Silent Ocelot
Well-known member
Thank you @pcray1231 for replying to my inquiry.
Big Native Brook Trout
- Thread starter Mikey2006
- Start date
Mikey2006
Well-known member
I won’t name any creeks (you alr know them all) but I’ve been to a couple class As and seen some really nice fish
Mikey2006
Well-known member
I know that fly fishing has much better results I’m just not good enough yet. For stocked trout that I don’t really care whether they live or not, I have a nice system dialed in where I take a trout magnet jig-head and flatten a chunk of bread into a small disk on it, and drift it under a float. It’s a big change going from catching dozens of stocked trout a day on spinning gear to getting skunked on the fly and only getting a couple on spinning gear for natives
FrankTroutAngler
Active member
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2009
- Messages
- 346
Silent Ocelot: I'm curious. When you mastered fishing with spinners and it became boring, and in your opinion pointless to continue fishing that way, how many trout were you catching? How many trout did you catch during an average hour and an average day?
pcray1231
Well-known member
Now there's a setup!!! lol. Don't take the bait!
(Frank is one of the very best spin guys ever, and catches a disgusting amount of wild fish, with proof and good records).
I will say that my BEST days with a fly rod are in the vicinity of what is pretty regular for Frank. It depends on stream, conditions, if someone's in front of you, etc. There are 100 or bust streams and there are streams where 5 is a pretty good day, you know? I wouldn't say spinfishing has a plataeu. Well, all fishing has plateau's, you improve, then kinda stay there, then have a breakthrough. But the beauty of this sport, at all levels and all tackle types, even ocean type fishing, is you can keep getting better. Forever. There's no limit. Nor is numbers, size, or anything else the end-all, be all of a good day. I've had pretty crappy days where I caught a ton of fish. Ugly, bad weather, maybe in an ugly urban area, and they were all dinks, I tore my waders, fell and hurt my chin, and I shoulda been working so now I'm behind. I've had good days where I caught 1. Maybe it was a new stream I didn't even know if it had trout in, just gorgeous, enjoyable to be out, and that 1 trout made my day because it proved that stream has fish and I figured out how to access it. A lot of it is exploring for me.
But in certain types of streams, in certain conditions, a proficient in line spinner guy, as far as landing as high a % of available trout, is just short of electro fishing, lol. A streamer may do much the same thing but it's just hard to be as fast and accurate at distance as the really good spinner guys are. By the time you've worked out enough line to make that cast, he's landed and released 3 from that spot. Deadly accurate with a little underhand flip, faster retrieve than any fly reel, no false casting or backcast or any of that stuff. But yeah, I'd agree a fly rod adds some versatility in various other conditions and stream types.
But nomatter what your tackle choices are, it's going to be a bad idea to compare catch rates with Frank. So, don't. There's always someone with the time, location, skill, determination, approach, and experience that makes a very, very high bar to surpass, but that's not the goal anyway.
(Frank is one of the very best spin guys ever, and catches a disgusting amount of wild fish, with proof and good records).
I will say that my BEST days with a fly rod are in the vicinity of what is pretty regular for Frank. It depends on stream, conditions, if someone's in front of you, etc. There are 100 or bust streams and there are streams where 5 is a pretty good day, you know? I wouldn't say spinfishing has a plataeu. Well, all fishing has plateau's, you improve, then kinda stay there, then have a breakthrough. But the beauty of this sport, at all levels and all tackle types, even ocean type fishing, is you can keep getting better. Forever. There's no limit. Nor is numbers, size, or anything else the end-all, be all of a good day. I've had pretty crappy days where I caught a ton of fish. Ugly, bad weather, maybe in an ugly urban area, and they were all dinks, I tore my waders, fell and hurt my chin, and I shoulda been working so now I'm behind. I've had good days where I caught 1. Maybe it was a new stream I didn't even know if it had trout in, just gorgeous, enjoyable to be out, and that 1 trout made my day because it proved that stream has fish and I figured out how to access it. A lot of it is exploring for me.
