Suitable Line Weights

I just finished reading the Lyon's reprint of J. Edson Leonard's book
"Feather in the Breeze". Leonard was a fisherman who started
flyfishing, mostly in the East, in the 1920s. In his chapter "The Long
and the Short Of It", he refers to one of his favorite bigger river
trout rods as being a 9 1/2' Phillipson cane that threw a DT8F(!)
line. He claimed that it would "place a dryfly as softly as a thistle
dropped by an upstream gust". Interesting.

My question is, other than the pleasure of experiencing the lightness
in the hand of the rod itself, do you think it is really necessary for
people to use very light lines to be able to catch trout? I know that
my first three seasons on Black Earth Creek ( a southern Wisconsin
spring creek) were fished with a 6 wt. line and I caught fish (2000+
according to my old logs) on every thing from a #6 Hex dry to a #24
midge with no more spooking of fish than I do now with my 4 wt. rods.

g.c.

"George Cleveland" wrote in message
...
I just finished reading the Lyon's reprint of J. Edson Leonard's book
"Feather in the Breeze". Leonard was a fisherman who started
flyfishing, mostly in the East, in the 1920s. In his chapter "The Long
and the Short Of It", he refers to one of his favorite bigger river
trout rods as being a 9 1/2' Phillipson cane that threw a DT8F(!)
line. He claimed that it would "place a dryfly as softly as a thistle
dropped by an upstream gust". Interesting.

My question is, other than the pleasure of experiencing the lightness
in the hand of the rod itself, do you think it is really necessary for
people to use very light lines to be able to catch trout? I know that
my first three seasons on Black Earth Creek ( a southern Wisconsin
spring creek) were fished with a 6 wt. line and I caught fish (2000+
according to my old logs) on every thing from a #6 Hex dry to a #24
midge with no more spooking of fish than I do now with my 4 wt. rods.


First of all, let me congratulate you on developing the habit of lying in
your logs early on! :-)

No, I don't think its necessary to have a light line to catch trout. I think
you need a light LEADER to catch trout, but if you have a heavy line, you
just have to be more careful in your presentation, as you are tossing a lot
of weight out there. For fishing in closer, it might be difficult to get the
rod to load up, but the longer rod might make up for that. Forget fishing in
tight little overhanging trees, though.

--riverman
(who spent his first 3 seasons working with a 6/7 weight rod)

"George Cleveland" wrote in message
...
I just finished reading the Lyon's reprint of J. Edson Leonard's book
"Feather in the Breeze". Leonard was a fisherman who started
flyfishing, mostly in the East, in the 1920s. In his chapter "The Long
and the Short Of It", he refers to one of his favorite bigger river
trout rods as being a 9 1/2' Phillipson cane that threw a DT8F(!)
line. He claimed that it would "place a dryfly as softly as a thistle
dropped by an upstream gust". Interesting.

My question is, other than the pleasure of experiencing the lightness
in the hand of the rod itself, do you think it is really necessary for
people to use very light lines to be able to catch trout? I know that
my first three seasons on Black Earth Creek ( a southern Wisconsin
spring creek) were fished with a 6 wt. line and I caught fish (2000+
according to my old logs) on every thing from a #6 Hex dry to a #24
midge with no more spooking of fish than I do now with my 4 wt. rods.


First of all, let me congratulate you on developing the habit of lying in
your logs early on! :-)

No, I don't think its necessary to have a light line to catch trout. I think
you need a light LEADER to catch trout, but if you have a heavy line, you
just have to be more careful in your presentation, as you are tossing a lot
of weight out there. For fishing in closer, it might be difficult to get the
rod to load up, but the longer rod might make up for that. Forget fishing in
tight little overhanging trees, though.

--riverman
(who spent his first 3 seasons working with a 6/7 weight rod)

"George Cleveland" wrote in message
...
I just finished reading the Lyon's reprint of J. Edson Leonard's book
"Feather in the Breeze". Leonard was a fisherman who started
flyfishing, mostly in the East, in the 1920s. In his chapter "The Long
and the Short Of It", he refers to one of his favorite bigger river
trout rods as being a 9 1/2' Phillipson cane that threw a DT8F(!)
line. He claimed that it would "place a dryfly as softly as a thistle
dropped by an upstream gust". Interesting.

