Newbie questions -- after my 1st season of fishing

On Aug 13, 9:17 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

because a cheap fly line can make fly fishing a miserable and
trying experience.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Now how would you know that? Once again by your own admission, you
have never used one.

It would be refreshing to see a post from you which did not contain
some godlike pronouncement, and/or abuse.

You obviously do not know what a head is, or what it can do, but that
does not stop you writing all sorts of nonsense about them.

--
Regards and tight lines!

Mike Connor

http://www.mike-connor.homepage.t-online.de/

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/Flycorner?hl=en

On Aug 13, 3:16 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
mdk77 wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
mdk77 wrote:
snip
What would you recommend that I consider for a 2nd
fly rod/reel that is a step up from the KPOC, but still affordable
(something around $300)?
I bought a 6wt Redington CPS for smallmouth fishing and I'm
quite pleased with it. It fits exactly in your price range
at $299 and for the money it's a very nice fly rod.

...
Also, what size rod/reel would you think I should go with?
That depends on what you want to do most. If it's catching
bluegill in the ponds go with a 3wt, bass get another 6wt
or to fight the wind and toss deer hair a 7 or 8wt.

Ken, it sounds like you are from Central Illinois too. I'm curious,
do you fish around here for Bass, and if you do, then what size do you
fish with the most? Thanks.

I live in Urbana and most of my local bass fishing is
smallmouth fishing in the streams of Vermillion county.
I'll put my canoe in the ponds at Kickapoo State Park
and a few other small lakes fishing for largemouths but
I avoid Clinton and Shelbyville, too many metal flake
bass boats.

My bass rod is a Sage RPL 690-4, that's 9' 6wt 4 piece
that's long since been discontinued by Sage. As I said,
I recently bought a backup rod for bass fishing and I'm
really pleased with the 9' 4 piece 6wt Redington CPS,
it's almost as nice as my Sage and at $299 a good value.

Most folks targeting largemouths in the bigger lakes
that I avoid would use 7 or 8wt rods but the 6wt works
fine for me targeting smallies and fishing ponds from
the canoe. Mostly around home, I'm a bluegill fisherman
using a 9' Winston 3wt, that's the most fun for me.

--
Ken Fortenberry

I discovered Kickapoo while a student at Chanute AFB in spring-summer
of 1971, and it saved my sanity. I caught some nice fish there, but
the solitude and lack of motors were the attraction. I could sneak in
my canoe and discovered many new (as my home was The West) kinds of
wildlife.
I hope it is as nice today as it was then.

cheers

oz, who saw the best July 4th fireworks ANYWHERE in the tiny town of
Rantoul

Mike wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
because a cheap fly line can make fly fishing a miserable and
trying experience.

Now how would you know that? Once again by your own admission, you
have never used one.

I've never used one for long, but I didn't say I've never
cast a cheap fly line. The so-called fly line that comes
with the Cabelas Three Forks outfit is one I've tossed
and its performance is exactly as I described, miserable
and trying. I've also taken a newbies rig and cast it for
myself, at their request, to determine why they can't get
the hang of the fly fishing thing. Most of the time it's
because they've bought a cheap, piece of s*** fly line
that doesn't cast worth a damn.

It would be refreshing to see a post from you which did not contain
some godlike pronouncement, and/or abuse.

You obviously do not know what a head is, or what it can do, but that
does not stop you writing all sorts of nonsense about them.

I know what a shooting head is, I have a 7wt in my collection
that I've used for steelhead fishing and what you now call
"all sorts of nonsense" is practically identical to what you
called yesterday a "comprehensive view from a well known expert".
Man, that guy sure got dumb in a hurry. ;-)

As for pronouncements and/or abuse, there's a reason you've
become a laughingstock on this newsgroup Mike. It's a pity.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 13:47:08 -0700, Mike
wrote:

Do you know why 5% of the anglers catch ninety five per cent of the
fish?

I've never seen stats on it, but if there is no hatch on, nymphers
(without SHs) catch most of the fish (we are talking fresh water
here).