But in certain types of streams, in certain conditions, a proficient in line spinner guy, as far as landing as high a % of available trout, is just short of electro fishing, lol. A streamer may do much the same thing but it's just hard to be as fast and accurate at distance as the really good spinner guys are. By the time you've worked out enough line to make that cast, he's landed and released 3 from that spot. Deadly accurate with a little underhand flip, faster retrieve than any fly reel, no false casting or backcast or any of that stuff. But yeah, I'd agree a fly rod adds some versatility in various other conditions and stream types.
But nomatter what your tackle choices are, it's going to be a bad idea to compare catch rates with Frank. So, don't. There's always someone with the time, location, skill, determination, approach, and experience that makes a very, very high bar to surpass, but that's not the goal anyway.
Last edited:
wildtrout2
Well-known member
That's a fact! I was going to post something about opening Pandora's Box, but I deleted it. Frank ain't no joke. 🙂
Roofin' Trouter
Active member
Flipping rocks to find nymphs ,crayfish, and observing schools of minnows will give you a better understanding of what trout are eating .
Silent Ocelot
Well-known member
When I spin fished I didn't use spinners. I used a Rapala CD03 Countdown in the second-to-smallest size available (1 and 1/4 inch). It was the one with the black top and gold sides. I would also implement trout magnets, often favoring the brown colored ones. I don't know what my average was but in my last year of spin fishing solely (2017) I caught over 100 trout in the year, so maybe not as nearly as high as your count, which I would say annually would be around 10,000 (does that sound right?), but if you were to tell me you caught that on conventional tackle I wouldn't care. In 2017 my best day was forty, a feat I could never replicate, but that an instance of good environmental conditions, anglers not knowing about this particular creek, and a good bit of luck, not a testament to how well conventional gear fishes.
Most days (in 2017 I may have caught 5 or less, so my average would definitely be in the low single digits.
When I say mastery I am not thinking in terms of fish caught cyclic rates as there are many other factors outside of an angler's control that dictate how well an angler will do such as weather conditions and working the appropriate areas of the creek. I am talking about mastering the use of said gear, which I did. I don't think anyone could cast a spin rod farther then I could when I was in to it, maybe more accurately, but my accuracy was pretty good. I could probably cast a trout magnet with a 1/64 oz. head 40ft. I can recall many instances of anglers (other conventional users) watching me fish, getting demoralized, and leaving. These instances were sporadic though. It wasn't like people were saying "oh look, Ocelot is coming" but just instances where I out-performed others. I have had incidents where I have done this when fly fishing, actually more so with fly fishing. If I may recount my trip to Erie on 06 NOV 2022 where I was without a doubt the most competent angler, achieving a higher fish cyclic rate than most other anglers. Eventually I hit a plateau where I could not gain any noticeable performance gains and decided to stop fishing that style. I mean I wasn't making any changes to my gear so it just got boring. There was also many other alluring factors of fly fishing that made me want to start fly fishing.
Having a high fish cyclic rate is not that important to me as there are other reasons why I fish. On ponds when fishing for bluegill I will try and see what my cyclic rate is for fun. I do project that I catch more fish in general now than I did with conventional gear. Of course I would have to test this but I don't care enough to want to fish conventional tackle.
My statement about the techniques of fly fishing versus conventional is that fly fishing is inherently better, but of course angler skill would be the greatest factor in testing it, if you could even test such a thing. I guess you could take a sampling of the projected best anglers in each style of fishing and pit them against each other. I will say there is a team USA fly fishing team, don't think there is a team USA spin team.
Most days (in 2017 I may have caught 5 or less, so my average would definitely be in the low single digits.
When I say mastery I am not thinking in terms of fish caught cyclic rates as there are many other factors outside of an angler's control that dictate how well an angler will do such as weather conditions and working the appropriate areas of the creek. I am talking about mastering the use of said gear, which I did. I don't think anyone could cast a spin rod farther then I could when I was in to it, maybe more accurately, but my accuracy was pretty good. I could probably cast a trout magnet with a 1/64 oz. head 40ft. I can recall many instances of anglers (other conventional users) watching me fish, getting demoralized, and leaving. These instances were sporadic though. It wasn't like people were saying "oh look, Ocelot is coming" but just instances where I out-performed others. I have had incidents where I have done this when fly fishing, actually more so with fly fishing. If I may recount my trip to Erie on 06 NOV 2022 where I was without a doubt the most competent angler, achieving a higher fish cyclic rate than most other anglers. Eventually I hit a plateau where I could not gain any noticeable performance gains and decided to stop fishing that style. I mean I wasn't making any changes to my gear so it just got boring. There was also many other alluring factors of fly fishing that made me want to start fly fishing.
