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


Sponsors

Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users



« 1 ... 3 4 5 (6) 7 8 9 ... 26 »


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

Joined:
2006/9/9 17:18
From lancaster county
Posts: 6487
Offline
lmfaoooo jay

Jack,

Your assumptions are correct. Which is why i said i probably pass over a ton of fish and sometimes even the best fish. Still if your looking for effective measures when fishing small streams, that gives you max time, fish fast.
i guess i do it mostly because i like to explore and expand my knowledge of watersheds. If i drive 2-3 hours to go fishing...i have at least 4 streams in mind and the possibility of a few more. If i take my time...that will never happen.

Posted on: 2010/2/12 10:55
_________________
http://cvtu.homestead.com/





Re: To count or not to count- that is the question.
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/9 19:16
From Dallastown, PA
Posts: 7109
Offline
Quote:

JackM wrote:
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 10:56
_________________
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:
2006/9/9 17:18
From lancaster county
Posts: 6487
Offline
Pcray,

i do the samething as i stated in a prior post. Id be willing to bet we would fish well together. For once i might not be a mile upstream from my partner

Posted on: 2010/2/12 10:56
_________________
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: 22460
Offline
I understand that wading is sometimes necessary to fish a small freestone. If I knew you were wading like I move, I'd follow your wake in less than 5 minutes. If, on the other hand your wading takes you through the stream at 66 feet per minute, I will be leapfrogging you on occasion, or just walk back downstream for ten minutes before I put back in.

Posted on: 2010/2/12 10:57
_________________
Nietzsche was stupid and abnormal.

-- Leo Tolstoy


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

Joined:
2009/7/29 10:25
Posts: 1809
Offline
I often find that as I fish up a steep stream, I am getting further from the road. If the stream isn't getting too small as I climb, so there may be good pools ahead, I will try to walk as far as I can stand before I even start fishing. No doubt, I pass a lot of fish. But as troutbert noted on another thread, steep streams seem to fish better in the middle and higher sections versus the lower levels. And I also like to see stream sections I have never reached before.

If a great looking pool in a stream that seems to be all brookies doesn't fish that well, I assume that I am not far enough out there and should move up

Posted on: 2010/2/12 11:10


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

Joined:
2006/9/10 21:53
From Greensburg, PA
Posts: 13629
Offline
This is why I only catch ten..but apparently I can count the nibbles and bites as well...I think I'll just fish for the fun of it from now on...



Posted on: 2010/2/12 11:10


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

Joined:
2006/9/9 17:18
From lancaster county
Posts: 6487
Offline
if i saw a fly-fisherman doing that at the stream to count fish.....

I might hook him the the ear with an adams.

Posted on: 2010/2/12 11:15
_________________
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: 13662
Offline
When little brookie stream fish spook, they do so for a lot longer than 10 minutes. At least an hour, usually more. When I spook a good fish, I usually give him another shot on the way back to the car, and usually it's not successful. In fact, I've had many experiences where I found the fishing to be poor, only to later find out the reason was that somebody fished it hours or even the day before. Fish in bigger streams unspook much more quickly.

I think this style of fishing is more common than many think. Most holes have an optimum casting spot, and it may be the only one available. You just can't always just not wade near good water. The idea is to fish it before you wade near it.

Step #1 when you get to any stream is to determine if your first to fish that stretch that day. If your not, go somewhere else. One of my favorites drives me nuts, as there's a parking area for a hiking trail right there. There's always cars, and you have to determine whether they're hikers or fishermen. Usually hikers, but I always look for some indication. Make and model, bumper stickers, license plates (out of state means hikers!) or a quick glance inside often lets you know, but there's always that one that you're just not sure of.

Posted on: 2010/2/12 11:17


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: 13662
Offline
Quote:
If a great looking pool in a stream that seems to be all brookies doesn't fish that well, I assume that I am not far enough out there and should move up.


Could be. But when its in the middle of a successful area, it often means there's a bigger brown in there that keeps all the brookies at bay.

