoever on giving advice to a beginner. Indeed, with beginners, one is almost always bound to assume that they can not do anything at all. There is absolutely no difference between a thirty foot shooting head, and a WF line of the same rating with a thirty foot head, except that the shooting line on the head is lighter, ( or should be), and you may as a result cast further with it. If you can cast a WF line with delicacy, then you can do the same with a shooting head. At no time did I suggest that a beginner should do this. Indeed, this is why I do not advocate WF lines for beginners, they are basically unsuitable for too many things. Neither did I maintain that there is no difference between a WF and a DT, or between a WF and an ST. Indeed, I went to considerable trouble to point them out. A shooting head may be any length and taper configuration one likes. I habitually use 45 foot heads for some fishing, I have used heads up to 60 feet, and down to 22 feet. As I make them myself, I have no trouble at all in getting exactly what I want. Beginners do not, as they have difficulty aerialising and shooting that much line. Some top casters hold even more line in the air, for competition casting etc, and use a lot of overhang to boot. Quoting out of context on a thread like this is quite pointless, as it merely confuses the issue. The facts are known, and the conclusions are inevitable. Changing the parameters, or introducing others after the fact, is quite meaningless. It seems to me that you have read and believed far too much manufacturers blurb, instead of using the information available, and common sense. You have stated several common misconceptions as the absolute truth, only when pressed have you agreed that the people disagreeing with you have their basic facts right, which you quite obviously do not, and you are now telling me that I have "impugned" you personally in some manner. Get your facts right BEFORE you post. Bull**** with regard to flyfishing is rarely tolerated on here. If you wish to sing the praises of WF lines, then go ahead. This is not at all the same thing as declaring them to be the best thing since sliced bread for beginners, on the basis of spurious argument. TL MC |
line choice for beginner
Dan I too am a novice. I talked to many fly fishing shops before buying new
line last time I bought it. Everyone of them told me to go with WF. "Dan" wrote in message ... I want to start fly fishing and have rod (5 wt) and reel (7wt). I will buy a 5 wt floating line since this has recommended for me, but am wondering whether a weight forward or double taper would be appropriate. I see the advantage of the DT is that you get twice the use because you can reverse it eventually. I would also think that since my reel is a bit large for my rod/line weight that a double taper might be appropriate. Do you guys think it would be a good idea or should I just get a weight forward line? Also, does it matter which exactly one I get? I have been told to get the best or close to it. Do you have any specific recommendations as to brand? TIA Dan |
line choice for beginner
Fly-shops are there to sell you things. Some will give you first class
advice, and yet others will merely try to sell you something. The only way to make sure you get what you really need, is to inform yourself as well as you possibly can. There are a couple of fly-shop owners posting on here ( and of course there are many other good ones as well, but I donīt know them !:)), who can be relied upon to give you good advice on gear etc, as opposed to merely selling you something. Manufacturers advice, and general "blurb" with regard to the gear they sell is often less than useless, as most will exaggerate, obfuscate, and lie through their teeth in order to flog their gear. I am aware that many people advise beginners to use WF lines, I have just never been able to figure out why. I rather suspect it is because there is more money to be earned on a WF line, and advertising is a very powerful force. Much greater than common sense. 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. At such a rate, and after over twenty years of doing it, it does not take all that long to have taught a few thousand people. It also does not take long before you have cast several thousand rods and lines! Not to mention the odd conglomeration of reels and other gear which turns up. Nevertheless, one often has difficulty persuading people to change what they bought! Even when it is quite obviously unsuitable! Nowadays, most clubs etc here have a selection of suitable gear for people to use for casting practice prior to tests etc, and this is much better than them buying a load of stuff beforehand. People learn things at different speeds. Out of a hundred people say, maybe 60 will learn to cast ( under the same instruction of course), in two Saturday mornings. Others, say 20 to 30, will require more