TR --- I hate statistics

I figure, since I don't intend to keep the fish, grabbing the fish to take
the hook out or grabbing the leader is good enough to count it as landed. If
I was going to keep it to eat, I wouldn't be horsing it in with the leader
or grabbing it with my hands, I'd use a net. So, if I grab the leader or the
fish and the hook comes out and he gets away, I count it and add 2 ;-)

Gene

"riverman" wrote in message
...



Hmm, personally I don't count a fish as landed until I have it in my hand,
with complete control over it. The hardest part (aside from getting it to
take the fly) is to get it from your feet to your hand, with the hook out.
Grabbing the leader and having it break off (or having the fish spit it
out)
is equivalent in my mind to pulling the hook out of his mouth while
setting
it.
Of course, YMMV
--riverman

Gene Cottrell wrote:
If
I was going to keep it to eat, I wouldn't be horsing it in with the leader
or grabbing it with my hands, I'd use a net.

When I catch fish to eat, I use heavier tippet, horse them in, AND use a
net. The more time they're in the water, the more things can go wrong.

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

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

"Larry L" wrote in message
...

"vincent p. norris" wrote

you calculate a standard deviation, a
standard error of the mean, and run a multiple regression using a
variety of independent variables

now I really hate statistics :-)


Then you aren't doing it right. Based on the data you provided,
statistical
analysis reveals any number of laudable findings, not the least of which
is
a truly astonishing experimental precision and consistency with which no
peer-reviewer in ROFF could possibly find the least fault.

Wolfgang
massage-R-us

Now, take those infamous chained fiends of Socrates fame who see their
shadows on the wall.

Okay, you don't catch any fish. but you 'feel' as good as if you did. Was
that not the purpose of going in the first place? Would the trip have then
been a success and should the statistics be changed?

It's tough to beat a philosophical discussion with Wolfgang and a
bottle...right there before the end is....a moment of clarity....

john

riverman wrote:
"Tim J." wrote in message
...
riverman wrote:
"Tim J." wrote in message
...
riverman wrote:
"Gene Cottrell" wrote in
message
...
Larry,

I agree with most of your rules except for the "landed"
category. I count it as caught if I get my hand on any part of
the leader or fish. I justify
this by figuring that I was going to release it anyway, the last
fish I kept
was in September 1980. It really doesn't matter though, since I
don't keep a
log anymore. I enjoyed your e-mail and am sure your stats will
improve over
time :-)


Hmm, personally I don't count a fish as landed until I have it in
my hand, with complete control over it. The hardest part (aside
from getting it to take the fly) is to get it from your feet to
your hand, with the hook out. Grabbing the leader and having it
break off (or having the fish spit it out) is equivalent in my
mind to pulling the hook out of his mouth while setting it.
Of course, YMMV

I count it as landed if it gets within rod-length. Otherwise, my
stats REALLY stink! ;-)
--

Hell, by that measure, then I dated every girl in college who smiled
at me.
--riverman
(hmmm, actually, I kinda LIKE that measure. Damn, I had a better
time in college than I thought!)

Seriously, though: what do other folks count as 'landed'? (and I'm
talking about fish, here)

Seriously? Well, okay - if you insist. Since I try not to handle the
fish at all, and only use a net on larger fish, I guess I'd consider
it landed if I use my fingers to remove the fly from its mouth. But
I never gave it much thought, since I fish for other reasons than to
"land" fish. --


Thats a good point. In thinking about it, I realize that I fish for
different reasons, at at least four different parts of the process.
First, in casting, I really try to get most of my casts to be good
deliveries, where I want them, and gently as possible. Its like a
good casting practice (sometimes more than others). That involves a
positive reinforcement of my mechanical skills. If I get a really
nice cast out, I 'count' that as having suceeded at an important part
of the whole thing.
Then, I really try to get the fish to bite whatever I am fishing
with. That reinforces the most complex part of it all...deciphering
what the fish are eating. If I can get some strikes (or refusals,
which I know from my college days is almost as good), then I feel
like I'm on the right track, and I 'count' that as one more
reinforcement that I'm figuring this all out.
Third, when I have a fish on, getting it to my feet is the goal, and
if I can do that without breaking it off, I 'count' that as having
the right skills and touch for that part. I figure this is basically
the easiest part of the entire process.

