line choice for beginner

Mike Connor wrote:

However this may be, could it possibly be that you are trying to trap me
Stephen?

Of course not. It's merely a difference of opinion about fly lines.
Sheesh! :-)

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

HI,

Mike - RW has put out the same opinion as mine, and you insist that a
beginner will not find the WF useful. You mentioned as well the casting
requirement in Germany, I believe it was.
So, a question - what standard did these people have to cast to? In my
experience, and this is where we seem to diverge in our outlook, I can get
most (I'd say 90- 95%) of my clients to cast to 30 to 40 feet in one
day-long, private, session and maybe 75% of a group class (4-10 people per
instructor) will do the same. It is therefore very reasonable for me to
assume that a WF does have advantages, because they will then be able fairly
quickly to cast the 40 -50 feet where the WF line IS an advantage.
I would be interested in hearing the standard as I also teach Guides to
cast, and we have a standard they have to pass - almost all elect to use a
WF line to hit the 45 feet, and some of these people are not very
experienced fly fishers, as Guides in Nova Scotia can and do specialize in
spinning or other gear for bass and the like.

Bill
http://www.tightlines.ca

"Mike Connor" wrote in message
...

"rw" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
ink.net...
SNIP --
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

I would disagree with some points,( indeed I already have), and I have
already stated why, but otherwise, that is a reasonably fair synopsis.
You
don´t care much about the extra expense, or the known disadvantages, as
you
seem to have more advantages for your type of fishing, and you know what
the things are for and how they work.Of course you are not a beginner, and
apparently not gnawing on a hunger rag either. This can colour one´s
perceptions !

Objectivity can be very subjective!

TL
MC

"Bill Curry" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
HI,

Mike - RW has put out the same opinion as mine, and you insist that a
beginner will not find the WF useful. You mentioned as well the casting
requirement in Germany, I believe it was.
So, a question - what standard did these people have to cast to? In my
experience, and this is where we seem to diverge in our outlook, I can get
most (I'd say 90- 95%) of my clients to cast to 30 to 40 feet in one
day-long, private, session and maybe 75% of a group class (4-10 people per
instructor) will do the same. It is therefore very reasonable for me to
assume that a WF does have advantages, because they will then be able
fairly
quickly to cast the 40 -50 feet where the WF line IS an advantage.
I would be interested in hearing the standard as I also teach Guides to
cast, and we have a standard they have to pass - almost all elect to use a
WF line to hit the 45 feet, and some of these people are not very
experienced fly fishers, as Guides in Nova Scotia can and do specialize in
spinning or other gear for bass and the like.

Bill
http://www.tightlines.ca



They have to make five casts of 15 metres or more, for which no points are
given, it just has to be accomplished, within 6 minutes, and they have to
make ten accuracy casts to a target from 5, 8, 10, 12 and 15 meters. The
minimum score to pass the test is 60 points. Maximum possible score is 100.
The center of the target is 0,75 m in diameter, and counts ten points, the
next ring is larger, 1,35/1,95/2,55/3,15 m and counts less etc etc. The
target is a so called "Arenberg Scheibe". Any rod and line may be used. A
leader of nine feet is used, and a size ten fly with the hook bend clipped
off.

All my pupils use a nine foot #5 wt rod with #5 DT floater

The test is carried out on grass. I metre = 3.28 feet

Before people may take the fly-fishing test, they must complete the baitcast
ing/ spincasting test.

Rod no longer than 1,5 m. Standard open faced spinning reel.
Weight : Plastic bomb 7,5 g

Cast technique : Pendulum cast / Sidecast right / Overhead cast /
Sidecast left / freestyle
Time limit : 5:00 Minutes
Number of casts : 1 x 5 x 2
Points : 10, 8, 6, 4, 2 / Hits
Possible points : 100

Minimum pass score 60 points

Start= 5.
Type : Startboard
Dimensions : L 1,00 / H 0,10 m

Target :1
Type five ring Arenberg target

Measurements : Dm. 0,75/1,35/1,95/2,55/3,15 m

Distance :Start - Target : 10, 12, 18, 14, 16 m


There is not much point in my repeating what I have already written several
times. If you believe the WF has advantages, then you believe it, and there
is nothing at all to be done about it.

I don´t think the WF is of advantage to a beginner, and I have explained why
I think so.

Here is why I think the DT is better.

1. It can be cast up to sixty feet at least with no problems. It must not be
shot. Indeed, given the necessary skill, one may cast the whole line.
2. It can be mended at any distance.
3. It is not necessary to retrieve before recasting.
4. It can be reversed when worn, or even cut in half to start with. And is
therefore cheaper.
5. It does not wear out so quickly.
7. It handles somewhat better than running line, and is less prone to
tangle.
6. It is available everywhere as a "standard" line.
7. It can be roll cast quite easily.