time, maybe four or five Saturday mornings, and the rest will need much longer. This is perfectly normal. Trying to learn on your own will work, but may take a lot longer, as you do not know exactly what you are trying to do. It is rare for somebody to be able to cast immediately, but it does occur. Much as some people can shoot very accurately immediately, or pick up a musical instrument and play it almost immediately. Talent also varies widely. If you have no talent, you can still do it, but it takes a lot more time, effort, and application. There are some people who are quite fanatical about WF lines, and I know a couple of top casters who use them. If you are a top caster, then you donīt need any advice from me anyway. If you like, and use WF lines, then that is great, I have nothing whatever against you doing so. I do not use them myself, and I do not advocate them either. Most especially not for beginners. Usually, people are advised to use a WF line one rating up from the rod rating. For a long time, most rods had two ratings marked on the butt i.e #6/#7 or similar. 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, Many beginners still have difficulty even when using a WF one rating higher, as this also does not load the rod well at short range. If you have trouble loading the rod, then use a DT one rating up. This is easier to start with. All rods will cast a range of lines, but it will be easire and better with the right one for you. Before you can catch fish at ranges of sixty feet and more, you must be able to catch them at ranges of thirty feet or less! Doing otherwise, is trying to run before you can walk, is extremely frustrating, and is in any case more or less doomed to failure. WF lines were originally designed for distance casting, invariably with a double haul, and they do work quite well for this. ( Not as well as a shooting head though). For some stillwater or other long distance work they are more than adequate, especially some of the newer special lengths and tapers which are offered. These are in no way suitable for beginners! One inevitably returns however to the simple fact that beginners are unable to cast much distance, they often can not cast at all! Selling them, or advising them to buy something which they can not use properly, is absolutely pointless, and merely results in them becoming frustrated, not to mention the money they wasted. What the "mainstream advice" happens to be at any given time, has never worried me much at all, although when I first started a long time ago, I wasted time, money, and tears, on the wrong things as well. Doubtless every half way experienced angler on this group, or anywhere else for that matter, has wasted varying amounts of time and money trying to set up his optimal personal rig, or rigs. This is part of the game really. But many beginners simply can not afford to go this route, they are better served with reasonably priced and suitable gear to start with. They can always buy the fancy stuff later, after they have learned how to use it. By the same token, buying extremely expensive gear to start with is usually a mistake. Once upon a time, the standard advice was to buy a reasonable rod, a cheap reel, and the best line you could afford. Rods and reels, even the cheap ones, are now generally so good that it does not even matter much what you buy, they will work. This will save you money, and allow you to gather knowledge and experience. With regard to lines, it is certain that the best lines will allow you to cast better. But as you can not cast to start with, and are liable to beat hell out of your first line anyway, as handling etc also has to be learned, then it is probably better to go for a medium priced line, as you will probably ruin it in your first season. Advice on this or any other group, is only advice. It may differ widely. This does not necessarily make it "wrong". As a general rule, if you get the same advice from ten experienced anglers, and differing advice from three others, then go with the majority! Hardly anybody will wilfully give you bad advice. The best way to get started is not to buy anything at all! But to take casting lessons from a good caster, or a reputable guide, preferably a well known pro. After this, you "KNOW" what you need and why, and it will work out cheaper in the long run, not to mention the time and frustration you save as a result. Very few people go this route, but it is undoubtedly the best way of going about it. If you donīt want, or are unable to do this, then you are forced to rely on advice from others, and your own devices. What you make of this is entirely up to you. Even with the best advice, best instruction, and the best gear, you can not learn in twenty minutes what it has taken others twenty years to learn. Fishing is a continual journey of discovery. It is not like learning to ride a bicycle! You will never be "perfect" no matter what you do, and there is always something new around the corner. Casting is only a part of what you need to learn. There are now millions of people flyfishing. The skill and knowledge level of these people differs massively. Just because somebody has been fishing for twenty years does not necessarily make him an expert, and by the same token, some young guy who only started a year ago may be brilliant at it! Normally, it is quite easy to tell who is a good angler, and who is not. Merely watch and listen. Many things become obvious in a very short time, even though you yourself may have very little knowledge of the matter, you can tell very quickly indeed whether somebody else has. What you need to do is go fishing and enjoy yourself, that is really what fishing is all about. If you enjoy yourself, then many things will come quite naturally, without even a conscious effort on your part. If you look at fishing or casting as a task which somehow has to be accomplished in a given time, and then you are an expert, then you will very likely fail, and you will also not enjoy yourself much. TL MC |
line choice for beginner
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 |
line choice for beginner
Mike Connor wrote:
Usually, people are advised to use a WF line one rating up from the rod rating. For a long time, most rods had two ratings marked on the butt i.e #6/#7 or similar. 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, Many beginners still have difficulty even when using a WF one rating higher, as this also does not load the rod well at short range. If you have trouble loading the rod, then use a DT one rating up. This got my attention and prompts a question. I'm not trying to irritate or criticize you, Mike. I'm genuinely curious. If, as you say (and I believe), "there is no difference in the tapers at this distance [30 feet], (on standard lines)," why is a WF "lighter" than a DT and more difficult to load the rod? -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
line choice for beginner
"Allen Epps" schrieb im Newsbeitrag et... SNIP 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 Basically it is a combination of a number of things. Conservation, safety, legal aspects, and of course it has political grounds. "Greens" and other similar groups are very powerful here, and this tends to make things like angling and hunting extremely restrictive. Germany is also basically very bureacratic per se. 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. It would take far too long to go into all the background here. If you do a search on google, some time ago ( couple of years maybe?) there was considerable discussion on here about it. Before anybody gets their knickers in a terrible twist, as I live here, I am subject to the laws here, as is everybody else. Whether I am principally for or against them, either generally or specifically, is quite another matter. TL MC |
line choice for beginner
Mike C writes:
I am aware that many people advise beginners to use WF lines, I have just never been able to figure out why. I rather suspect it is because there is more money to be earned on a WF line, and advertising is a very powerful force. I've always suspected the same, due to the fact that a well cared for DT will last me 6 years of pretty heavy fishing, while a WF only gets 3. The economics for the line manufacturers seems to dictate the marketing strategy. For normal stream fishing, I have never seen where a WF line conveyed any advantage, even on some of the larger streams I fish. Admittedly, I mainly fish for trout and smallmouth bass in streams from 10-100 feet wide, so my practice wouldn't dictate anyone elses choice. What you need to do is go fishing and enjoy yourself, that is really what fishing is all about. And that is the best advice of all! Tom |
line choice for beginner
"rw" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ink.net... SNIP This got my attention and prompts a question. I'm not trying to irritate or criticize you, Mike. I'm genuinely curious. If, as you say (and I believe), "there is no difference in the tapers at this distance [30 feet], (on standard lines)," why is a WF "lighter" than a DT and more difficult to load the rod? -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. 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. Often, beginners are told that a WF will load the rod more easily. This is of course only true if a heavier WF is used! And applies equally well to any other line. Beginners are not told this of course! :) Presumably because they would then see through the marketing ploy, or because those advising them donīt know any better! It is not necessarily malicious. AFTM In grains In grams In ounces 3 100 +/- 6 6.48 0.228 4 120 +/- 6 7.78 0.274 5 140 +/- 6 9.07 0.32 6 160 +/- 8 10.42 0.366 7 185 +/- 8 11.99 0.422 8 210 +/- 8 13.61 0.48 9 240 +/- 10 15.55 0.55 10 280 +/- 10 18.14 0.64 11 330 +/- 12 21.38 0.75 12 380 +/- 12 24.62 0.86 From the table, which applies to the first thirty feet of flyline, (excluding the level tip if present), it can be seen that 30 feet of #6 DT weighs ca. 160 grains. 