Fourth, getting the hook out of his mouth in a controlled manner is
the part where I consider him 'caught'. I almost never use my net,
and if I have the fly in my fingers and he kicks himself off, I
'count' that. Note, I am using the word 'count' in all of these as
synomymous to 'qualifies' rather than 'keeping count'. I have
absolutely no idea how many fish I have caught last year, or in my
life.
Last of all, I usually consider the release of a tired fish to be
another skill that I monitor. If I can get some behemoth (or some
minnow) to catch his breath, then swim away with an impression that
he is gonna live, I 'count' that as successful release.

Wow! I fly fish because, after everything else I've tried, it succeeds
in allowing me to forget the daily grind and focusing on something
pleasurable. Maybe partially because of the focus on what you mention
above, but sometimes I sit on the bank and "fish" the river in my mind
more than I actually fish. There something magical about watching moving
water, much like watching a campfire.
--
TL,
Tim
---------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj/

"vincent p. norris" wrote in message
...
...... here are my stats for 2005 :-(

Total 2005 fishing days, thus far, is 1.

Total hours fished in 2005 is, 2.25.

Average fishing time per day is 2.25 hours.

In 2005, I have landed a total of 0 fish, consisting of 0 Rainbow Trout,
0
Brown Trout, 0 Cutthroat Trout, 0 Brook Trout, and 0 other game fish.

On my best day in 2005, so far, I landed 0 fish.

On average, I have landed 0 fish per hour of fishing,

I have, also, hooked, but lost, 0 fish in 2005.

Hell, Larry, those aren't statistics, those are "data."

It ain't statistics until you calculate a standard deviation, a
standard error of the mean, and run a multiple regression using a
variety of independent variables including air temperature, water
temperature, water depth and flow velocity, color of your fly line,
rod length, whether or not you smoke cigars while fishing, and so
forth.

vince
I have a SASS program for my IPAQ. I run a stepwise linear regression with
14 variables. So far correlation with DJIA is very low, number of beers may
be correlated but I forget to input the data.

"asadi" wrote


It's tough to beat a philosophical discussion with Wolfgang and a
bottle...right there before the end is....a moment of clarity....


Ummm ... it seems
All things are relative .... what serves as clarity after a bottle or
Wolfgang is only clear relative to the intense clouding they have worked to
cause ... the same 'clear moment' might seem absurdly muddy when sober or
without a period of fuzzy thought preceding it

Larry
( who bases this on too many years of extremely close association with
bottles, but admits he's never developed enough tolerance for Wolfgang to
take much in a single dose )

"Jonathan Cook" wrote in message
...
Wolfgang wrote:

The LD-50 is lower than you might suppose.

For rats I hear its very small, on the order of 1.


Got six this morning.

Wolfgang
who only counts for sharing purposes.

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005, Larry L wrote:

http://www.kimshew.com/flyfish/displ...php?log_id=143

I'd love to live within a short drive of stream of any real substance.
Los Angeles River does not count.

Mu

Mu wrote:I'd love to live within a short drive of stream of any real
substance.
Los Angeles River does not count.

Mu

I'm with Mu on this one. We have to count the number of states we have to drive
thru or the number of days driving to get to any good trout water.

Big Dale

"Big Dale" wrote

Yes, now that you point it out, I am a bit of a spoiled brat. I have
fished to rising trout, feeding on baetis, under the bridge going into town
one time, ant that is about three miles from my door. The place I
visited last week is maybe 10 miles, and another 5 gets you to the section
of the lower Stan that 99% of the people come to fish. That section is
enough up the hill to be a lot more like a mountain river, one can usually
catch a few fish, I've gotten them to 19 inches, but it's still water that
you can only reach the edges of, and requires small nymphs fished very deep
in pretty damn fast, heavy currents. It's also usually crowded, mainly
with Bay Area people that drive over.

I have Doctor appointments today, getting ready for surgery, but you've made
me feel guilty and I'll go out a few times and try harder to appreciate my
'home water' on it's own terms .... thanks for the wakeup slap, I deserved
it