Dual nymphs

wrote:
On Fri, 02 May 2008 14:40:13 -0700, rw
wrote:


wrote:

On Fri, 02 May 2008 16:19:24 -0400, Dave LaCourse
wrote:


You can use more than one without getting tangles by simply using a
circle cast - when your fly drifts past and below you on the stream,
simply pick up the line and lob it upstream without any false casting.


Um, why would one false cast a nymph (or a nymph rig)?

To get line out. Duh!


Well, **** fire and save matches, why not just pull some of that there
fishing strang outta the top of yer pole and sling it like it was a
lasso...?

No actual reply to the issue -- just over the top bull****, as usual.

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

On Fri, 02 May 2008 16:48:12 -0700, rw
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 02 May 2008 14:40:13 -0700, rw
wrote:


wrote:

On Fri, 02 May 2008 16:19:24 -0400, Dave LaCourse
wrote:


You can use more than one without getting tangles by simply using a
circle cast - when your fly drifts past and below you on the stream,
simply pick up the line and lob it upstream without any false casting.


Um, why would one false cast a nymph (or a nymph rig)?

To get line out. Duh!


Well, **** fire and save matches, why not just pull some of that there
fishing strang outta the top of yer pole and sling it like it was a
lasso...?

No actual reply to the issue -- just over the top bull****, as usual.

The "issue" (I'll use your word, but I don't consider it an "issue") is
that one shouldn't be false-casting double rigs - or at the very least,
novices should definitely not be doing so - and false-casting a nymph
should be, well, let's say the exception rather than the rule. Dave
said it, and therefore, I asked Dave why he thought one would do it. You
joined in with a smart-assed remark and so, on that "issue," you got an
"actual reply."

And there you are,
R

On Fri, 02 May 2008 19:03:23 -0500, wrote:

Dave
said it, and therefore, I asked Dave why he thought one would do it. You
joined in with a smart-assed remark and so, on that "issue," you got an
"actual reply."

And Dave also said how are you going to cast a nymph (single, double
triple) 60 feet without a backcast? I would love to see you do it.

There is a little trick to casting such a rig, and that is to slow
down your casting stroke. I successfully long-line nymph all the
time, Richard, and casting that distance is impossible without a
backcast. I'm not saying YOU can not do it, but I sure would like to
see it. d;o) A sixty foot cast without a backcast! Wow! Move over,
Lefty!

Davey
(Oh, btw, the G3s are quickly piling up the days on the stream.
They'll pass 500 this year and are still as good as the day I bought
them. Great **** that Simms stuff. d;o)

wrote:

The "issue" (I'll use your word, but I don't consider it an "issue") is
that one shouldn't be false-casting double rigs - or at the very least,
novices should definitely not be doing so - and false-casting a nymph
should be, well, let's say the exception rather than the rule. Dave
said it, and therefore, I asked Dave why he thought one would do it. You
joined in with a smart-assed remark and so, on that "issue," you got an
"actual reply."

And there you are,
R

What an enormous pile of stinking ****.

You shouldn't false cast a nymph rig until you HAVE to false cast a
nymph rig to get it to where you want it to go. Which, in my case at
least, is frequently.

Granted, it takes some experience to avoid cluster****s, but it's
possible and not even all that difficult. Avoid the "tight loops" of dry
fly fishing and don't worry about whether the cast is pretty. One of the
two best nymph fisherman I know has about the ugliest casting style I've
ever seen.

If I'm using a lot of weight, or otherwise have a very cluster****able
rig, I'll throw the rig into the water on the backcast and use the drag
of the water to load the rod for the forward cast.

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

On Fri, 02 May 2008 21:13:47 -0700, rw
wrote:

wrote:

The "issue" (I'll use your word, but I don't consider it an "issue") is
that one shouldn't be false-casting double rigs - or at the very least,
novices should definitely not be doing so - and false-casting a nymph
should be, well, let's say the exception rather than the rule. Dave
said it, and therefore, I asked Dave why he thought one would do it. You
joined in with a smart-assed remark and so, on that "issue," you got an
"actual reply."

And there you are,
R

What an enormous pile of stinking ****.

You shouldn't false cast a nymph rig until you HAVE to false cast a
nymph rig to get it to where you want it to go. Which, in my case at
least, is frequently.

Granted, it takes some experience to avoid cluster****s, but it's
possible and not even all that difficult. Avoid the "tight loops" of dry
fly fishing and don't worry about whether the cast is pretty. One of the
two best nymph fisherman I know has about the ugliest casting style I've
ever seen.