30 feet of #6 WF weighs exactly the same, ca. 160 grains. If you use a WF one rating higher, then that is a WF#7 which weighs 185 grains. This means that the heavier WF will load the rod sooner, and more easily at short range. Of course, so will a DT#7 which also weighs 185 grains. The tapers may vary slightly, but this is basically immaterial, it is the weight that counts. This table applies to all standard flylines, regardless of any other characteristics they may have. 30 feet of #6 flyline. whether DT WF ST BT, etc etc weighs ca. 160 grains. I find it rather surprising that you and others seem to think that I am easily irritated by criticism etc. This is not the case. I just like to try and keep to the facts, thatīs all. If I am wrong about something, ( which has been known to occur!:)), and somebody points this out, then I accept it. It would be quite pointless doing otherwise. While opinions may differ, and some may interpret facts in some other way, one can not change the basic facts. TL MC |
line choice for beginner
"Mike Connor" wrote in message
Fly-shops are there to sell you things. Some will give you first class advice, and yet others will merely try to sell you something. The only way to make sure you get what you really need, is to inform yourself as well as you possibly can. I certainly agree, but I'll add that some shop owners take a short term outlook while some (the smarter ones, I think) take the long view. As a newbie, I put myself at the mercy of a fly shop owner for advice. I went in, with a limited budget and asked what I needed. Joe could not have been more helpful or more honest. Now, more than a decade later, I still do not doubt or disagree with the advice he gave me or the products he sold me that day. Consequently, I remain a loyal customer; and he has more than recouped what he could have taken from me that first day. Joe F. p.s. He recommended a DT line. |
line choice for beginner
the +/- after the grain weight is the allowed manufacturing tolerance.
TL MC |
line choice for beginner
In article , Mike Connor
wrote: "Allen Epps" schrieb im Newsbeitrag et... SNIP 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 Basically it is a combination of a number of things. Conservation, safety, legal aspects, and of course it has political grounds. "Greens" and other similar groups are very powerful here, and this tends to make things like angling and hunting extremely restrictive. Germany is also basically very bureacratic per se. 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. It would take far too long to go into all the background here. If you do a search on google, some time ago ( couple of years maybe?) there was considerable discussion on here about it. Before anybody gets their knickers in a terrible twist, as I live here, I am subject to the laws here, as is everybody else. Whether I am principally for or against them, either generally or specifically, is quite another matter. TL MC Mike, Wow, hard to believe that things can go that wrong with something as important to my "life liberty and pursuit of happiness" as basic as fishing. I've heard similar horror stories about the Green's in Australia from a liasion officer. Thanks for the info. Allen |
line choice for beginner
"Greg Pavlov" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ... On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 15:36:42 +0200, "Mike Connor" wrote: For a long time, most rods had two ratings marked on the butt i.e #6/#7 or similar. 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, ... I believe that it is the other way around: for longer casts one must shoot line, or shoot more line, with the WT, so it helps to have more weight in the first 30 feet. As you pointed out, for a given line weight rating, the first 30 feet should be apx the same weight whether the line is a DT or WT, so for short distances the rod loading should be the same with either. SNIP 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. TL MC |
line choice for beginner
Mike Connor wrote: AFTM In grains In grams In ounces 3 100 +/- 6 6.48 0.228 4 120 +/- 6 7.78 0.274 5 140 +/- 6 9.07 0.32 6 160 +/- 8 10.42 0.366 7 185 +/- 8 11.99 0.422 8 210 +/- 8 13.61 0.48 9 240 +/- 10 15.55 0.55 10 280 +/- 10 18.14 0.64 11 330 +/- 12 21.38 0.75 12 380 +/- 12 24.62 0.86 From what I understand, some of the new lines out there are really now outside the above limits. IE. a line sold as a 5 weight is really about a 5 and a 1/2 weight or even slightly more. (Maybe someone in the business can comment) When the line manufacturers start deviating from a "standard" it makes it difficult for the public to make a reasonable decision. Add to this all the new specialty lines out there, and the decision is even harder. Willi |
