Question about loop leaders?

JR writes:

I
fish for my own pleasure and satisfaction; any guides who can guarantee
that? g.

Depends. d;o)

I had a guide on the Big Horn that more or less let me do my own thing. Same
on my trip to Alaska. The guide on the Big Horn didn't want to stop so I could
sight fish a very big brown. I told him that I wanted to try, so we put down
the anchor. I passed nymph after nymph at him. It was like he was angry at
me, for he moved his station a couple of times. Finally, (out of frustration?)
he took a perfect drift. It took 15 minutes and the guide was happy - he
didn't have row. He was one of the best guides I've ever had, and
unfortunately, I've lost his card.

"Willi & Sue" wrote



There was VERY little mention of midge
fishing in the angling literature.

Eventually there were a few guys that learned the tricks needed to
consistently take the "impossible" fish in the Canyon. They were pretty
closed mouthed about it, but rumors were around. Then one of the guys
in the know, published an article in Outdoor Life that revealed many of
the
secrets. The author his method of dead drifting tiny nymphs on a weighted
leader under an indicator (a small cork). I'm not sure but I think the
South
Platte was where this type of fly fishing first started.

This got the ball rolling.

That brings us to the present where fishermen, even novices, are able to
consistently take fish on some of our tailwaters using a variety of
techniques while fishing flies as small as a size 28. (I've had people
claim that they use even smaller flies, but I've never come across
anyone with one on their leader. Bruce?) On some tailwaters a size 22
and 24 fly is
standard fare.


so, willi, what do you think about the use of 20+ size nymphs in
freestone streams from 20 to 50 feet wide?

yfitons
wayno

"Willi & Sue" wrote



There was VERY little mention of midge
fishing in the angling literature.

Eventually there were a few guys that learned the tricks needed to
consistently take the "impossible" fish in the Canyon. They were pretty
closed mouthed about it, but rumors were around. Then one of the guys
in the know, published an article in Outdoor Life that revealed many of
the
secrets. The author his method of dead drifting tiny nymphs on a weighted
leader under an indicator (a small cork). I'm not sure but I think the
South
Platte was where this type of fly fishing first started.

This got the ball rolling.

That brings us to the present where fishermen, even novices, are able to
consistently take fish on some of our tailwaters using a variety of
techniques while fishing flies as small as a size 28. (I've had people
claim that they use even smaller flies, but I've never come across
anyone with one on their leader. Bruce?) On some tailwaters a size 22
and 24 fly is
standard fare.


so, willi, what do you think about the use of 20+ size nymphs in
freestone streams from 20 to 50 feet wide?

yfitons
wayno

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 23:42:11 GMT, daytripper wrote:

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 15:36:41 -0400, "Tim J."
wrote:

wrote:

Well, there are a couple of sayings in Texas (one of which wayno is
surprisingly but apparently familiar...) that seem apropos: "If yer
gonna whine about the horns, don't mess with the bull..." and
"Contracts? We don't need no contracts - we just shake hands and
whip the welsher's ass..."

That's "welcher", you illiterate tejan buffoon.

No, it isn't.

"Thanks Dad" apparently never learned how to run a spell checker ;-)

Pot, meet Dave, Dave, meet Pot...oh, sorry, I didn't realize you two were
already well acquainted...

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 23:42:11 GMT, daytripper wrote:

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 15:36:41 -0400, "Tim J."
wrote:

wrote:

Well, there are a couple of sayings in Texas (one of which wayno is
surprisingly but apparently familiar...) that seem apropos: "If yer
gonna whine about the horns, don't mess with the bull..." and
"Contracts? We don't need no contracts - we just shake hands and
whip the welsher's ass..."

That's "welcher", you illiterate tejan buffoon.

No, it isn't.

"Thanks Dad" apparently never learned how to run a spell checker ;-)

Pot, meet Dave, Dave, meet Pot...oh, sorry, I didn't realize you two were
already well acquainted...

wrote...
SEE! SEE! I tried to tell you - loops are BIG trouble!

:-(

--
Warren
(use troutbum_mt and earth(nospam)link dot net to reply via email)

wrote...
SEE! SEE! I tried to tell you - loops are BIG trouble!

