Gudie or No Guide

"PRM" wrote in message
. ..
Pretty simple question.

Do you prefer to have a guide or not?


Depends where I am. I used to hire a guide when I went to Dallas on
business, as I also like to bass fish, and getting a guide a boat sure beats
having to try to rent a boat and bring a lot of gear. Likewise this year in
Kenai. Fly out trip. They have the equipment. Local creeks to a town, ask
the local tackle store for advice and do it yourself. That is what my buddy
and I did in North Pole, AK. Did not hook many fish, but may just have been
the day.

"PRM" wrote in message
Do you prefer to have a guide or not?

About once a year, I've hired a guide for a particular river at a particular
time. There are aspects I enjoy and aspects I do not. Just as college
classes are more rewarding with a good professor, it can be more enjoyable
and productive to pick up some valuable tips from a master astream. So long
as I view it as educational, I'm fine with it and it has its place; but in
general I'd rather go without.

Joe F.

wrote in message
...
On 26 Oct 2006 16:37:25 -0700, "Wolfgang" wrote:


PRM wrote:
Pretty simple question.

Do you prefer to have a guide or not?

I've never been out with a professional guide, nor even given the
matter any serious consideration. As several people have pointed out
(quite correctly) in the "Personal Economics of Fly Tying" thread,
these things are really a matter of individual preferences.
Justifying preferences in these matters is simply not an issue for many
of us.

That said, for some of us it isn't much of a secret either. Finding
the fish and figuring out what they might be interested in (or, trying,
anyway) is, for me, as much a part of the total experience as wading,
casting, setting the hook, playing the fish, etc. Why would I want to
pay someone to do for me what I am already paying a good deal to do for
myself because I enjoy it? On the other hand, watching and getting
advice from a friend on waters he or she knows intimately is a hoot and
a half. Reciprocating is even more fun.

Wolfgang

Very good advice.

Well, thanks, but I'd like to make clear (and I'd hoped that I had the first
time around) that I was specifically and emphatically NOT offering
advice......merely stating and offering a very brief explanation of my own
preferences.

On top of which, if someone keeps telling one what to
do, how to do it, and where to do it, how would one ever expect to learn
what, how, and where themselves. Get yer ass in there and learn. Sure,
you might not catch as much, but if "catching" is this goal, well,
there's always stocked ponds and niblets.

Very good advice.

Wolfgang

"Mr. Opus McDopus"
If you are doing a float trip, a guide might be a necessity, while wading
may be just as easily accomplished sans the guide.

As I have never employed the services of a guide, I can't really speak on
the matter authoritatively.

Op

\
bull...I've taken you fishing plenty of times...of course, I shouldnt'
comment as we're not on speakin terms right now....

john

PRM wrote:
Pretty simple question.

Do you prefer to have a guide or not?


One fun alternative to a guide would be an "ambassadeur".

I live in an area that is popular among fishermen nationwide. Sometimes
i befriend somebody from far away. I will show what I know on my native
streams, and then visit my "ambassedeur" friend, who will guide me on
his. A very nice setup.

Pete Collin

"Peter A. Collin" wrote in message
...
PRM wrote:
Pretty simple question.

Do you prefer to have a guide or not?
One fun alternative to a guide would be an "ambassadeur".

I live in an area that is popular among fishermen nationwide. Sometimes i
befriend somebody from far away. I will show what I know on my native
streams, and then visit my "ambassedeur" friend, who will guide me on his.
A very nice setup.

There was no quid pro quo!

Wolfgang
and the internets is not a big truck.

In article ,
says...
One fun alternative to a guide would be an "ambassadeur".

I live in an area that is popular among fishermen nationwide. Sometimes
i befriend somebody from far away. I will show what I know on my native
streams, and then visit my "ambassedeur" friend, who will guide me on
his. A very nice setup.


Indeed -- one of the best things about this little playground. Pretty
much anyplace I go in North America (and parts of several other
continents, too, I suspect) there's somebody willing to take me out
fishing.

And, in case I need to say it, if any roffians ever find themselves in
the northern plains, I will do my best to get you connected to a pike.

Kevin
--
reply to: kevin dot vang at minotstateu dot edu

PRM wrote:
Pretty simple question.

Do you prefer to have a guide or not?

When Bob Auger was still managing the semi-famous
DePuy Spring Creek, near Livingston MT,
he once told me he had been studying the booking/report
logs, which showed customers who hired guides averaged
(during July, when the most bugs were hatching)
11 fish per day more than customers who fished alone.

During late August and September, which are traditionally
tough on the spring creeks, the difference was hardly
noticeable.

PRM wrote:
Pretty simple question.

Do you prefer to have a guide or not?

I like to hire a good guide whenever I go to new waters.
If I'm going to fish a stream for 5 or 6 days I'll hire a
guide for the first day and then fish the rest of the week
by myself. I just took a trip on the Eleven Point River in
the Missouri Ozarks intending to fish one day with the guide
and then a couple or three more by myself. The lessons I
learned about reading that river by watching the guide float
it doubtless would have saved many scratches and dings on my
canoe if I had decided to hang around and fish it again.

--
Ken Fortenberry

salmobytes wrote:
When Bob Auger was still managing the semi-famous
DePuy Spring Creek, near Livingston MT,
he once told me he had been studying the booking/report
logs, which showed customers who hired guides averaged
(during July, when the most bugs were hatching)
11 fish per day more than customers who fished alone.

I wouldn't be a bit surprised. Surely the expertise of a guide would
be a factor; but I doubt it's a fraction of the overall difference.
What are the possible differences with vs. without a guide? Waste less
time on less productive water. Better fly selection for the conditions
encountered. I suspect there are also a number of intangibles
difficult to quantify. Do you start your day earlier? Fish later? Take
fewer breaks? Concentrate more? After all, you want to impress the
guy you're not just some newbie with an Orvis credit card.

Then there are the realities that the guide has an undeniable
expectation to ensure you catch fish, not just "enjoy the
experience", because you'll enjoy the experience more if you
don't shell out a few Franklins. So the guide will have you doing
things you might not ordinarily do, not necessarily to make you a
better fisherman, but to better your chances for numbers. And if
numbers are the measurement, the guides will win every time on average.

And speaking of averages, factor in the ambient skills of those who
hire a guide vs. those who don't. I'm not really sure which way
that would sway the numbers. To be sure, there are newbies who need a
guide and experts who prefer a guide; but my unscientific guess is that
the more aggressive "success-based" fishermen, those who spend more
time and money on the sport, are those more likely to consider their
wallet a part of their tackle box.

I don't really have a point; I'm just rambling.

Joe F.