My question is, other than the pleasure of experiencing the lightness
in the hand of the rod itself, do you think it is really necessary for
people to use very light lines to be able to catch trout? I know that
my first three seasons on Black Earth Creek ( a southern Wisconsin
spring creek) were fished with a 6 wt. line and I caught fish (2000+
according to my old logs) on every thing from a #6 Hex dry to a #24
midge with no more spooking of fish than I do now with my 4 wt. rods.


First of all, let me congratulate you on developing the habit of lying in
your logs early on! :-)

No, I don't think its necessary to have a light line to catch trout. I think
you need a light LEADER to catch trout, but if you have a heavy line, you
just have to be more careful in your presentation, as you are tossing a lot
of weight out there. For fishing in closer, it might be difficult to get the
rod to load up, but the longer rod might make up for that. Forget fishing in
tight little overhanging trees, though.

--riverman
(who spent his first 3 seasons working with a 6/7 weight rod)

"George Cleveland" wrote in message
...
I just finished reading the Lyon's reprint of J. Edson Leonard's book
"Feather in the Breeze". Leonard was a fisherman who started
flyfishing, mostly in the East, in the 1920s. In his chapter "The Long
and the Short Of It", he refers to one of his favorite bigger river
trout rods as being a 9 1/2' Phillipson cane that threw a DT8F(!)
line. He claimed that it would "place a dryfly as softly as a thistle
dropped by an upstream gust". Interesting.

My question is, other than the pleasure of experiencing the lightness
in the hand of the rod itself, do you think it is really necessary for
people to use very light lines to be able to catch trout? g.c.


That book is on my get list, how did you like it overall?

No, but the "modern" graphite rod and plastic lines make it much easier to
cast and play fish in the smaller weights. Having said that, I know a guy
(an old timer) who only fishes for trout with six and seven weights, and
that includes Wisconsin tricos.

"George Cleveland" wrote in message
...
I just finished reading the Lyon's reprint of J. Edson Leonard's book
"Feather in the Breeze". Leonard was a fisherman who started
flyfishing, mostly in the East, in the 1920s. In his chapter "The Long
and the Short Of It", he refers to one of his favorite bigger river
trout rods as being a 9 1/2' Phillipson cane that threw a DT8F(!)
line. He claimed that it would "place a dryfly as softly as a thistle
dropped by an upstream gust". Interesting.

My question is, other than the pleasure of experiencing the lightness
in the hand of the rod itself, do you think it is really necessary for
people to use very light lines to be able to catch trout? g.c.


That book is on my get list, how did you like it overall?

No, but the "modern" graphite rod and plastic lines make it much easier to
cast and play fish in the smaller weights. Having said that, I know a guy
(an old timer) who only fishes for trout with six and seven weights, and
that includes Wisconsin tricos.

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 11:57:34 -0500, "Wayne Knight"
wrote:


"George Cleveland" wrote in message
.. .
I just finished reading the Lyon's reprint of J. Edson Leonard's book
"Feather in the Breeze". Leonard was a fisherman who started
flyfishing, mostly in the East, in the 1920s. In his chapter "The Long
and the Short Of It", he refers to one of his favorite bigger river
trout rods as being a 9 1/2' Phillipson cane that threw a DT8F(!)
line. He claimed that it would "place a dryfly as softly as a thistle
dropped by an upstream gust". Interesting.

My question is, other than the pleasure of experiencing the lightness
in the hand of the rod itself, do you think it is really necessary for
people to use very light lines to be able to catch trout? g.c.


That book is on my get list, how did you like it overall?

No, but the "modern" graphite rod and plastic lines make it much easier to
cast and play fish in the smaller weights. Having said that, I know a guy
(an old timer) who only fishes for trout with six and seven weights, and
that includes Wisconsin tricos.

It was an enjoyable read. The writing style was from an earlier
era,more akin to Bergman or LaBranche rather than Borger or Cardenas.
But it was a pleasant read. It was too short, which is always a good
sign when concerning someone's opinion of a book.


g.c.