If I am incorrect, then just ignore me.


Very much of my fishing is also done at ranges below thirty feet, and
I use heads almost exclusively. Your problem appears to be that you don
´t know what a head is, or what it may be used for.

Well, good for you. If it floats your boat then go for it. If I
caught any more fish than I already do, I would have to give up fly
fishing - it would be too easy. I know what a head is - have one for
my 7 weight to throw some very big ugly streamers in Russia.

I have explained it often enough, but you either don´t read what I
write, or don´t care, so there is little point in my repeating it yet
again.

Mike, I've read what you've said, went to your website and read all
about it. Do you have a hard time understanding that I DO NOT NEED A
SHOOTING HEAD. tyvm. I catch enough fish nymphing and on dries
within 30 feet of where I am standing. If I need to shoot out more, I
will single or double haul to 70 - 80 feet WITHOUT A SHOOTING HEAD.
If I need to cast a distance with a very large streamer for big (32
inch, 12 - 14 pound) wild rainbows in Russia, I *will* use a shooting
head, but that is the only time I actually *need* one.

You accuse me of not understanding what you are saying, yet it works
both ways; you fail to hear what everyone else says about not needing
a shooting head. MOST people do not NEED a shooting head, except for
occasional use. The original poster should take Ken's advice.
Simple. The thread *should* have ended there, for nothing can be
added to what Ken has recommended. The OP does not need a shooting
head.

Gad, Mike, get a life. This obsession of yours is getting the best of
you. Good luck.

Dave

On Aug 13, 9:15 pm, Dave LaCourse wrote:

Somebody just asked me another question about this.

You and others here do not use shooting heads, by your own admission,
and apparently based entirely on your non-use, and unfounded prejudice
against something you obviously don´t know anything about, you
continue to decry them, and give all sorts of "reasons" for not using
them.

I have been using heads for forty years.

Doubtless, people reading this stuff, newbies or otherwise, will draw
their own conclusions.

Anyway, back to the question. Buying a double taper to "save money"
because you can "turn it around" is pointless. You get ninety feet of
double tapered fly-line, of which you usually use much less than
half. The other half takes up a lot of room on the reel, often
requiring a larger reel to accommodate it, it can not be shot very
well , or very far, because it is too heavy, and it ends up all
scrunched and coiled, so that even if you did wish to "turn it around"
there would be little point in doing so.

The only sensible way to use a double taper fly line, and to save
money, is to cut it in half. This gives you two 45 foot single taper
fly-lines, You can then use a smaller lighter reel, for longer
distances you can shoot the backing line, and when the first half
wears out, you still have the other half brand new in the box.

This is of course a "shooting head", and it has a lot of advantages.
But only for those with an open mind towards such things.

Before you wander off again on the evils of shooting heads. This is
simply half a double taper fly-line, it has all the advantages of any
other DT line, up to 45 feet, (well over fifty feet, including leader
and rod), and it can also be shot a long way if required.

And of course, you get two brand new lines for the price of one.

Just an example.........................

--
Regards and tight lines!

Mike Connor

http://www.mike-connor.homepage.t-online.de/

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/Flycorner?hl=en

On Aug 13, 11:52 pm, Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 13:47:08 -0700, Mike
wrote:

Do you know why 5% of the anglers catch ninety five per cent of the
fish?

I've never seen stats on it, but if there is no hatch on, nymphers
(without SHs) catch most of the fish (we are talking fresh water
here).



If I am incorrect, then just ignore me.

Very much of my fishing is also done at ranges below thirty feet, and
I use heads almost exclusively. Your problem appears to be that you don
´t know what a head is, or what it may be used for.

Well, good for you. If it floats your boat then go for it. If I
caught any more fish than I already do, I would have to give up fly
fishing - it would be too easy. I know what a head is - have one for
my 7 weight to throw some very big ugly streamers in Russia.



