snipe hunt

"Larry L" said clipped for brevity ( trying to maintain humility )

In 1984 a neighbor from San Pedro & I attended the LA Olympic Skeet shooting
venue. After watching them break 25 of 25 I said, "They are pretty good."
He said "They're OK." "Whatta do ya mean," sez I. "Do you think you could
do better." (Bad choice of words on my part) "Yeah, he said if I shot a
lot." "Whatta do ya mean," sez I. "In the 60's I was 1st of two alternates
on the 10 man US Army Skeet team," he said. OOPS, I thought g.

"What did the 2nd alternate shoot," I asked. "498 out of 500," he said.
"What did you shoot," I asked. "499 out of 500,' he said.
"What did the 10 guys on the team shoot," I asked. "500 out of 500. "That
why I was an alternate," he said. "Never could break 500."

After this discussion I knew I'd never be able to improve my shooting to get
a lot of feathers for fly tying because I'd never shoot enough to hit much.
Hats off to you guys that shoot well and shoot a lot!

Good luck!
John

On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 08:01:43 -0600, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 04:55:52 GMT, "Larry L"
wrote:


wrote

Larry, there's no delicate way to ask this, but were you adopted? If
so, was your real pappy a dashing young SabreTigger pilot?



Hehe .....

.....Both the stories ( dove
and duck ) in my last post had their 1 to 1 ratio because I'm patient enough
to wait for shots I can make ... something very few hunters I've met can do.
But, especially with ducks, if you wait stay hidden and don't try the
tougher shots you'll find that the easy ones happen far more often.

I suggest that anyone that wants to become a very good duck hunter ( as
opposed to shot) carry one shell/ duck in the limit, at least a few days
each season ... learning to only move and shoot when you feel certain you
can score is a lesson few hunters ever master

Fair advice, and your good grace my, er, what's the word...what's
the word....AHA! "fatuousness" with the shooting shtick is pretty
cool...OTOH, I notice you didn't answer the "who's yer daddy?"
question...G

TC,
R

I read a newspaper clipping about my dad when he was a boy, and
vouched to by the game warden. My dad brought down 5 ducks with one
shot of a 20 ga. The warden was watching, and said he did not believe
it was possible, but he saw it happen. The only problem with shooting
like that, was that then all he could do for the rest of the day was
set and watch the others blast away. Especially since the warden was
still watching! OvO

wrote:
Put them in a (fairly, at least) airtight container with some _plain_
charcoal briquettes
....

Thanks Richard, I'll try it in that box.

Chas
remove fly fish to e mail directly

"Mike Connor" wrote:

I store a large quantity of materials, and a lot of finished flies using
napthalene moth balls. I air flies well before I use them, and with wet
flies I usually use a good dollop of riverside mud to "treat" them before I
use them. I have never noticed any difference in fish catching
capabilities, between these flies and "freshly" tied ones, from untreated
materials.

Napthalene, and Paradichlorbenzene ( The other commonly used crystals), both
sublimate strongly, and any residue disappears pretty quickly when the flies
or materials are aired.

I do think various smells can be detrimental to flies though. I have seen
fish spook thirty yards or more downstream of a wading angler, and I am
convinced because they got his "scent". I would always try to air my flies
well before use. It is not critical with dry flies it seems, as the fish
have not much chance to "smell" them, but I have always avoided dressings
and the like which cause the fly to produce oily rings etc, as I believe
these can indeed be detrimental. I now prefer the modern "hydrostop"
dressings.

TL
MC


Thanks Mike. I'm going to try rdean's idea with the charcoal. I'm a bit
concerned that the Vinegar might effect the dyes.

I wonder about disturbing fish 30 feet downstream. It's awfully hard to be
silent, and impossible to avoid stirring silt off the bottom. Off hand I'd put
scent below those unless I knew more about the wader. ;-)

I know what you mean about the scent disipating on it's own, but I was
overenthusiastic years ago when I put the mothballs in this box, and it's
really a strong smell. A smart guy in my position would have thrown the old
stuff away years ago, recognizing that there's nothing of great value there.

Chas
remove fly fish to e mail directly

"chas" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
SNIP
Thanks Mike. I'm going to try rdean's idea with the charcoal. I'm a bit
concerned that the Vinegar might effect the dyes.

I wonder about disturbing fish 30 feet downstream. It's awfully hard to
be
silent, and impossible to avoid stirring silt off the bottom. Off hand
I'd put
scent below those unless I knew more about the wader. ;-)

I know what you mean about the scent disipating on it's own, but I was
overenthusiastic years ago when I put the mothballs in this box, and it's
really a strong smell. A smart guy in my position would have thrown the
old
stuff away years ago, recognizing that there's nothing of great value
there.

Chas
remove fly fish to e mail directly


If you want to get the smell off the materials quickly, just wash them in
warm soapy water, rinse thoroughly, and let them dry. The charcoal will
work, but even better is a box of silica gel. You can obtain this at any
flower shop, it is used for drying plants, among other things.

It is very loud indeed in a river. Wading is hardly heard even at a
comparatively short distance. Rocks, silt, etc etc are moving all the time,
and water rushing üast obstructions makes a very loud noise. I don´t worry
about noise at all, but I do worry about scent.

TL
MC

"Mike Connor" wrote in
:

It is very loud indeed in a river. Wading is hardly heard even at a
comparatively short distance. Rocks, silt, etc etc are moving all the
time, and water rushing �ast obstructions makes a very loud noise. I
donït worry about noise at all, but I do worry about scent.

TL
MC



I worry alot about noise, but I think this is relatively low range. The
lateral line system is exquisite for sensing vibration, and is a huge
hunting tool in some situations.


