Register now on PaFlyFish.com! Login
HOME FORUM BLOG PHOTOS LINKS


Sponsors

Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users



« 1 2 3 4 (5) 6 7 8 ... 26 »


Re: To count or not to count- that is the question.

Joined:
2008/1/31 17:19
From Pretty much everywhere at some point, Thorndale today.
Posts: 13421
Offline
The best stealth is distance! Yeah, yeah, keep low and all that. And I can't say I've never crawled. But only if you have to. If you can keep a decent distance and still make a decent cast, thats better than all the crawling in the world, and much easier on the knees and back.

My biggest problem with spooking fish is always the rod. Nomatter how close you crawl without spooking them, when it comes time to cast a rod moving overhead will spook em every time. Again, distance is your friend. Thats what makes the thick streams so difficult (and fun). It's also what makes dry flies more effective, IMO. There are exceptions, but at most times of the year the fish will take anything, and dries are simply easier to fish at distance.

Quote:
Pat, my math may be off, but would 3 miles in 4 hours be equal to 66 feet per minute? That seems to be an awfully quick pace unless every 10 minutes or so, you just hightailed it upstream a tenth of a mile or so.


Well, a cast to the tail out, move up a few feet, a cast to the meat of the pool, move up a little, a cast to the head, and hightail it for the next pool or run. Yup.

Other factors affecting speed:

Distance between pools or runs: Obvious. If good holding water is common, you do more fishing and less walking.

# of people in the party: With one person, you keep moving. With 2, you leapfrog, starting at the furthest point upstream of the other guy where he can still see you, so he doesn't fish water you just waded through. When he gets to your starting point, he'll jump you in a similar fashion. So you move twice as quick. With 3 people, the length of the "jumps" doubles, so you go 3 times as quick. With 4 or more, I usually abandon a serious fishing approach, and go for the more social "take turns" approach. 3 guys watching and 1 guy fishing will really slow you down and kill your fish total, but its usually educational to watch and fun to get the banter going.

Streamside brush: Slower, more careful approach to holes and slower streamside walking, it slows you down considerably.

Snags: Snag a tree behind you, and you double the time at that hole. Snag one in the hole, wade out to it and move on, you never even fished the hole.

Skill: I said 1 cast to an area and move on. Thats 1 good cast. If I'm off my game that might entail 3 bad casts first, which you have to carry out to completion to avoid spooking fish.

Big holes: I'll spend more time at a monster hole if they exist. Maybe even change flies (streamer) once or twice, and play around all the edges. These holes are often unsuccessful, meaning they probably have a big brown in there that'll only feed at night. After the fishing fails, I'll try to make him show himself by wading or poke a stick under that overhang, then make a note once I see him. I've never actually went back in after him at night, but I always make a mental note and intend to.

Posted on: 2010/2/12 9:50


Re: To count or not to count- that is the question.

Joined:
2006/9/9 17:18
From lancaster county
Posts: 6434
Offline
Jack,

You can move fast and not be up against the stream. Then when you find your niche carefully approach the stream.
Quote:
Distance between pools or runs: Obvious. If good holding water is common, you do more fishing and less walking.


THis is true also. Im glad im not the only guy that moves fast on small streams. Thought i was a freak

Posted on: 2010/2/12 10:01
_________________
http://cvtu.homestead.com/





Re: To count or not to count- that is the question.

Joined:
2008/1/31 17:19
From Pretty much everywhere at some point, Thorndale today.
Posts: 13421
Offline
Sal,

We are freaks, but there are a few freaks like us out there. I think you tend to favor the limestoners and me the freestoners, but our styles are similar.

We need to get together sometime and do some fishin.

In any stream, even larger ones, moving is how you rack up numbers. Nail all the easy ones and don't waste time with the tough ones. But this begins to fail when there are other fishermen around.

Posted on: 2010/2/12 10:08


Re: To count or not to count- that is the question.

Joined:
2007/1/2 11:55
From Bozeman
Posts: 19932
Offline
I also move fast. I have some friends make me feel bad about it, because they will camp out for an hour while I cover all the water. When they want to move, they've got to fish in my wake, or walk a mile.

The only real time I stay put is when fishing dries on larger streams.

Posted on: 2010/2/12 10:11


Re: To count or not to count- that is the question.

