Best rod/line for ....

limity= limiting

Oh and by the way, if you are consistently casting 70 feet from a boat
etc using small dry flies and turning them over accurately, then you
are well above average, and there is no reason why you should not be
able to use the gear described above. But if you take a couple of
lessons, and practice a little, you will be able to do what you want
to do easily and consistently.

In order to pick up, aerialise, and re-cast 70 feet of line in one
move, ( in the range #4 to #6 line and rods) you need a fast rod, and
the appropriate line. Nothing else will work. This is also exacerbated
by you sitting low down, you lose some height on the cast, but a long
rod will not compensate for that. Longer rods are only of advantage
if you can use them, or for specific purposes. Long casting is not one
of these purposes. Nine feet is about the maximum length most normally
built people can handle, even more so if it is a stiff rod. This is
because of the leverage. The added length will only allow you to cast
a little further if you can use the extra leverage, and most people can
´t. Not even many tournament casters, they stick to nine foot rods for
distance casting.

TL
MC

You want an FFF certified master instructor. If you tell me where you
are located ( roughly, next large town) I will try and get hold of
Bill Gammel and see if he knows anyone near you.

You can read some of his stuff here. http://www.sexyloops.com/articles/ad...onthefly.shtml

TL
MC

You could just use this;

http://www.fedflyfishers.org/Default.aspx?tabid=4465

TL
MC

Larry L wrote:
"rw" wrote


When you see two rise forms in sequence it's tempting to cast to where you
extrapolate the fish will be next. This is, I believe, a mistake. Fish
feeding on the surface of stillwater move randomly. I cast directly to the
last rise form. If that doesn't get a take I start searching around it.




On Hebgen, after a few days of heavy hatches, the fish DO become predictable
and you can plot their path and intercept it.

Maybe, but I'm skeptical.

I don't know about you, but I can't see fish under stillwater from a
pontoon boat or a kick boat -- unless I'm right on top of them -- so I
don't know which direction they've headed after a rise.

I have, however, watched trout feeding on the top of stillwater from
heights. It's fascinating (and really fun if you're directing an
otherwise blind caster, and even more fun when you're the caster).

In stillwater, watching from a height, I can't accurately predict where
a fish is going after taking a natural on the surface. Its path is like
slowed-down Brownian motion on a plane. Sometimes they move straight
ahead, and sometimes they veer off at an angle.

In moving water trout clearly have favored routes -- the way they use
large eddy pools, for example. Stillwater is very different, IMO.

From a kickboat, all I see are rises. If one fish is rising, the odds
are good that several are rising. I can't tell which rise matches which
fish, UNLESS the rises are very close to one another. They often are.
Then it's probably the same fish.

That's why I cast directly at a rise form. Its the most likely location
for the fish. At 70', Larry's range, I'd probably miss by a good margin
anyway, but it's nice to aim at something. Even you don't get a take
there's the satisfaction of a good cast.

Obversely, from the fish's point of view, the most likely place to find
a natural while expending the least energy is close to where it found
the last one, and if that doesn't work after awhile then move slowly in
a more-or-less random direction while avoiding bigger fish. :-) If
you're quick enough with your cast the fish won't have moved far and
will be within your casting error.

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

rw wrote:

Larry L wrote:

"rw" wrote


Quake Lake during a Callibaetis hatch is a good place to be. The dead
trees are surreal. I've never fished Hebgen. It seems too large and
intimidating.




Quake is, indeed, a nice place to fish although my feeling about it vs
Hegben is reversed from yours. Most of the time I've spent on
Hebgen has been on the Madison arm and it feels relatively small and
easy to access rowing my kickboat. The one ramp on Quake seems a
long pull away from the inlet area that has given me my best action.
All the dead trees certainly is surreal and a bit spooky, especially
if you're slowing kicking backwards and run into one under the water G


The boat ramp on Quake Lake is another spooky thing. It's the old road
before the earthquake buried the rest of it. There are dead people under
there.

Willi and I ran into an interesting and rather strange guy who turned us
on to Quake Lake. He disdained the Madison and instead fished Quake with
mostly orangish streamer-like flies. He said it was the jit. :-)


gotta be the old coot who is the resident manager at one of those
campsites and part-time dishwasher at the breakfast joint. he disdained
all streams in favor of quake lake. he fished late evening and at
night...told remarkable stories of big fish. i liked the look of that
area. need to go back one day. btw...has anyone heard from warren.
i've sent several e-mails with no response.

jeff

On Dec 28, 9:29 pm, rw wrote:
Larry L wrote:
"rw" wrote

When you see two rise forms in sequence it's tempting to cast to where you
extrapolate the fish will be next. This is, I believe, a mistake. Fish
feeding on the surface of stillwater move randomly. I cast directly to the
last rise form. If that doesn't get a take I start searching around it.

On Hebgen, after a few days of heavy hatches, the fish DO become predictable
and you can plot their path and intercept it.

Maybe, but I'm skeptical.

I don't know about you, but I can't see fish under stillwater from a
pontoon boat or a kick boat -- unless I'm right on top of them -- so I
don't know which direction they've headed after a rise.

I have, however, watched trout feeding on the top of stillwater from
heights. It's fascinating (and really fun if you're directing an
otherwise blind caster, and even more fun when you're the caster).