Having a high fish cyclic rate is not that important to me as there are other reasons why I fish. On ponds when fishing for bluegill I will try and see what my cyclic rate is for fun. I do project that I catch more fish in general now than I did with conventional gear. Of course I would have to test this but I don't care enough to want to fish conventional tackle.
My statement about the techniques of fly fishing versus conventional is that fly fishing is inherently better, but of course angler skill would be the greatest factor in testing it, if you could even test such a thing. I guess you could take a sampling of the projected best anglers in each style of fishing and pit them against each other. I will say there is a team USA fly fishing team, don't think there is a team USA spin team.
rustbeltwilds
Well-known member
Relax dude its all good ive been fishing as long as 40 plus years i started spinning and still do i also fly fish i enjoy both and both have advantages and disadvantages at the end of the day its all good dont think the fish care how your presenting it as long as you get there attention.. this aint a gym its fishing
- Joined
- May 3, 2011
- Messages
- 6,612
I Trout fish using both spin (spinners, in a similar approach to FTA, though nowhere near as proficient) and fly methods. Overall I probably FF more, but it’s fairly close, and I agree versatility to change tactics throughout the day is the big advantage a fly rod gives you. The big advantage of spin gear, is the speed at which it can be fished. I think I can give a fairly accurate comparison between them because I’d say I’m roughy equally as proficient at both…Good, but not great. Nowhere near Frank on the spinning spectrum, and nowhere near as good as a few of the FF guys I’ve fished with on here, but I can go out with either type of tackle and usually catch fish.
In certain conditions (typically higher, and off color flows, especially on small streams) there’s no question I can catch MORE Trout with spinning tackle. It’s not close. This is simply a function of being able to fish spinning tackle faster, and cover more water. I’ll catch roughly the same number of fish per unit of distance with the fly gear in these good conditions, but in the same time I can fish one mile of water with fly tackle, I could have fished roughly two miles with spin gear. Give or take. If I’m catching 10 fish a mile (or whatever), I’ll catch more fish with the spin gear simply because I’ll fish more water and fish to more potential Trout to catch. Sometimes, if I am planning to explore a lengthy section of a new stream in a given day, say 4 or 5 miles, or more, I’ll choose to take the spinning gear simply because I know I won’t be able to cover the distance I want to explore with fly gear. Even if conditions would suggest fly gear may be more effective in terms of catching fish.
In the wet Summer years of 2018 and 2019, for example, I spin fished almost exclusively over the Summer and had some crazy good days, by my standards anyway. 50, 60, 70 fish type days. Not quite Frank type numbers, but plenty enough to satisfy me and have me driving home happy.
Since 2020, we’ve had pretty dry Summers, and in low clear conditions, fishing spinners is a tough deal. Fish spook easy when the spinner hits the water and they tend to just half heartedly chase it, but won’t strike it. Or the spinner itself will spook them when it’s moving through the water. For me anyway. I wouldn’t mind hearing Frank’s advice on how he deals with those conditions.
Anyway, low/clear water conditions have made me a better overall Trout angler over the last few years…I’ve found success and have gotten better in these conditions with a fly rod, usually by downsizing my offerings, especially the dropper if fishing a dry/dropper, and trying to make sure I cast from as absolutely far away as I can possibly manage to make the cast from.
Another situation I’ve found where I can out-fish myself with fly gear over spin gear is dead of Winter cold conditions. Dapping a Bugger in nooks and crannies or nymphing with a heavy nymph rig, as I’ve gotten better at those techniques, has proved more successful for me than running spinners in cold water.