Here is why I think the WF is not better.

1. Once the head is outside the rings, the line must be shot
2. Once the head is outside the rings, the line can not be mended
3. It is necessary to retrieve the head before recasting.
4. Once the head is outside the rings it can not be roll cast.
5. It wears out much more quickly.
6. The handling is not as good as a DT, the running line is thinner, and
more prone to tangle.
7. For maximum efficiency, a haul must be used. This is very difficult for
beginners.
8. In order to load the rod better at close range, heavier WF lines are
used. This is bad for presentation.

So, I think that was about it.

TL
MC

Mike Connor wrote:

5. It wears out much more quickly.

I recall you claiming at one point that it was not practical to switch a
DT around on the reel after one side end wore out. Have you changed your
opinion about that?

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

"Mike Connor" wrote in message
...

"DaveMohnsen" schrieb im
Newsbeitrag ink.net...

"Allen Epps" wrote in message
et...
In article , Mike Connor
wrote:

snipped

With regard to the "thousands" of people I have taught to cast. This
sounds
ridiculous of course, but is a fact. Where I live, people are
obliged
to
take a number of tests before they can go fishing. For a long time I
instructed large numbers of people wishing to do this. Often up to
a
hundred or more at a time, and several times a year. Normally, most
could
cast well enough to pass the test after two Saturday mornings
instruction,
and a couple of days practicing on their own.

TL
MC

Mike,

A bit off topic for the subject but I was intrigued by the idea of
required instruction prior to taking up fishing. Driving, sure (in
fact, most in the US ought to go back for a refresher! ) Hunting,
makes
good sense as you're dealing with potentially lethal mistakes, but
fishing? Is it conservation that they want to teach or is it a safety
issue? I fish with Frank Reid regularly so no one is more aware of the
dangers of fishing than me (and I've pulled some pretty stupid stuff
myself I just don't share it!) but I can't think of any classroom or
on-the-water course that would have saved me.

Happy Easter

Allen
Catonsville, MD

Hi Allen,
Mike and I had a little bit of recollection a few years ago as I recall
about fishing in Germany. As you were in the military, as me, certain
"rules", at the time were made much easier for US military personnel.
Certainly the standard Germany bureaucratic things happen, but as I
recall,
I had to only show a US license, from any state, spend a long time
waiting
in an office, a military ID, then get a license. . .with a small fee.
Of course, most areas after that were pay as you go, and stocked trout,
but
kinda neat, if flyfishing was allowed. ( generally couldn't catch and
release) Residents have to go through a much more regulated process to
get
a license. . .uhhh . . .with money. BestWishes,
DaveMohnsen
Denver



It is not actually all that expensive to get a licence. Most clubs charge
about thirty dollars for the complete course. Registered and examined
instructors give their time free. ( Although some try to make money
flogging gear, or "sponsoring" tackle shops!).

The licence itself is also cheap enough, although this varies from State
to
State. In some places it must be renewed ( for a fee) yearly, in others
at
three year intervals, and in still others it is for life. German fishery
law
is governed federally, but national law overrides it.

As a foreigner, you can get a licence relatively easily, but you will
still
have problems finding somewhere to fish, as most clubs, ( who have the
best
water) will not allow anybody to fish who has not passed the test, even if
they have a licence! Catch 22.

You can fish put and takes, and private water for a fee, as long as you
have
a licence.

For more info, have a look here;

http://www.cybertrout.com/germany.htm

http://www.users.odn.de/~odn03061/

TL
MC


Hi Mike,
Thanks for the links.
DaveMohnsen

dave - as a partisan and advocate for top posting, let me simply say if
ever there was an argument in favor of top posting, your response to
mike and allen in the thread below is the best evidence i can find. of
course, i like tp'ing because it's contrarian *and* it bothers
fortenberry G.

jeff

DaveMohnsen wrote:

"Mike Connor" wrote in message
...

"DaveMohnsen" schrieb im
Newsbeitrag ink.net...

"Allen Epps" wrote in message
t.net...

In article , Mike Connor
wrote:

snipped


With regard to the "thousands" of people I have taught to cast. This

sounds

ridiculous of course, but is a fact. Where I live, people are

obliged

to

take a number of tests before they can go fishing. For a long time I
instructed large numbers of people wishing to do this. Often up to

a

hundred or more at a time, and several times a year. Normally, most

could

cast well enough to pass the test after two Saturday mornings

instruction,

and a couple of days practicing on their own.