In stillwater, watching from a height, I can't accurately predict where
a fish is going after taking a natural on the surface. Its path is like
slowed-down Brownian motion on a plane. Sometimes they move straight
ahead, and sometimes they veer off at an angle.

In moving water trout clearly have favored routes -- the way they use
large eddy pools, for example. Stillwater is very different, IMO.

From a kickboat, all I see are rises. If one fish is rising, the odds
are good that several are rising. I can't tell which rise matches which
fish, UNLESS the rises are very close to one another. They often are.
Then it's probably the same fish.

That's why I cast directly at a rise form. Its the most likely location
for the fish. At 70', Larry's range, I'd probably miss by a good margin
anyway, but it's nice to aim at something. Even you don't get a take
there's the satisfaction of a good cast.

Obversely, from the fish's point of view, the most likely place to find
a natural while expending the least energy is close to where it found
the last one, and if that doesn't work after awhile then move slowly in
a more-or-less random direction while avoiding bigger fish. :-) If
you're quick enough with your cast the fish won't have moved far and
will be within your casting error.

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

When I used to fish still water a lot, aiming at the rise was more or
less the "standard" method for many anglers. But it was never very
effective for me, ( or for them either apparently )

While I appreciate your point of "having something to aim at", given
the casting error margin at 70 feet, and the error which is inherent
in not knowing which direction the fish is taking out of a 360° degree
possibility, the odds are very high that your fly will land well away
from the fish, indeed, the odds are then only slightly better than if
you just cast somewhere at random, ignoring the rises altogether. This
is also exactly what many still water anglers do, and they catch their
share of fish.( Or so they say! )

If you can make an accurate guess/timate which direction the fish is
taking, and are accurate enough to place your fly in its projected
path, then the odds are very much higher that it will take. ( Forget
about hook up odds etc on small dry flies at that range for the
moment).

There are basically two scenarios I think. If you guess wrong, then
you are no worse off than if you aimed for the rise anyway, or more or
less anywhere else at random! If you guess right however, the odds on
you getting a take have just jumped massively. You don´t even have to
guess absolutely right either. There is an angle of about 90° in front
of the fish which might be designated its "taking zone". On many
occasions, in relatively calm conditions, if you get your fly in to
that taking zone at a reasonable distance to the fish, you will most
likely get it to take. More or less anywhere outside that angle, and
depending on the distance to the fish, ( its actual cruising speed in
the direction you chose), you might just as well cast at random
anywhere else in the lake.

Also, you basically only have two sensible choices. If the fish is
coming towards you, you will probably line it and spook it anyway, so
that is not a viable choice. If it is moving away from you, then it
may be well out of range before your fly lands. So that is also not a
viable choice. You have just eliminated 180 degrees of choices!

The only two really viable choices to make are those when the fish is
moving ( roughly) from left to right, or from left to right, ( and how
fast). You now have a fifty per cent chance of being right, whatever
you choose, and if you only have a slight indication of which
direction the fish might be moving, you have an even greater chance of
being right. For instance, in a breeze, the fish will invariably be
facing into the wind. If they are "head and tailing" you know the
direction they are pointing, if there are wind lanes, they will be
moving into the wind, if there are scum lines they will be moving
parallel to the scum, and so on. There are quite a few indications.

Using such methods and indications is much more likely to result in a
take than simply casting at the rise.

TL
MC

jeff wrote:
rw wrote:

Willi and I ran into an interesting and rather strange guy who turned
us on to Quake Lake. He disdained the Madison and instead fished Quake
with mostly orangish streamer-like flies. He said it was the jit. :-)


gotta be the old coot who is the resident manager at one of those
campsites and part-time dishwasher at the breakfast joint. he disdained
all streams in favor of quake lake. he fished late evening and at
night...told remarkable stories of big fish. i liked the look of that
area. need to go back one day.

Nope, he was a young guy, from Washington State IIRC, staying at the
campground with a friend. Stoners. They were really into lake fishing.
He gave us some good tips about fishing Quake and lakes in general.

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

The second instance should of course be "right to left"!

"Larry L" wrote in message
...

You know anyone doing subprime loans for tackle G

Put some money a way here and a little away there or do what I did and buy
the blank and the components and had someone make the rod (or make it
yourself). Then there's always the used market for the rod anyway.

actually this is the exact selection I had dreamed of, from reading the
adman hype, but I've never cast either the rod or the line

I know you don't want to buy into it but it's not hype on that fly line. For
$40 more than a standard premium line it had better not be. I'm a slow
action caster and most of my graphite trout rods were designed to mimic cane
and for fishing less than 60' away. But I can shoot that line within 10' of
the backing with an old Winston IM6. As far as fishing, if that line floated
any higher it would be hovering. But the texture is really different and the
noise it makes going through the guides casting takes some getting used to
but it is a very good fly line. Personally I'd start there..

With Winston's latest toy - the biimx, I shot the entire line plus some
backing at the retention pond behind my house. But I wouldn't fish the BIImx
with small flies though it has some flex in it, that's why I suggested the
BIIx instead. It's really is a nice rod if one wants a rod that is capable
of casting just as well up close as it does at a distance and very good as a
fishing tool, especially protecting light tippets.