First and foremost, conditions usually dictates whether I choose to spin or FF, but sometimes I just feel like spin fishing or FFing, and so I do. Folks should worry less about how others fish, and just fish and enjoy how they like fishing…within the rules and regs of course. Better or worse should be measured in how much you enjoy yourself while you’re fishing. Not by the tackle you’re using. I have no doubt that Frank enjoys and is passionate about fishing for wild Trout with spinners. That’s all that matters. If you were a spin angler, but found FFing, and never want to touch a spin rod ever again, that’s also great. I’m in the middle…I enjoy fishing for Trout, and exploring the places in PA that they live. The type of rod and fishing tackle in my hand adds or subtracts relatively little from that experience for me.
I’ll say this too…Both fishing spinners and FFing take a great deal of skill to do it well. Take a newbie spinner fishing and they won’t be able to hit the broad side of a barn. Same as with a fly rod.
In certain conditions (typically higher, and off color flows, especially on small streams) there’s no question I can catch MORE Trout with spinning tackle. It’s not close. This is simply a function of being able to fish spinning tackle faster, and cover more water. I’ll catch roughly the same number of fish per unit of distance with the fly gear in these good conditions, but in the same time I can fish one mile of water with fly tackle, I could have fished roughly two miles with spin gear. Give or take. If I’m catching 10 fish a mile (or whatever), I’ll catch more fish with the spin gear simply because I’ll fish more water and fish to more potential Trout to catch. Sometimes, if I am planning to explore a lengthy section of a new stream in a given day, say 4 or 5 miles, or more, I’ll choose to take the spinning gear simply because I know I won’t be able to cover the distance I want to explore with fly gear. Even if conditions would suggest fly gear may be more effective in terms of catching fish.
In the wet Summer years of 2018 and 2019, for example, I spin fished almost exclusively over the Summer and had some crazy good days, by my standards anyway. 50, 60, 70 fish type days. Not quite Frank type numbers, but plenty enough to satisfy me and have me driving home happy.
Since 2020, we’ve had pretty dry Summers, and in low clear conditions, fishing spinners is a tough deal. Fish spook easy when the spinner hits the water and they tend to just half heartedly chase it, but won’t strike it. Or the spinner itself will spook them when it’s moving through the water. For me anyway. I wouldn’t mind hearing Frank’s advice on how he deals with those conditions.
Anyway, low/clear water conditions have made me a better overall Trout angler over the last few years…I’ve found success and have gotten better in these conditions with a fly rod, usually by downsizing my offerings, especially the dropper if fishing a dry/dropper, and trying to make sure I cast from as absolutely far away as I can possibly manage to make the cast from.
Another situation I’ve found where I can out-fish myself with fly gear over spin gear is dead of Winter cold conditions. Dapping a Bugger in nooks and crannies or nymphing with a heavy nymph rig, as I’ve gotten better at those techniques, has proved more successful for me than running spinners in cold water.
First and foremost, conditions usually dictates whether I choose to spin or FF, but sometimes I just feel like spin fishing or FFing, and so I do. Folks should worry less about how others fish, and just fish and enjoy how they like fishing…within the rules and regs of course. Better or worse should be measured in how much you enjoy yourself while you’re fishing. Not by the tackle you’re using. I have no doubt that Frank enjoys and is passionate about fishing for wild Trout with spinners. That’s all that matters. If you were a spin angler, but found FFing, and never want to touch a spin rod ever again, that’s also great. I’m in the middle…I enjoy fishing for Trout, and exploring the places in PA that they live. The type of rod and fishing tackle in my hand adds or subtracts relatively little from that experience for me.
I’ll say this too…Both fishing spinners and FFing take a great deal of skill to do it well. Take a newbie spinner fishing and they won’t be able to hit the broad side of a barn. Same as with a fly rod.
Last edited:
hooker-of-men
Well-known member
How much you wanna make a bet I can throw a football over them mountains?
Mikey2006
Well-known member
I’m not opposed to spin fishing it just wouldn’t feel as special to catch a native brookie of that size if it wasn’t on a fly rod. It’s kinda hard to explain but fly fishing just seems superior. Even though I never catch anything on the fly I enjoy it a lot more
- Joined
- May 3, 2011
- Messages
- 6,612
Yeah. That’s fine if you think that. It’s also fine that I don’t.
