Gudie or No Guide

"asadi" wrote in message
news

"Mr. Opus McDopus"
If you are doing a float trip, a guide might be a necessity, while
wading may be just as easily accomplished sans the guide.

As I have never employed the services of a guide, I can't really speak on
the matter authoritatively.

Op

\
bull...I've taken you fishing plenty of times...of course, I shouldnt'
comment as we're not on speakin terms right now....

john

Why aren't we on speakin' terms, right now? We've never been on speakin'
terms! :~^ )

Send me an email at: I tried to email you the other
day and it bounced back? It has turned cold and nasty here of late, and I
haven't fished in a few months, but hopefully, if you get down here in Nov.,
maybe we can hit a decent stretch of waters like we did two years ago around
Turkey Day!

I can't say for sure, *right now,* but I see the neuro-doc on the 9th of
Nov., and hope to set-up my surgery for the x-mas break. I have several
papers, yet to be turned in for class, so that could dampin' my fishin'
prospects for Nov. as well. I'm fairly certain that Greg's campgrounds are
shut-down now, but you can stay with me, really!!, this time. However, you
must let me know a week in advance, so I can clean-up the place, as it is a
mess.

I'll tie you up a few of Opie's Trout Seducers, and we can see if they work
as well in the cold as they do in the heat of the Summer.

Op

On 27 Oct 2006 12:26:42 -0700, "rb608" wrote:

salmobytes wrote:
When Bob Auger was still managing the semi-famous
DePuy Spring Creek, near Livingston MT,
he once told me he had been studying the booking/report
logs, which showed customers who hired guides averaged
(during July, when the most bugs were hatching)
11 fish per day more than customers who fished alone.

I wouldn't be a bit surprised. Surely the expertise of a guide would
be a factor; but I doubt it's a fraction of the overall difference.
What are the possible differences with vs. without a guide? Waste less
time on less productive water. Better fly selection for the conditions
encountered. I suspect there are also a number of intangibles
difficult to quantify. Do you start your day earlier? Fish later? Take
fewer breaks? Concentrate more? After all, you want to impress the
guy you're not just some newbie with an Orvis credit card.

Then there are the realities that the guide has an undeniable
expectation to ensure you catch fish, not just "enjoy the
experience", because you'll enjoy the experience more if you
don't shell out a few Franklins. So the guide will have you doing
things you might not ordinarily do, not necessarily to make you a
better fisherman, but to better your chances for numbers. And if
numbers are the measurement, the guides will win every time on average.

And speaking of averages, factor in the ambient skills of those who
hire a guide vs. those who don't. I'm not really sure which way
that would sway the numbers. To be sure, there are newbies who need a
guide and experts who prefer a guide; but my unscientific guess is that
the more aggressive "success-based" fishermen, those who spend more
time and money on the sport, are those more likely to consider their
wallet a part of their tackle box.

I don't really have a point; I'm just rambling.

Joe F.

Ramble on, my friend :-)

Perhaps a goodly part of his answer - at least on that particular river -
might be due to the guide spotting actively feeding trout from the bank, and
guiding the cast to same.

Cheers

/daytripper

Wolfgang wrote:
"Peter A. Collin" wrote in message
...
PRM wrote:
Pretty simple question.

Do you prefer to have a guide or not?
One fun alternative to a guide would be an "ambassadeur".

I live in an area that is popular among fishermen nationwide. Sometimes i
befriend somebody from far away. I will show what I know on my native
streams, and then visit my "ambassedeur" friend, who will guide me on his.
A very nice setup.

There was no quid pro quo!

Wolfgang
and the internets is not a big truck.


I think I am too young to understand this joke.