I have explained it often enough, but you either don´t read what I
write, or don´t care, so there is little point in my repeating it yet
again.

Mike, I've read what you've said, went to your website and read all
about it. Do you have a hard time understanding that I DO NOT NEED A
SHOOTING HEAD. tyvm. I catch enough fish nymphing and on dries
within 30 feet of where I am standing. If I need to shoot out more, I
will single or double haul to 70 - 80 feet WITHOUT A SHOOTING HEAD.
If I need to cast a distance with a very large streamer for big (32
inch, 12 - 14 pound) wild rainbows in Russia, I *will* use a shooting
head, but that is the only time I actually *need* one.

You accuse me of not understanding what you are saying, yet it works
both ways; you fail to hear what everyone else says about not needing
a shooting head. MOST people do not NEED a shooting head, except for
occasional use. The original poster should take Ken's advice.
Simple. The thread *should* have ended there, for nothing can be
added to what Ken has recommended. The OP does not need a shooting
head.

Gad, Mike, get a life. This obsession of yours is getting the best of
you. Good luck.

Dave

I am not obsessed with anything at all. I merely use logic and common
sense coupled with personal experience. You people on the other hand
use abuse, rubbish, groundless pronouncements, all to bolster your
ignorance.

I don´t care what you use, or how you use it, I don´t care how many
fish you catch, or where you catch them, and I don´t care how much
money you spend doing it. I would not presume to give you any advice
either, you are quite obviously too hidebound to take any.

I did not "ACCUSE" you of anything at all. I merely stated the
obvious. You don´t know what a head is, or how it might be used.

My advice was given to a guy who wanted to extend his capabilities
with the gear he has, and on a limited budget. Not to you super-
anglers who already know everything and have everything. Fish in
perfect places, for perfect fish , with prefect and extremely
expensive gear, or live in your waders.

What you think of it is completely irrelevant. You and others gave
your advice, such as it was, and I gave mine. I did not criticise
your advice, or anybody else´s, I merely gave mine.

The gentleman to whom I offered the advice will doubtless consider
it on its merits, which is all that matters to me. If it saves him
money, and improves his fishing, then that is a good thing. What you
or Fortenberry think about it is completely irrelevant.

You are the only ones continuing this thread.

Not everything is about you egomaniacs or your self importance and
hidebound opinions. Get over it.

--
Regards and tight lines!

Mike Connor

http://www.mike-connor.homepage.t-online.de/

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/Flycorner?hl=en

On Aug 13, 11:50 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

As for pronouncements and/or abuse, there's a reason you've
become a laughingstock on this newsgroup Mike. It's a pity.

--
Ken Fortenberry

There are quite a number of reasons why many people think you are an
asshole, and I agree.

--
Regards and tight lines!

Mike Connor

http://www.mike-connor.homepage.t-online.de/

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/Flycorner?hl=en

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:17:05 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

Mike wrote:
snip
I have no problems at all accepting your disagreement on a sensible
and logical basis.

LOL !! Mike you have serious problems accepting any sort of
disagreement at all. Your know-it-all pronouncements are the
stuff of roff legend.

Indeed, I would also accept it if you simply said
"I just don´t like them". Entirely your prerogative.

Like I said, shooting heads have their place but fishing for
bass in central Illinois ain't one of them. And I strongly
disagree with recommending to newbies that they cobble together
cheap fly lines. In fact I always counsel newbies never to
cheap out on the fly line. Go bargain hunting for fly rod, fly
reel and flies if you must but never cheap out on the fly line
because a cheap fly line can make fly fishing a miserable and
trying experience.

Well, technically, a WF line has a "head," and it is there to help
"shoot" the line at longer distances, but until you get about 40 ft./12
meters plus or minus of line _off the reel_, depending on taper design,
you ain't even to the "running" line, and until you get that 40'/12m
_past the tiptop_, you _can't_ use it as a _shooting_ head in the
generally-understood sense.