Joined:
2009/7/29 10:25
Posts: 1807
Offline
fast makes sense on mountain brookie streams... Quoth the excellent "Prospecting for Trout," T Rosenbauer/Orvis, p.26:

"On infertile rivers, you must pass up much of the water, the stuff that does't look fishy. Move faster between spots, then concentrate hard on the best-looking water... You can move faster on infertile rivers because the fish don't agonize over fly petterns - so neither should you. Trout in infertile rivers will move father for a fly, so unerring casts are not as important. ... I have seen trout in unproductive streams move five feet for a dry fly."

It's a great book, in the "rich and poor stour streams" chapter in which these quotes appears, he compares a small steep infertile stream, much like a PA brookie stream, to a limestoner.

Posted on: 2010/2/12 10:28


Re: To count or not to count- that is the question.

Joined:
2006/9/9 17:18
From lancaster county
Posts: 6434
Offline
K-bob that is excellent I might have to buy that book now. Thanks!

Posted on: 2010/2/12 10:32
_________________
http://cvtu.homestead.com/





Re: To count or not to count- that is the question.
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/9 9:29
From Monessen, PA
Posts: 22222
Offline
Quote:

vern wrote:

I find no value whatsoever in merely receiving someone else's simple tally.


I agree with this here. If I ask an angler on the stream how it's going, I don't want to hear how many he or she caught so much as I am hoping they will tell me that they saw a certain bug, rising fish, nymphing fish, what kind of bug they saw, etc. I even appreciate info such as "I caught most at the heads of the pools," whether they mean 4 of 6 or 46 of 64.

Posted on: 2010/2/12 10:35
_________________
I don't like scrambled eggs, and I'm glad I don't, because if I liked them, I'd eat them, and I just hate them. --Hank


Re: To count or not to count- that is the question.

Joined:
2009/7/29 10:25
Posts: 1807
Offline
rosenbauer also suggests that if you make a good cast with no action on infertile stream, "make a few more casts on move on" (!)

Posted on: 2010/2/12 10:35


Re: To count or not to count- that is the question.
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/9 9:29
From Monessen, PA
Posts: 22222
Offline
I dare to contend against the esteemed author of this: "On infertile rivers, you must pass up much of the water, the stuff that does't look fishy," that he passes over many fish or he needs to define "fishy looking water."

I agree if you are searching numbers, fast may be a better method. Take the easy prey and move on. I don't fish for numbers so much as I explore a stream for trout. I would fish in any of your wakes, but I see no need for you ahead of me to be wading unecessarily or poking under the banks with a stick after you have flushed out the hole with your flyrod.

Posted on: 2010/2/12 10:42
_________________
I don't like scrambled eggs, and I'm glad I don't, because if I liked them, I'd eat them, and I just hate them. --Hank


Re: To count or not to count- that is the question.
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/9 9:29
From Monessen, PA
Posts: 22222
Offline
Quote:

k-bob wrote:
rosenbauer also suggests that if you make a good cast with no action on infertile stream, "make a few more casts on move on" (!)


Well I'll agree with him there to this extent:

If I make a cast that drifts a length of stream either properly presented or otherwise unlikely to have spooked a trout, I would EXPECT any trout in that drift lane to have taken the bait. In such a case, I think it is silly to drift the same lie again. I just don't think a pool, even as small as the one I am suggesting we use as an example can be covered with one or two casts. Trout may chase dry flies from the other end of a slow calm pool, but I don't think trout in faster water such as in the picture will do so. They are looking at a small window of upstream water when in feeding or opportunistic lies. The food is moving across the surface too quickly in such areas. If you avoid these areas and only hit those large slow pools, I think you are missing out on some of the most challenging and exciting fishing to be found in small mountain freestones.

Posted on: 2010/2/12 10:48
_________________
I don't like scrambled eggs, and I'm glad I don't, because if I liked them, I'd eat them, and I just hate them. --Hank


Re: To count or not to count- that is the question.
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/9 19:16
From Dallastown, PA
Posts: 7019
Offline
Quote:

JackM wrote:
Quote:

vern wrote:

I find no value whatsoever in merely receiving someone else's simple tally.