If I'm using a lot of weight, or otherwise have a very cluster****able
rig, I'll throw the rig into the water on the backcast and use the drag
of the water to load the rod for the forward cast.

Uh-huh...

Well, you've convinced me, what with you knowing the two best nymph
fishermen you know and all...

Lawdy, lawdy,
R

On Fri, 02 May 2008 16:48:12 -0700, rw
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 02 May 2008 14:40:13 -0700, rw
wrote:


wrote:

On Fri, 02 May 2008 16:19:24 -0400, Dave LaCourse
wrote:


You can use more than one without getting tangles by simply using a
circle cast - when your fly drifts past and below you on the stream,
simply pick up the line and lob it upstream without any false casting.


Um, why would one false cast a nymph (or a nymph rig)?

To get line out. Duh!


Well, **** fire and save matches, why not just pull some of that there
fishing strang outta the top of yer pole and sling it like it was a
lasso...?

No actual reply to the issue -- just over the top bull****, as usual.

Why don't we challenge Richard to the feat to casting 60 feet of line
with a weighted nymph and a strike indicator 60 feet without a
backcast. I'd love to see it. And if he can do it, well, Lefty move
on over, there be a new kid on the circuit. Books, mag articles,
endorsements are next. And we'll be able to say, "I knew old Richard
before he became famous."

Dave

On Fri, 02 May 2008 21:24:27 -0400, Dave LaCourse
wrote:

On Fri, 02 May 2008 16:48:12 -0700, rw
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 02 May 2008 14:40:13 -0700, rw
wrote:


wrote:

On Fri, 02 May 2008 16:19:24 -0400, Dave LaCourse
wrote:


You can use more than one without getting tangles by simply using a
circle cast - when your fly drifts past and below you on the stream,
simply pick up the line and lob it upstream without any false casting.


Um, why would one false cast a nymph (or a nymph rig)?

To get line out. Duh!


Well, **** fire and save matches, why not just pull some of that there
fishing strang outta the top of yer pole and sling it like it was a
lasso...?

No actual reply to the issue -- just over the top bull****, as usual.

Why don't we challenge Richard to the feat to casting 60 feet of line
with a weighted nymph and a strike indicator 60 feet without a
backcast.

Oooooh....and how are "we" willing to los...er, bet...?

I'd love to see it.

OK...see above.

And if he can do it, well, Lefty move
on over, there be a new kid on the circuit.

Er, no, there wouldn't be...

Books, mag articles,
endorsements are next. And we'll be able to say, "I knew old Richard
before he became famous."

See above.

IAC, I didn't ask about, nor did I even mention, backcasts.

HTH,
R

Dave

On Fri, 02 May 2008 21:06:31 -0500, wrote:

I didn't ask about, nor did I even mention, backcasts.

You didn't? Riiiiight. It was "false casts", which are still pretty
difficult to do without a backcast. And if you are gonna cast a fly
60 feet, it will be *very* difficult to do without falsecasts and
thereby backcasts. I would still pay big bucks to see you cast 60
feet of line *without* a false cast (which would require a back cast),
eh?

And what about those G3s, Richard? Man, they really are bullet proof.

d;o)

On Fri, 02 May 2008 23:07:41 -0400, Dave LaCourse
wrote:

On Fri, 02 May 2008 21:06:31 -0500, wrote:

I didn't ask about, nor did I even mention, backcasts.

You didn't? Riiiiight. It was "false casts", which are still pretty
difficult to do without a backcast. And if you are gonna cast a fly
60 feet, it will be *very* difficult to do without falsecasts and
thereby backcasts.

Impressive, even for ROFF - incorrect AND non sequitur...

I would still pay big bucks to see you cast 60
feet of line *without* a false cast (which would require a back cast),
eh?

OK, fine, it's a deal. Put your big bucks where your big mouth is...how
about $50,000.00 US dollars? Too big? How about $10,000.00? Not big
enough bucks for you? OK, how about $25,000.00? Make it light on
yourself - what's your definition of "big bucks?"

Put up or shut up,
R

On Sat, 03 May 2008 00:19:17 -0500, wrote:

Put up or shut up,

It would be a waste of precious time, Richard. NO ONE can cast sixty
feet of line with a conventional fly rod - say a 9 ft 5 weight -
without using a false cast and thereby a back cast.

We're gonna hafta call you Lefty Dean before long.

tagh

d;o)