TL
MC

Mike,

A bit off topic for the subject but I was intrigued by the idea of
required instruction prior to taking up fishing. Driving, sure (in
fact, most in the US ought to go back for a refresher! ) Hunting,

makes

good sense as you're dealing with potentially lethal mistakes, but
fishing? Is it conservation that they want to teach or is it a safety
issue? I fish with Frank Reid regularly so no one is more aware of the
dangers of fishing than me (and I've pulled some pretty stupid stuff
myself I just don't share it!) but I can't think of any classroom or
on-the-water course that would have saved me.

Happy Easter

Allen
Catonsville, MD

Hi Allen,
Mike and I had a little bit of recollection a few years ago as I recall
about fishing in Germany. As you were in the military, as me, certain
"rules", at the time were made much easier for US military personnel.
Certainly the standard Germany bureaucratic things happen, but as I

recall,

I had to only show a US license, from any state, spend a long time

waiting

in an office, a military ID, then get a license. . .with a small fee.
Of course, most areas after that were pay as you go, and stocked trout,

but

kinda neat, if flyfishing was allowed. ( generally couldn't catch and
release) Residents have to go through a much more regulated process to

get

a license. . .uhhh . . .with money. BestWishes,
DaveMohnsen
Denver



It is not actually all that expensive to get a licence. Most clubs charge
about thirty dollars for the complete course. Registered and examined
instructors give their time free. ( Although some try to make money
flogging gear, or "sponsoring" tackle shops!).

The licence itself is also cheap enough, although this varies from State

to

State. In some places it must be renewed ( for a fee) yearly, in others

at

three year intervals, and in still others it is for life. German fishery

law

is governed federally, but national law overrides it.

As a foreigner, you can get a licence relatively easily, but you will

still

have problems finding somewhere to fish, as most clubs, ( who have the

best

water) will not allow anybody to fish who has not passed the test, even if
they have a licence! Catch 22.

You can fish put and takes, and private water for a fee, as long as you

have

a licence.

For more info, have a look here;

http://www.cybertrout.com/germany.htm

http://www.users.odn.de/~odn03061/

TL
MC



Hi Mike,
Thanks for the links.
DaveMohnsen

Jeff wrote:

... i like tp'ing because it's contrarian *and* it bothers
fortenberry G.

Dave reposted that whole damn thing just to add "Thanks Mike", which
makes him every bit as clueless and stupid as your typical top-poster.
My mentioning this should not be construed as being "bothered" by it.

I wasn't going to weigh in on this thread, but since my name has been
invoked I will.

I lived on the Lamar River, have fished every friggin' foot of it
from the Mirror Plateau to the confluence of the Yellowstone and,
stories from Canuckian guides notwithstanding, I have NEVER found
it necessary to make a 65' cast to catch a fish. That's silly.

Having said that, I can cast a 5WF farther than a 5DT with the
same fly rod and I think that's why some recommend WF lines to
beginners. I no longer buy anything but DT.

--
Ken Fortenberry

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
...
Jeff wrote:

... i like tp'ing because it's contrarian *and* it bothers
fortenberry G.

Dave reposted that whole damn thing just to add "Thanks Mike", which
makes him every bit as clueless and stupid as your typical top-poster.
My mentioning this should not be construed as being "bothered" by it.

I wasn't going to weigh in on this thread, but since my name has been
invoked I will.

I lived on the Lamar River, have fished every friggin' foot of it
from the Mirror Plateau to the confluence of the Yellowstone and,
stories from Canuckian guides notwithstanding, I have NEVER found
it necessary to make a 65' cast to catch a fish. That's silly.

Having said that, I can cast a 5WF farther than a 5DT with the
same fly rod and I think that's why some recommend WF lines to
beginners. I no longer buy anything but DT.

--
Ken Fortenberry


Thanks, Ken.
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

Tim J. wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
snip
Having said that, ...

Thanks, Ken.

You and Jeff appear to be intent on making the same point, that is,
bottom-posters can be just as clueless and stupid as top-posters.

I concede the point.

--
Ken Fortenberry

In Mike Connor wrote:

Here is why I think the DT is better.

1. It can be cast up to sixty feet at least with no problems.
It must not be shot. Indeed, given the necessary skill, one
may cast the whole line.

Indeed. If anybody decides to try casting the entire
line, one *may* want to use a heavier rod while practicing on
this. Broke a 7 wt. fiberglass rod once with a whole DT7F
in the air... :-/ It was pretty, until the rod went
"CRRRRRICK....".

Todd (remove hook to reply)