That said, what most consider a "shooting head" (a separate head
attached to pure "running" line) is totally unnecessary and could well
be counter-productive, esp. for a novice, at short distances. Why? A
whole bunch of reasons. With some rigged-up "shooting" head fishing at
20-30 feet, it's one more (unnecessary) connection to go wrong, it's one
more connection that has to go through the guides (and at short
distances, it'll be going through the guides fairly often), and more
often than not, it'll turn _fly_ casting into "head chunking" for a
novice and **** up the casting skills they are just beginning to
acquire. Shooting heads aren't rated like lines - I have no idea how
whatever "head(s)" Mike seems to be championing is/are rated. In no
case is the average novice going to be able to fish at 20-30'/6-10m with
the ease in which they can by simply getting a line whose weight matches
the rating of their rod.

Frankly, at such short distances, I can't see why anyone would want
anything more than a DT, but that's why there's chocolate and vanilla.

There are no laws preventing anyone from using whatever "shooting head"
they wish at whatever distance, but I'd advise - strongly - that novices
stay the hell away from any "shooting head," Mike's rig or otherwise,
for short-distance work until they 1) have the experience to know what
they need, and 2) that experience tells them they need a shooting head.
And then, if that "experience" tells them they _need_ a "shooting head"
for such short work, get more experience...

TC,
R

On Aug 14, 12:51 am, wrote:
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:17:05 -0500, Ken Fortenberry



wrote:
Mike wrote:
snip
I have no problems at all accepting your disagreement on a sensible
and logical basis.

LOL !! Mike you have serious problems accepting any sort of
disagreement at all. Your know-it-all pronouncements are the
stuff of roff legend.

Indeed, I would also accept it if you simply said
"I just don´t like them". Entirely your prerogative.

Like I said, shooting heads have their place but fishing for
bass in central Illinois ain't one of them. And I strongly
disagree with recommending to newbies that they cobble together
cheap fly lines. In fact I always counsel newbies never to
cheap out on the fly line. Go bargain hunting for fly rod, fly
reel and flies if you must but never cheap out on the fly line
because a cheap fly line can make fly fishing a miserable and
trying experience.

Well, technically, a WF line has a "head," and it is there to help
"shoot" the line at longer distances, but until you get about 40 ft./12
meters plus or minus of line _off the reel_, depending on taper design,
you ain't even to the "running" line, and until you get that 40'/12m
_past the tiptop_, you _can't_ use it as a _shooting_ head in the
generally-understood sense.

That said, what most consider a "shooting head" (a separate head
attached to pure "running" line) is totally unnecessary and could well
be counter-productive, esp. for a novice, at short distances. Why? A
whole bunch of reasons. With some rigged-up "shooting" head fishing at
20-30 feet, it's one more (unnecessary) connection to go wrong, it's one
more connection that has to go through the guides (and at short
distances, it'll be going through the guides fairly often), and more
often than not, it'll turn _fly_ casting into "head chunking" for a
novice and **** up the casting skills they are just beginning to
acquire. Shooting heads aren't rated like lines - I have no idea how
whatever "head(s)" Mike seems to be championing is/are rated. In no
case is the average novice going to be able to fish at 20-30'/6-10m with
the ease in which they can by simply getting a line whose weight matches
the rating of their rod.

Frankly, at such short distances, I can't see why anyone would want
anything more than a DT, but that's why there's chocolate and vanilla.

There are no laws preventing anyone from using whatever "shooting head"
they wish at whatever distance, but I'd advise - strongly - that novices
stay the hell away from any "shooting head," Mike's rig or otherwise,
for short-distance work until they 1) have the experience to know what
they need, and 2) that experience tells them they need a shooting head.
And then, if that "experience" tells them they _need_ a "shooting head"
for such short work, get more experience...

TC,
R

Quite interesting for a change, at least you thought about it a bit.
Unfortunately, like a couple of others, you seem rather confused about
what a shooting head actually is.