Posted on: 2010/2/12 11:20


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

Joined:
2009/5/8 22:48
From NW PA
Posts: 172
Offline
I think the importance of fishing water that has been unfished for hours or even days is more important on wild trout fisheries than stocked ones. I've successfully fished holes that I literally watched a grown man, two kids, and a dog walk through not 20 minutes beforehand. The same goes with pools I've seen people skipping rocks across. I'm sure other members have had the experience watching someone fish a pool and not hook anything, and then moving in when they leave and catching fish.

Posted on: 2010/2/12 11:25


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

Joined:
2009/1/3 13:51
Posts: 335
Offline
Maurice wrote:
"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."

I agree. It takes a friend of similar (to borrow the new government phraseology for competence) Knowledge, Skills and Abilities (KSAs).

I have been fortunate to have had a few, but even then not every outing was a gem.

But when the communication is clear, and it's truly a companionship day, there are a number of skills games that can be carried out with great mutual fun and benefit.

Even more difficult, I find, is finding a human or dog companion for hunting grouse, or jumping rabbits.

I know I wouldn't consider Dick Cheney, even if he could legally hunt in PA.

Posted on: 2010/2/12 11:26


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

Joined:
2009/7/29 10:25
Posts: 1809
Offline
pcray: good point, but the really big browns may be in such deep water that you can't even flush 'em out with a stick :) I actually think that is a good idea; why didn't I catch some good brookies in this great hole that stands out on the stream? Have the brookies been taken by fisherman, or have they been taken by a big brown? Or, am I fishing a few minutes after Sal or pcray, who are now somewhere over the horizon ?

Posted on: 2010/2/12 11:28


Re: To count or not to count- that is the question.
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/9 9:29
From Monessen, PA
Posts: 22460
Offline
Quote:

pcray1231 wrote:
When little brookie stream fish spook, they do so for a lot longer than 10 minutes. At least an hour, usually more.


I just want to know how you learned this. Have you waited them out to see when they return to feeding. I would think this impossible while covering 66 feet per minute.

Trout in infertile freestones cannot afford to stop feeding for long periods of time as you suggest. If they are that concerned after the threat has moved on, they will find another lie or even move up or downstream some distance. But, I do not think they sulk for very long after the threat has been removed. I liken that belief to an Old Wives Tale.

Posted on: 2010/2/12 11:30
_________________
Nietzsche was stupid and abnormal.

-- Leo Tolstoy


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

Joined:
2006/9/9 17:18
From lancaster county
Posts: 6487
Offline

Posted on: 2010/2/12 11:32
_________________
http://cvtu.homestead.com/





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

Joined:
2006/11/2 8:50
Posts: 6348
Offline
Quote:


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!


In small stream fishing, no one should ever be put in a position where they have to follow behind someone and fish water that has already been fished. On those types of streams, you fish it once, then it's done.

So, if two or more are fishing a small stream, you have to have a system, an agreement on how you are going to share the water. If you just "run ahead" then you're officially an....(choose your own epithet).

The leapfrog method can work, if done the right way. Ken Undercoffer's method of leap-frogging marking your starting point with a handkerchief works well. As pcray said, you have to let the other guy know where you started.

Also, when walking ahead, you have to take a wide berth around the stream. If you just walk up the bank, you'll spook the fish.

I think the taking turns method is the best. It's less frenetic than leap-frogging. It might seem painful to have to wait for the other guy to fish, but actually it works out well.

While one guy is fishing, the other guy can be changing flies, adding tippet, getting a drink of water or munching on a granola bar, or watering the bushes, or taking photos, or picking blueberries (in late season) or looking at plants or rocks etc.

If you take turns frequently, roughly every 10 minutes, it works out well.

Posted on: 2010/2/12 11:32



« 1 ... 3 4 5 (6) 7 8 9 ... 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
Will you be fly fishing this autumn?
Yes 95% (139)
No 0% (0)
Thinking about it 4% (6)
_PL_TOTALVOTES
The poll closed at 2014/10/31 17:56
1 Comment





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