Dual nymphs

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)

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
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.

hmmm....not even by letting out, say 45 feet of line into the flow, then
roll casting and feeding the other 15 feet on the roll?? I'm not sure that
can't be done. Not all all sure.
Tom

On Sat, 03 May 2008 14:58:11 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:

hmmm....not even by letting out, say 45 feet of line into the flow, then
roll casting and feeding the other 15 feet on the roll?? I'm not sure that
can't be done. Not all all sure.

Would YOU want to fish like that? A nymph (usually fished weighted)
would drag down some of the line. Try it, Tom, and get back to us.
d;o)

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
Would YOU want to fish like that?

No, it's hardly a favorite method for me, but it CAN be done. In fact, that
was the only way to get to a very good midstream trout at Penn's last week
with a pair of wets.
I'd love to report that I landed the fish, but I did hook and lose it.....

A nymph (usually fished weighted)
would drag down some of the line. Try it, Tom, and get back to us.
d;o)

as reported above, I have, but only with unweighted flies.
In fact, I use that cast a few times in the fall with streamers, on a 6
weight, clear intermediate tipped floater.
We're talking about 3 inch Brown Trout imitations in heavy water, in this
case.
And, no, before the nit-picking enters, I wouldn't recommend such a
long-range flail with weighted nymphs.
In fact, I wouldn't recommend anything beyond getting as close to the quarry
as one can when fishing with weighted nymphs.
Tom

On Sat, 03 May 2008 10:41:13 -0400, Dave LaCourse
wrote:

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.

Uh-huh...sounds a whole lot like the wiggling of a loud-mouthed coward.
You never said anything about "conventional" or "a 9 ft. 5 weight" or no
back cast when you were running your mouth about "big bucks" and how it
couldn't be done without a false cast:

"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?"

It's becoming obvious that you don't have anywhere near the stones to
actually follow through with what you ran your mouth about OR have the
stones to admit that you popped off a bit quick, but just to finish it -
I'll do it as you offered, and do it with a conventional fly rod - heck,
some special rod isn't necessary anyway. What's your idea of "big
bucks" - $50,000.00 US dollars? $10,000.00 US dollars? How many US
dollars do you consider "big bucks?"

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

And "we're" gonna have to call you a loud-mouthed puss right here and
now...

Put up or shut up,
R

tagh

d;o)

On Sat, 03 May 2008 10:39:06 -0500, wrote:

It's becoming obvious that you don't have anywhere near the stones to
actually follow through with what you ran your mouth about OR have the
stones to admit that you popped off a bit quick, but just to finish it -
I'll do it as you offered, and do it with a conventional fly rod - heck,
some special rod isn't necessary anyway. What's your idea of "big
bucks" - $50,000.00 US dollars? $10,000.00 US dollars? How many US
dollars do you consider "big bucks?"


Ok, Richard. Maine, the Rapid River, last week in May. Show up. Big
bucks would be $100. And we were talking about nymphing. You nymph
with a 5 or 6 weight, not a 12 weight salt water rod, and not a spey
rod. Five or six weight. Show up. I'll be there. BTW, you could
cast a nymph more than 60 feet WITH a spey rod, but most (all?) of us
nymph with 5 or 6 weights. Some even 4 weights. And, I'm betting
that you could cast a nymph more than 60 feet with a 12 weight without
false casting.

Come on.

I've always wanted to meet you anyway, but having been to Mississippi
and Louisiana after Katrina, have no interest whatsoever of returning.
Do hope you understand, bucko.

Davey

On Sat, 03 May 2008 12:30:51 -0400, Dave LaCourse
wrote:

On Sat, 03 May 2008 10:39:06 -0500, wrote:

It's becoming obvious that you don't have anywhere near the stones to
actually follow through with what you ran your mouth about OR have the
stones to admit that you popped off a bit quick, but just to finish it -
I'll do it as you offered, and do it with a conventional fly rod - heck,
some special rod isn't necessary anyway. What's your idea of "big
bucks" - $50,000.00 US dollars? $10,000.00 US dollars? How many US
dollars do you consider "big bucks?"


Ok, Richard. Maine, the Rapid River, last week in May. Show up. Big
bucks would be $100. And we were talking about nymphing. You nymph
with a 5 or 6 weight, not a 12 weight salt water rod, and not a spey
rod. Five or six weight. Show up. I'll be there. BTW, you could
cast a nymph more than 60 feet WITH a spey rod, but most (all?) of us
nymph with 5 or 6 weights. Some even 4 weights. And, I'm betting
that you could cast a nymph more than 60 feet with a 12 weight without
false casting.

Come on.

I've always wanted to meet you anyway, but having been to Mississippi
and Louisiana after Katrina, have no interest whatsoever of returning.
Do hope you understand, bucko.

Davey

Uh-huh. More wiggling and creative editing (and what's the point of
that, anyway - the posts are there for anyone interested to see and
read...). If you just had the stones to say, "Hey, perhaps I was a bit
hasty..." It's obvious you don't have the balls or the "big bucks" to
put up or shut up, so that's about the end of it.

And there you are,
R