Fish how you enjoy fishing, but don’t give anyone else a hard time for fishing how they enjoy (within the rules and regs). That’s my point. In a lot less words than post #30.
wildtrout2
Well-known member
Give it time, you'll get better at it and start catching trout regularly on the fly. Patience is the first thing to be learned. It's not a sprint, it's a long distance marathon. I can't think of much, fishing wise, that's more visually appealing than catching natives on a dry fly.
Silent Ocelot
Well-known member
Alright, I'm gonna say that I was typing my previous comment in an emotionally aggravated state. First and foremost, I have nothing against Frank nor am I trying to challenge him as that would be foolheartedly and would result in a MASSIVE loss on my part. I guess what I am really trying to compare is linear performance versus a more emotionally uplifting experience (not saying what Frank does doesn't provide him any emotional "high" as I don't know him nor do I know how he thinks) when it comes to fishing.
Looking at the stats of a year of Frank's fishing, the results are mind-boggling, absolutely insane... and I whole heartedly believe them. However, I have no interest in fishing with a spinner or using conventional tackle for that matter.
I have been informed of his annual trout count and hours logged. Total count was 10,000 trout in 800 hours. To put that into perspective, if you fished 33.33 days consecutively (24 hours a day) you would catch 300 per day, 12.5 fish per hour, and 1 fish per 4.8 minutes (or 288 seconds). This of course excludes doing anything but fishing so his ratio of time spent per fish caught in terms of how much casting time he puts in would mean his cyclic rate would be even faster, and yes, I know he is not fishing that many days in a row and fishing the entire day, just some numbers for perspective. Upon hearing this I have to save that scientifically this style of fishing (conventional angling) in combination with Frank (the greatest variable in the equation), fishing with a spinner, is the most effective way to catch fish, unless other data can be provided stating otherwise (please tell me there is another fly angler on here that can beat this cyclic rate, haha!).
However, theoretically is is possible for a fly angler to exceed this cyclic rate, but obviously I have not been presented with this data. What I mean by that is that fly fishing can cover a wide variety of fishing styles and types of water. Fly fishing covers the complete water level, from top to bottom, so one would think this could effectively catch more fish, however if one were spin fishing they could pick and choose water and conditions that were more advantageous for their style of fishing. I will say that as far as casting cyclic rate in of itself, I have to disagree with @pcray1231 in that spin fishing always inherently has a higher casting cyclic rate. When tight-line nymphing without line coming in or going out a fly angler would have a higher casting cyclic rate than a conventional rod. Flies also stay where they need to in the water column longer vs a mobile lure that gets casted and has a limited strike window of when the fish will actually consume it due to it being constantly retrieved.
This thread has actually given me insight on my own thought processes and how fly anglers vs conventional anglers think.
I know I'm making some generalizations about the two but it seems to me that conventional tackle users seem to want to have a fish count, and that's the end all be all. Fly anglers like to catch fish (who doesn't?) but there seems to be a variety of people that like different aspects of it. Some want to catch a variety of species, like getting all of the indigenous trout species in the US, there's literature fanatics, rod and fly tying enthusiasts, gear heads (me), casting distance people, and some that just like the seclusion of just being in nature. I know some of these attributes exist in the conventional tackle community but it's not nearly the same level as it is with fly fishers.
To offer an analogy. Let's say you at the Nürburgring race track. The conventional tackle route would be like taking a Bugatti around the circuit. Sure, you make some insanely good performance numbers and hit a a ridiculous top speed on the straights, but are you having fun? I mean I guess you could. Fly fishing is taking an 80s RUF CTR around the track. You my not make as good of performance numbers or reach a ridiculous top speed, but you'd have a lot of fun drifting all the corners and just having an overall wild ride.
I will also point out in what I said in post #19 was to encourage the OP to get more into fly fishing as he seemed interested. This would help get him more proficient.
So yeah, the old emotional values (having fun, though yes, you can have fun fishing however you want) vs performance.
Looking at the stats of a year of Frank's fishing, the results are mind-boggling, absolutely insane... and I whole heartedly believe them. However, I have no interest in fishing with a spinner or using conventional tackle for that matter.