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 11:57:34 -0500, "Wayne Knight"
wrote:


"George Cleveland" wrote in message
.. .
I just finished reading the Lyon's reprint of J. Edson Leonard's book
"Feather in the Breeze". Leonard was a fisherman who started
flyfishing, mostly in the East, in the 1920s. In his chapter "The Long
and the Short Of It", he refers to one of his favorite bigger river
trout rods as being a 9 1/2' Phillipson cane that threw a DT8F(!)
line. He claimed that it would "place a dryfly as softly as a thistle
dropped by an upstream gust". Interesting.

My question is, other than the pleasure of experiencing the lightness
in the hand of the rod itself, do you think it is really necessary for
people to use very light lines to be able to catch trout? g.c.


That book is on my get list, how did you like it overall?

No, but the "modern" graphite rod and plastic lines make it much easier to
cast and play fish in the smaller weights. Having said that, I know a guy
(an old timer) who only fishes for trout with six and seven weights, and
that includes Wisconsin tricos.

It was an enjoyable read. The writing style was from an earlier
era,more akin to Bergman or LaBranche rather than Borger or Cardenas.
But it was a pleasant read. It was too short, which is always a good
sign when concerning someone's opinion of a book.


g.c.

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 17:37:50 +0100, "riverman"
wrote:


"George Cleveland" wrote in message
.. .
I just finished reading the Lyon's reprint of J. Edson Leonard's book
"Feather in the Breeze". Leonard was a fisherman who started
flyfishing, mostly in the East, in the 1920s. In his chapter "The Long
and the Short Of It", he refers to one of his favorite bigger river
trout rods as being a 9 1/2' Phillipson cane that threw a DT8F(!)
line. He claimed that it would "place a dryfly as softly as a thistle
dropped by an upstream gust". Interesting.

My question is, other than the pleasure of experiencing the lightness
in the hand of the rod itself, do you think it is really necessary for
people to use very light lines to be able to catch trout? I know that
my first three seasons on Black Earth Creek ( a southern Wisconsin
spring creek) were fished with a 6 wt. line and I caught fish (2000+
according to my old logs) on every thing from a #6 Hex dry to a #24
midge with no more spooking of fish than I do now with my 4 wt. rods.


First of all, let me congratulate you on developing the habit of lying in
your logs early on! :-)

No, I don't think its necessary to have a light line to catch trout. I think
you need a light LEADER to catch trout, but if you have a heavy line, you
just have to be more careful in your presentation, as you are tossing a lot
of weight out there. For fishing in closer, it might be difficult to get the
rod to load up, but the longer rod might make up for that. Forget fishing in
tight little overhanging trees, though.

--riverman
(who spent his first 3 seasons working with a 6/7 weight rod)



Lie is such an ugly word...

g.c.

Who actually thinks the count was pretty accurate. In addition the
only fish counted were "legal" fish. Which at the time was any trout
over 6".

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 17:37:50 +0100, "riverman"
wrote:


"George Cleveland" wrote in message
.. .
I just finished reading the Lyon's reprint of J. Edson Leonard's book
"Feather in the Breeze". Leonard was a fisherman who started
flyfishing, mostly in the East, in the 1920s. In his chapter "The Long
and the Short Of It", he refers to one of his favorite bigger river
trout rods as being a 9 1/2' Phillipson cane that threw a DT8F(!)
line. He claimed that it would "place a dryfly as softly as a thistle
dropped by an upstream gust". Interesting.

My question is, other than the pleasure of experiencing the lightness
in the hand of the rod itself, do you think it is really necessary for
people to use very light lines to be able to catch trout? I know that
my first three seasons on Black Earth Creek ( a southern Wisconsin
spring creek) were fished with a 6 wt. line and I caught fish (2000+
according to my old logs) on every thing from a #6 Hex dry to a #24
midge with no more spooking of fish than I do now with my 4 wt. rods.


First of all, let me congratulate you on developing the habit of lying in
your logs early on! :-)

No, I don't think its necessary to have a light line to catch trout. I think
you need a light LEADER to catch trout, but if you have a heavy line, you
just have to be more careful in your presentation, as you are tossing a lot
of weight out there. For fishing in closer, it might be difficult to get the
rod to load up, but the longer rod might make up for that. Forget fishing in
tight little overhanging trees, though.

--riverman
(who spent his first 3 seasons working with a 6/7 weight rod)



Lie is such an ugly word...

g.c.

Who actually thinks the count was pretty accurate. In addition the
only fish counted were "legal" fish. Which at the time was any trout
over 6".