--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

"Mike Connor" wrote:

If you want to get the smell off the materials quickly, just wash them in
warm soapy water, rinse thoroughly, and let them dry. The charcoal will
work, but even better is a box of silica gel. You can obtain this at any
flower shop, it is used for drying plants, among other things.

The best ideas yet, thanks.

It is very loud indeed in a river. Wading is hardly heard even at a
comparatively short distance. Rocks, silt, etc etc are moving all the time,
and water rushing üast obstructions makes a very loud noise. I don´t worry
about noise at all, but I do worry about scent.


Interesting. I know what you mean, but these disturbances all follow patterns
that the fish are used to, when the pattern changes I think (but don't actually
know) they are alerted. It could be much like the way we can pick a familiar
voice out of a throng, or recognize a friend at a distance by some subtle
nuance of motion. I'm going to think about testing this, off hand it seems
like it would be hard to get a good test that wasn't muddled by too many
variables.

Thanks,
Chas

Chas
remove fly fish to e mail directly

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 00:36:33 -0600, chas
wrote:

(snipped)

Interesting. I know what you mean, but these disturbances all follow patterns
that the fish are used to, when the pattern changes I think (but don't actually
know) they are alerted. It could be much like the way we can pick a familiar
voice out of a throng, or recognize a friend at a distance by some subtle
nuance of motion. I'm going to think about testing this, off hand it seems
like it would be hard to get a good test that wasn't muddled by too many
variables.


Try to walk like a deer? They generally step in the water one slow
step at a time, stop and have a drink, maybe do another bodily
function or two, and then move on a bit or get out of the water. I
don't know what they do between knee level and swimming level, though.
But there are very often deer walking / swimming across trout streams.
Otters disturb the bottom, too. Think of all the things that do
disturb the silt and then try to move like that?

Cyli
r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli
email: lid (strip the .invalid to email)

chas wrote:



Interesting. I know what you mean, but these disturbances all follow patterns
that the fish are used to, when the pattern changes I think (but don't actually
know) they are alerted. It could be much like the way we can pick a familiar
voice out of a throng, or recognize a friend at a distance by some subtle
nuance of motion. I'm going to think about testing this, off hand it seems
like it would be hard to get a good test that wasn't muddled by too many
variables.


I agree with this "pattern change" and the acclimation you're talking
about. Through in frequent interacts with humans and a variety of
"different" behaviors occurs. Here's a few of my personal observations.

My home river, as it goes through town, has a bike path along the side
on one bank. The path is heavily used by bikers, horseback riders,
joggers, walkers, kids etc. In several areas, the fish will move into
shallow water to feed during a hatch and are undisturbed by the people
passing by. However, if you stop on the path to watch them feed, unless
you are behind a tree or bush, they will spook off into the depths.

The fish will continue to surface feed while ducks, muskrats, beavers,
etc swim in their midst, even during low, slow water conditions. I even
had a beaver do a tail slap one evening while fishing the hatch and the
fish continued to feed. A dog going for a swim, even at a distance, will
put down the fish. For the fisherman, these fish are VERY difficult.
When these fish are feeding in shallow water, even a small "wave", a
push of water or a couple rocks clunked together when wading will spook
the fish back into deep water. A "less than good" cast will do the same.

Fish learn and acclimate themselves to their surroundings including
interactions with humans. Heavily fished C&R rivers give some of the
best examples. The "San Juan Shuffle" where fish are attracted to wading
anglers is the most "famous" example. On some of these heavily
rivers, the fish have learned to avoid strike indicators. The indicators
don't spook the fish, but as they pass over the fish, the fish will move
a foot or so into a different feeding lane and continue feeding often
returning to their original feeding lane after a few seconds.

Although this is an oversimplification, naive trout spook easily but
are tolerant of "mistakes" in presentation and fly selection. Heavily
fished over fish can be easily approached but are demanding in terms of
both presentation and fly selection.


Willi

Cyli wrote:
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 00:36:33 -0600, chas
wrote:

(snipped)

Interesting. I know what you mean, but these disturbances all follow
patterns
that the fish are used to, when the pattern changes I think (but don't
actually
know) they are alerted. It could be much like the way we can pick a familiar
voice out of a throng, or recognize a friend at a distance by some subtle
nuance of motion. I'm going to think about testing this, off hand it seems
like it would be hard to get a good test that wasn't muddled by too many
variables.


Try to walk like a deer? They generally step in the water one slow
step at a time, stop and have a drink, maybe do another bodily
function or two, and then move on a bit or get out of the water. I
don't know what they do between knee level and swimming level, though.
But there are very often deer walking / swimming across trout streams.
Otters disturb the bottom, too. Think of all the things that do
disturb the silt and then try to move like that?

Cyli

What I was concerned about was trying to make only 1 disturbance and trying to
observer the trout at the same time to see if just that one disturbance
bothered them. Just getting close enough to see the trout is often enough to
spook them. Trying to only make noise, but not have them see you or see waves
you make is difficult. I suppose the watching could be done by a second
stealthy observer.

As for the deer, I'm sure they disturb trout often. Trout are often skittish,
but what bothers them is largely a function of what they are used to. The
cutthroat in the Yellowstone in the park in August have seen so many people
wading around that they don't even flinch when you walk in and bend over to
watch them eat tiny nymphs. Those fish wouldn't be the ones to try this test
with. I suspect the opposite end of the spectrum would be steelhead in low
water.

My point is that it's hard to devise a way to determine experimentally what
sort of things disturb trout, and what sort of things are not a problem because
it's hard to all at once 1) observe the trout without them knowing it, 2) make
just one sort of disturbance, and 3) determine if the fish were bothered by
that disturbance. Presuming success in this, then we just know about that one
fish or group of fish, now we need to run the experiment on other fish
populations.

Chas
remove fly fish to e mail directly