I agree with this here. If I ask an angler on the stream how it's going, I don't want to hear how many he or she caught so much as I am hoping they will tell me that they saw a certain bug, rising fish, nymphing fish, what kind of bug they saw, etc. I even appreciate info such as "I caught most at the heads of the pools," whether they mean 4 of 6 or 46 of 64.


So you are not really interested in "how its going" you are interested in them sharing information that may help you to catch more fish. Why don't you just ask? I am going to tell you how many I caught if you ask me how its going....if you expand the questioning, I will share more.....but if you want answers to questions, you need to be more specific than hows it going.

Posted on: 2010/2/12 10:48
_________________
Don't hit me with them negative waves so early in the morning. Think the bridge will be there and it will be there. It's a mother, beautiful bridge, and it's gonna be there. Ok?


Re: To count or not to count- that is the question.

Joined:
2007/1/2 11:55
From Bozeman
Posts: 19932
Offline
I agree, Mo.

To further complicate the situation, I'd answer with 'good', or 'ok', or 'eh, not too bad', which would result in BOTH maurice and jack leaving unhappy.

Posted on: 2010/2/12 10:50


Re: To count or not to count- that is the question.

Joined:
2008/1/31 17:19
From Pretty much everywhere at some point, Thorndale today.
Posts: 13421
Offline
Quote:
I would fish in any of your wakes, but I see no need for you ahead of me to be wading unecessarily or poking under the banks with a stick after you have flushed out the hole with your flyrod.


While the flushing out with sticks is a special situation, it is common to cast, then move up and stand in the spot you just casted to in order to make the next cast. On a small stream, you don't want to fish in my wake!

Thats why you leapfrog. When I jump ahead of you, I'll give you a few holes and make sure you know where I started, so that when you get there you can jump me. And I'd appreciate that when you do, you give me a few holes and make sure I know where your re-starting.

Posted on: 2010/2/12 10:51


Re: To count or not to count- that is the question.
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/9 9:29
From Monessen, PA
Posts: 22222
Offline
I don't need the information, but I'd rather have it than your declaration of personal success or failure. I would think the most appropriate answer to my question "how's it going" to be something like: "Not bad, nice day, no wife and kids to take care of, how about yourself?"

Then I can respond by saying: "It is a nice day, made so much better by the 12 brown trout I caught in the last hour."

Posted on: 2010/2/12 10:52
_________________
I don't like scrambled eggs, and I'm glad I don't, because if I liked them, I'd eat them, and I just hate them. --Hank


Re: To count or not to count- that is the question.
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/9 19:16
From Dallastown, PA
Posts: 7019
Offline
Quote:

pcray1231 wrote:
Quote:
I would fish in any of your wakes, but I see no need for you ahead of me to be wading unecessarily or poking under the banks with a stick after you have flushed out the hole with your flyrod.


While the flushing out with sticks is a special situation, it is common to cast, then move up and stand in the spot you just casted to in order to make the next cast. On a small stream, you don't want to fish in my wake!

Thats why you leapfrog. When I jump ahead of you, I'll give you a few holes and make sure you know where I started, so that when you get there you can jump me. And I'd appreciate that when you do, you give me a few holes and make sure I know where your re-starting.


It takes a special kind of friend to fish with this way......I find that most people I have encountered are poor at understanding the theme of your style PCRay or just disrespectful toward it. They screw it up all the time....then I feel like they must think I am a real putz for suggesting it.

Posted on: 2010/2/12 10:54
_________________
Don't hit me with them negative waves so early in the morning. Think the bridge will be there and it will be there. It's a mother, beautiful bridge, and it's gonna be there. Ok?



« 1 2 3 4 (5) 6 7 8 ... 26 »



You can view topic.
You cannot start a new topic.
You cannot reply to posts.
You cannot edit your posts.
You cannot delete your posts.
You cannot add new polls.
You cannot vote in polls.
You cannot attach files to posts.
You cannot post without approval.

[Advanced Search]





Site Content
Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!
Stay Connected

twitterfeed.com facebook instagram RSS Feed

Sponsors
Polls
Do you keep a fishing journal?
Yes 52% (85)
No 47% (78)
_PL_TOTALVOTES
The poll closed at 2014/8/22 12:38
1 Comment





Copyright 2014 by PaFlyFish.com | Privacy Policy| Provided by Kile Media Group | Design by 7dana.com