:-(

--
Warren
(use troutbum_mt and earth(nospam)link dot net to reply via email)

"Willi & Sue" wrote in message
...
riverman wrote:


However, not knowing that you needed submicroscopic nymphs, where the
'hot spots' were, what the local technique was, or where the 'better'
fish were merely meant that I had a great day fishing and figuring it out
for myself, which is what I like best about fishing. Personally, I hate
things that become 'popular' because all sorts of stupid artificial rules
start coming in. Suddenly, certain gear is de rigeur, other gear is
'square' or 'old fashioned'. Even in the non fishing world, I hate that
****. Gotta have the right shoes, the right haircut, the right car, gotta
live in the right neighborhood. Hey, its still rock-and-roll to me, I'd
rather live my own life.


(As long as no one is stopping you from "living your own life" what
difference does it make what other people do. If someone doesn't like
you because you
don't wear the"right shoes", I don't think you're gonna miss that
person's friendship anyway. You seem to be quite bothered by the "in"
thing. It's a fairly
common thread in your posts. I don't know if we'll get back to the point
where
we're seen as weird guys in rubber pants, but I do think the "in" aspect
of fly
fishing is waning.)

Hmmm, psychoanalyzed or roff....let me brace for this. ;-)

Actually, its not so complicated: I just don't like things that are
'trendy', and if I'm doing something that becomes trendy (or I discover that
it already was and I just didn't know), then it somehow compromises part of
my experience doing it.

I think anyone here who fished before The Movie came out can express what I
am saying. Of course, its not all bad: along with trendiness comes more
access to better gear, etc, but it still takes its price away from the
'personal experience'.

The times on roff I have mentioned the 'in' thing, it was in the context of
discovering that fly fishing was much more trendy than I realized when I
started learning in Latvia, and having to deal with that discovery. I
mentioned feeling that when I saw hundreds of fishermen on the Juan all
dressed alike, but many with superexpensive gear and not really catching all
that many fish; a clear sign of trendiness. I don't remember mentioning it
otherwise, except laughing at the image once of someone fishing behind a
local supermarket. I had this mental image of someone standing in a grocery
cart-clogged drainage ditch, plastic bags everywhere, busted bottles and
wooden crates, trying to catch fish between the oil slicks. Remember, my
vision of a city may be different than most. :-)


--riverman

"Willi & Sue" wrote in message
...
riverman wrote:


However, not knowing that you needed submicroscopic nymphs, where the
'hot spots' were, what the local technique was, or where the 'better'
fish were merely meant that I had a great day fishing and figuring it out
for myself, which is what I like best about fishing. Personally, I hate
things that become 'popular' because all sorts of stupid artificial rules
start coming in. Suddenly, certain gear is de rigeur, other gear is
'square' or 'old fashioned'. Even in the non fishing world, I hate that
****. Gotta have the right shoes, the right haircut, the right car, gotta
live in the right neighborhood. Hey, its still rock-and-roll to me, I'd
rather live my own life.


(As long as no one is stopping you from "living your own life" what
difference does it make what other people do. If someone doesn't like
you because you
don't wear the"right shoes", I don't think you're gonna miss that
person's friendship anyway. You seem to be quite bothered by the "in"
thing. It's a fairly
common thread in your posts. I don't know if we'll get back to the point
where
we're seen as weird guys in rubber pants, but I do think the "in" aspect
of fly
fishing is waning.)

Hmmm, psychoanalyzed or roff....let me brace for this. ;-)

Actually, its not so complicated: I just don't like things that are
'trendy', and if I'm doing something that becomes trendy (or I discover that
it already was and I just didn't know), then it somehow compromises part of
my experience doing it.

I think anyone here who fished before The Movie came out can express what I
am saying. Of course, its not all bad: along with trendiness comes more
access to better gear, etc, but it still takes its price away from the
'personal experience'.

The times on roff I have mentioned the 'in' thing, it was in the context of
discovering that fly fishing was much more trendy than I realized when I
started learning in Latvia, and having to deal with that discovery. I
mentioned feeling that when I saw hundreds of fishermen on the Juan all
dressed alike, but many with superexpensive gear and not really catching all
that many fish; a clear sign of trendiness. I don't remember mentioning it
otherwise, except laughing at the image once of someone fishing behind a
local supermarket. I had this mental image of someone standing in a grocery
cart-clogged drainage ditch, plastic bags everywhere, busted bottles and
wooden crates, trying to catch fish between the oil slicks. Remember, my
vision of a city may be different than most. :-)


--riverman

Dave LaCourse wrote:
Willi writes:

Thanks for that, Willi. About what year did nymphing with an indicator and
split shot start on the N. Platte?


(It was the South Platte) Much of what I wrote about happened before I
came to Colorado in 1973? Indicators were somewhat popular by them. Dave
Mohnsen might know the answer to that.

Willi