I have been informed of his annual trout count and hours logged. Total count was 10,000 trout in 800 hours. To put that into perspective, if you fished 33.33 days consecutively (24 hours a day) you would catch 300 per day, 12.5 fish per hour, and 1 fish per 4.8 minutes (or 288 seconds). This of course excludes doing anything but fishing so his ratio of time spent per fish caught in terms of how much casting time he puts in would mean his cyclic rate would be even faster, and yes, I know he is not fishing that many days in a row and fishing the entire day, just some numbers for perspective. Upon hearing this I have to save that scientifically this style of fishing (conventional angling) in combination with Frank (the greatest variable in the equation), fishing with a spinner, is the most effective way to catch fish, unless other data can be provided stating otherwise (please tell me there is another fly angler on here that can beat this cyclic rate, haha!).
However, theoretically is is possible for a fly angler to exceed this cyclic rate, but obviously I have not been presented with this data. What I mean by that is that fly fishing can cover a wide variety of fishing styles and types of water. Fly fishing covers the complete water level, from top to bottom, so one would think this could effectively catch more fish, however if one were spin fishing they could pick and choose water and conditions that were more advantageous for their style of fishing. I will say that as far as casting cyclic rate in of itself, I have to disagree with @pcray1231 in that spin fishing always inherently has a higher casting cyclic rate. When tight-line nymphing without line coming in or going out a fly angler would have a higher casting cyclic rate than a conventional rod. Flies also stay where they need to in the water column longer vs a mobile lure that gets casted and has a limited strike window of when the fish will actually consume it due to it being constantly retrieved.
This thread has actually given me insight on my own thought processes and how fly anglers vs conventional anglers think.
I know I'm making some generalizations about the two but it seems to me that conventional tackle users seem to want to have a fish count, and that's the end all be all. Fly anglers like to catch fish (who doesn't?) but there seems to be a variety of people that like different aspects of it. Some want to catch a variety of species, like getting all of the indigenous trout species in the US, there's literature fanatics, rod and fly tying enthusiasts, gear heads (me), casting distance people, and some that just like the seclusion of just being in nature. I know some of these attributes exist in the conventional tackle community but it's not nearly the same level as it is with fly fishers.
To offer an analogy. Let's say you at the Nürburgring race track. The conventional tackle route would be like taking a Bugatti around the circuit. Sure, you make some insanely good performance numbers and hit a a ridiculous top speed on the straights, but are you having fun? I mean I guess you could. Fly fishing is taking an 80s RUF CTR around the track. You my not make as good of performance numbers or reach a ridiculous top speed, but you'd have a lot of fun drifting all the corners and just having an overall wild ride.
I will also point out in what I said in post #19 was to encourage the OP to get more into fly fishing as he seemed interested. This would help get him more proficient.
So yeah, the old emotional values (having fun, though yes, you can have fun fishing however you want) vs performance.
Silent Ocelot
Well-known member
Alright, I'm gonna say that I was typing my previous comment in an emotionally aggravated state. First and foremost, I have nothing against Frank nor am I trying to challenge him as that would be foolheartedly and would result in a MASSIVE loss on my part. I guess what I am really trying to compare is linear performance versus a more emotionally uplifting experience (not saying what Frank does doesn't provide him any emotional "high" as I don't know him nor do I know how he thinks) when it comes to fishing.
Looking at the stats of a year of Frank's fishing, the results are mind-boggling, absolutely insane... and I whole heartedly believe them. However, I have no interest in fishing with a spinner or using an conventional tackle for that matter.
I have been informed of his annual trout count and hours logged. Total count was 10,000 trout in 800 hours. To put that into perspective, if you fished 33.33 days you would catch 300 per day, 12.5 fish per hour, and 1 fish per 4.8 minutes (or 288 seconds). This of course excludes doing anything but fishing so his ratio of time spent per fish caught in terms of how much casting time he puts in would mean his cyclic rate would be even faster, and yes, I know he is not fishing that many days in a row and fishing the entire day, just some numbers for perspective. Upon hearing this I have to save that scientifically this style of fishing (conventional angling) in combination with Frank (the greatest variable in the equation), fishing with a spinner, is the most effective way to catch fish, unless other data can be provided stating otherwise (please tell me there is another fly angler on here that can beat this cyclic rate, haha!).