The line manufacturer´s definition of a shooting head, is "any piece
of line attached to backing or shooting line by means of a knot" The
Fly line manufacturer´s definition of a WF line is "Any piece of line
with integrated backing or shooting line, which is then referred to as
"running" line".

So, there is no real difference between a WF line and shooting head,
except for the ability to adjust the length and weight of a head by
simply cutting it at the right length, and the fact that a shooting
head may usually be shot further than a WF because lighter backing is
used.

Also, you and others seem determined to assume that heads are purely
distance tools, this is not the case, they may be made up in any
configuration one pleases, and for any number of special purposes.

I have a couple of sixty foot heads for special purposes, the main one
being delicate presentation at extreme range on still waters. I also
have 45 foot heads, which are merely half DT lines, which allows me to
"overline" the appropriate rods thus allowing me to present heavy or
bulky flies at close range,. or to reach out for distance if required,
without stressing the rod. To whit, using #8 line rated head, on a #6
rated rod.

Carrying a small range of appropriate heads, extends the capabilities
of any rod by a very wide margin, easily and cheaply, and also means
that one only actually needs to carry one rod, but may still use a
range of techniques.

Shooting heads are usually rated in grains. Most rods will cast a
range of grain weights, but there is only one specific weight which
any given rod will cast perfectly. By matching a head in length/
weight to any given rod, one may obtain a line for any given purpose
within that rod´s capabilities. This is impossible with any other
line type.

One reason, indeed the major reason, for many beginners having
considerable trouble with casting, apart from their lack of skill, is
mismatched gear.

A matched head is easier to cast, at any distance, than any other
line, as it suits the rod perfectly.

--
Regards and tight lines!

Mike Connor

http://www.mike-connor.homepage.t-online.de/

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/Flycorner?hl=en

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:04:31 -0700, Mike
wrote:

On Aug 13, 9:15 pm, Dave LaCourse wrote:

Somebody just asked me another question about this.

You and others here do not use shooting heads, by your own admission,
and apparently based entirely on your non-use, and unfounded prejudice
against something you obviously don´t know anything about, you
continue to decry them, and give all sorts of "reasons" for not using
them.

I have been using heads for forty years.

Doubtless, people reading this stuff, newbies or otherwise, will draw
their own conclusions.

Anyway, back to the question. Buying a double taper to "save money"
because you can "turn it around" is pointless. You get ninety feet of
double tapered fly-line, of which you usually use much less than
half. The other half takes up a lot of room on the reel, often
requiring a larger reel to accommodate it, it can not be shot very
well , or very far, because it is too heavy, and it ends up all
scrunched and coiled, so that even if you did wish to "turn it around"
there would be little point in doing so.

The only sensible way to use a double taper fly line, and to save
money, is to cut it in half. This gives you two 45 foot single taper
fly-lines, You can then use a smaller lighter reel, for longer
distances you can shoot the backing line, and when the first half
wears out, you still have the other half brand new in the box.

Now this I agree with.

This is of course a "shooting head", and it has a lot of advantages.
But only for those with an open mind towards such things.

This is not as absolute as you seem to wish to convey.

Before you wander off again on the evils of shooting heads. This is
simply half a double taper fly-line, it has all the advantages of any
other DT line, up to 45 feet, (well over fifty feet, including leader
and rod), and it can also be shot a long way if required.

And this is simply wrong. What is generally considered a "shooting
head" is NOT half of a DT with some form of running line as backing. If
one were to take, for example, a 5 DT, and half it, and then tie one of
those halves to running line, one would have some
almost-useless-as-a-"shooting-head" rig that would be IAC, and
thankfully for the novice in the context I've seen presented here, never
used as a shooting head. Now, if one were to take about 1/3 or so off
each end of an _appropriate_ 9 or 10 DT, toss the center bit, and tie
one of those thirds to running line, and then use it on something like a
5 or 6 wt. rod for casting 60-plus ft./20-plus meters, one would have
what one could call a shooting head. But anyone who suggests novice
casters cobble together such a thing for short-range fishing is simply
wrong.

HTH,
R