line choice for beginner
Bill Curry wrote: I would be interested in hearing what lines someone would use in drift boat situations, that is something I haven't experienced, but if it's like fishing from a canoe, like up here - except more stable I suspect - again, would not the WF line be an advantage? I generally use a heavier rod when I've fished from a drift because long quick casts are often necessary. I agree on large river in a drift boat, a WT line is an advantage. However, that is not day to day fishing for me or most people. Willi |
line choice for beginner
"Willi" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ... Mike Connor wrote: AFTM In grains In grams In ounces 3 100 +/- 6 6.48 0.228 4 120 +/- 6 7.78 0.274 5 140 +/- 6 9.07 0.32 6 160 +/- 8 10.42 0.366 7 185 +/- 8 11.99 0.422 8 210 +/- 8 13.61 0.48 9 240 +/- 10 15.55 0.55 10 280 +/- 10 18.14 0.64 11 330 +/- 12 21.38 0.75 12 380 +/- 12 24.62 0.86 From what I understand, some of the new lines out there are really now outside the above limits. IE. a line sold as a 5 weight is really about a 5 and a 1/2 weight or even slightly more. (Maybe someone in the business can comment) When the line manufacturers start deviating from a "standard" it makes it difficult for the public to make a reasonable decision. Add to this all the new specialty lines out there, and the decision is even harder. Willi That is correct Willi. The trick here is to bamboozle people into using a heavier line, which to some extent will cast more easily at short range. As very few people use these lines at any distance, they never notice, and can of course cast more easily. They could do exactly the same if they wanted, simply by using a DT one rating higher. It is generally easier for beginners to cast heavier ( Floating!!!!) lines, as they can feel the rod loading more easily. This of course has a number of disadvantages. Presentation suffers, distance ( assuming the requisite casting capability) is not so easily achievable, larger ( = heavier) reels are required, etc etc. Airflo is the main manufacturer doing this, none of the responsible ones are. I would not even use an airflo line to tie up my tomatoes, ( if I had any tomatoes!). TL MC |
line choice for beginner
"Allen Epps" schrieb im Newsbeitrag et... SNIP Mike, Wow, hard to believe that things can go that wrong with something as important to my "life liberty and pursuit of happiness" as basic as fishing. I've heard similar horror stories about the Green's in Australia from a liasion officer. Thanks for the info. Allen Indeed! Germany is a free and democratic country consisting of Federal States, with a constitution, etc etc. But it is not the same constitution that America has! Neither are the politics very similar at the moment! You are very lucky indeed to have the advantages you have in America. Even if you do occasionally end up with a loony for president :) TL MC |
line choice for beginner
"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 |
line choice for beginner
In article . net,
DaveMohnsen wrote: "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 Dave, I was lucky enough to make a half dozen trips to Alaska (Yakitat) with my grandfather before he passed away. There was always the same group of four German gentleman there fishing at the same time as us (late June for Sockeyes and Kings) . Only one spoke any English and he spoke about how much different the fishing was but we really didn't talk about regulations more just the type and environment. One of the other gents was the tyer of the group and he and I would set our vices up on the porch rail outside our rooms and tie after dinner. I recall a couple of the hundreds of fish we caught but more sharing a common interest without little means to communicate. I was always popular though since I brought beer from Seattle as the only beer they had available was "both kinds, Bud and Bud light" When I was in Aviano for the Kosovo debacle I saw lot of very large rainbows in the river near where we were staying and one of the other guys looked into fishing but it seemed much as you said, money and paperwork and we really didn't have much time to do any anyway. Thanks for the info. Allen |
line choice for beginner
"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 |
line choice for beginner
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 |
line choice for beginner
From: "Mike Connor"
Even if you do occasionally end up with a loony for president :) It's been that way for some time and is unlikely to change anytime soon, whether the vote goes D, R, or I. You'd have to be looney just to want the job. 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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:40 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Đ2004 - 2006 FishingBanter