However, theoretically is is possible for a fly angler to exceed this cyclic rate, but obviously I have not been presented with this data. What I mean by that is that fly fishing can cover a wide variety of fishing styles and types of water that can be fished. Fly fishing covers the complete water level, from top to bottom, so one would think this could effectively catch more fish, however if one were spin fishing they could pick and choose water and conditions that were more advantageous for their style of fishing. I will say that as far as casting cyclic rate in of itself, I have to disagree with @pcray1231 in that spin fishing always inherently has a higher casting cyclic rate. When tight-line nymphing without line coming in or going out an angler would have a higher casting cyclic rate than a conventional rod. Flies also stay where they need to in the water column longer vs a mobile lure that gets casted and has a limited strike window of when the fish will actually consume it due to it being constantly retrieved.
This thread has actually given me insight on my own thought processes and how fly anglers vs conventional anglers think.
I know I'm making some generalizations about the two but it seems to me that conventional tackle users seem to want to have a fish count, and that's the end all be all. Fly anglers like to catch fish (who doesn't?) but there seems to be a variety of people that like different aspects of it. Some want to catch a variety of species, like getting all of the indigenous trout species in the US, there's literature fanatics, rod and fly making enthusiasts, gear heads (me), casting distance people, and some that just like the seclusion of just being in nature. I know some of these attributes exist in the conventional tackle community but it's not nearly the same level as it is with fly fishers.
Looking at the stats of a year of Frank's fishing, the results are mind-boggling, absolutely insane... and I whole heartedly believe them. However, I have no interest in fishing with a spinner or using an conventional tackle for that matter.
I have been informed of his annual trout count and hours logged. Total count was 10,000 trout in 800 hours. To put that into perspective, if you fished 33.33 days you would catch 300 per day, 12.5 fish per hour, and 1 fish per 4.8 minutes (or 288 seconds). This of course excludes doing anything but fishing so his ratio of time spent per fish caught in terms of how much casting time he puts in would mean his cyclic rate would be even faster, and yes, I know he is not fishing that many days in a row and fishing the entire day, just some numbers for perspective. Upon hearing this I have to save that scientifically this style of fishing (conventional angling) in combination with Frank (the greatest variable in the equation), fishing with a spinner, is the most effective way to catch fish, unless other data can be provided stating otherwise (please tell me there is another fly angler on here that can beat this cyclic rate, haha!).
However, theoretically is is possible for a fly angler to exceed this cyclic rate, but obviously I have not been presented with this data. What I mean by that is that fly fishing can cover a wide variety of fishing styles and types of water that can be fished. Fly fishing covers the complete water level, from top to bottom, so one would think this could effectively catch more fish, however if one were spin fishing they could pick and choose water and conditions that were more advantageous for their style of fishing. I will say that as far as casting cyclic rate in of itself, I have to disagree with @pcray1231 in that spin fishing always inherently has a higher casting cyclic rate. When tight-line nymphing without line coming in or going out an angler would have a higher casting cyclic rate than a conventional rod. Flies also stay where they need to in the water column longer vs a mobile lure that gets casted and has a limited strike window of when the fish will actually consume it due to it being constantly retrieved.
This thread has actually given me insight on my own thought processes and how fly anglers vs conventional anglers think.
I know I'm making some generalizations about the two but it seems to me that conventional tackle users seem to want to have a fish count, and that's the end all be all. Fly anglers like to catch fish (who doesn't?) but there seems to be a variety of people that like different aspects of it. Some want to catch a variety of species, like getting all of the indigenous trout species in the US, there's literature fanatics, rod and fly making enthusiasts, gear heads (me), casting distance people, and some that just like the seclusion of just being in nature. I know some of these attributes exist in the conventional tackle community but it's not nearly the same level as it is with fly fishers.
sixfootfenwick
Well-known member
Is that PA mountains or Colorado?
Mikey2006
Well-known member
Uncle Rico can throw a football over any mountain range
hooker-of-men
Well-known member
sixfootfenwick
Well-known member
Yeah, what was I thinking 🤦
