Teaching a newbie
rb608
has finally piqued the interest of a co-worker, heretofore a spin fisherman.
Today, with temps forecast in the 60's (a veritable heat wave for Feb.), I'm
taking him outside for some casting instruction; and maybe up to the local
reservoir to try for a hapless panfish or two.
I have come armed with two rods: one, my first "real" flyrod, a 8'-6" St.
Croix Legend 5/6 wt. The other is an old fiberglass number around 7'.
There is no comparison between the two for quality; the SC is a lovely rod;
but the old fg rod is WAY slower in action. So I'm looking for some input
on which might be better for teaching this first-timer.
He's already a fisherman, so he has some concept of what is supposed to
happen, and he's reasonably coordinated, so that's not a problem. If
weight is not a factor, would I be better off starting him on the shorter,
slower rod or the longer, faster rod? (No reason I can't let him try both,
just wondering what the "experts" think.)
Joe F.
Charlie Choc
> If
>weight is not a factor, would I be better off starting him on the shorter,
>slower rod or the longer, faster rod?
I'm no expert, but I've had more success teaching people to cast with
faster rods. Temp seems to be one of the hardest things for 'regular'
fishermen to adjust to and faster rods don't require as much attention
to how the rod is loaded (at least in my experience).
--
Charlie...
Mike Connor
actually I have found that fast rods are better ( in the lower weight
ranges, up to around a six weight ). Rod loading ( Oh!!!! Ohhhh!!! Sorry
!!!! ), and timing, seem to be more critical on fast rods, but most
beginners seem to find this easier to master than the timing and loading of
very slow rods.
I would go with the faster rod for this purpose.
TL
MC
--
"Where fishing is concerned, most anglers are basically manic excessives"
http://www.mikeconnor.de
"rb608" <fleis...@NOSPAMworldnet.att.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:KvTg6.6046$Nj5.2...@bgtnsc07-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
<SNIP>> He's already a fisherman, so he has some concept of what is supposed
rdean3...@flash.net
Well, I don't claim to be an "expert," but here's my take: First,
being a fisherman doesn't, IMO, automatically help, and it can even
hurt - the methods of getting the terminal tackle "there" are
completely different. One uses the lure, bait, whatever and the other
uses the line, which (again, IMO) is one of the main reasons for those
experienced with other tackle to have problems with a flyrod - it's
like car racing vs. boat racing - one may have no fear of the speed,
but the operation is different. As to the rod type, _in general_, my
vote would be for the slower rod to start, esp. with one experienced
with other forms of gear because of the above. The slower rod will
be, well, slower - granted, this is no brilliant observation, but it
will "force" the learner to "slow down" and give them time to get used
to the timing(s) required, as well as give some time to see and feel
things. I'm not sure if by "try" you mean just _try_ both, or "try
(to learn with) both." IMO, maybe _try_ 'em both, but quickly pick
one and stick with it until he has the basics down - don't
"alternate." If this _particular_ person has no "hold-over" from
spin-fishing, - i.e., seems to use both equally, then let him choose
which he _prefers_, which is how he'll need to choose _his_ rod,
anyway.
TC,
R
psc...@my-deja.com
Croix. It's usually hard for newbies to pick up the timing on a very
slow rod. Newbies usually rush the forward cast as they have this
image of the line falling behind them. Slower rods makes this worse.
Peter
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
rb608
did bring the St. Croix for him to use, then as an afterthought grabbed the
old fg (H-I) rod to allow me to toss a few bugs too. It wasn't until I got
here that the thought occurred to me that I might have it backwards.
Joe F.
rdean3...@flash.net
<MIKE-...@t-online.de> wrote:
>It is often said that a slow to medium rod is best for beginners, but
>actually I have found that fast rods are better ( in the lower weight
>ranges, up to around a six weight ). Rod loading ( Oh!!!! Ohhhh!!! Sorry
>!!!! ), and timing, seem to be more critical on fast rods, but most
>beginners seem to find this easier to master than the timing and loading of
>very slow rods.
>
>I would go with the faster rod for this purpose.
Even with the (spin-)fishing background? I have observed that those
with experience with "weight delivered" terminal tackle, esp.
spinfishing (maybe because of the "underreel, unthumbed" aspects, but
???), tend to have more problems "unlearning" to cast the "lure," and
therefore, the slower the "new" system, the easier to "reset" the
muscle memory and reflex actions, but I'm truly curious as to what
others have found.
TC,
R
Don Thompson
In my case it was hard to"unlearn" decades of spinfishing.At first I was
trying to cast the darn fly.The result was a line with many s-curves because
of the over muscular attempt and the resultant back spring of the line going
taught before it had a chance to settle properly.Took several days of being
gentle before I could get any distance and several more days before any
modicum of accuracy.
--
Don Thompson
<rdean3...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:94b88tcon1jd0poec...@4ax.com...
rdean3...@flash.net
No flame - do you mean "temp O" in the above? If not, ???
TC,
R
rdean3...@flash.net
<flas...@ix.netcom.comghost> wrote:
>Rdean,
>
> In my case it was hard to"unlearn" decades of spinfishing.At first I was
>trying to cast the darn fly.The result was a line with many s-curves because
>of the over muscular attempt and the resultant back spring of the line going
>taught before it had a chance to settle properly.Took several days of being
>gentle before I could get any distance and several more days before any
>modicum of accuracy.
Any "tips" on the transition you feel I/we can use? I'm not an
instructor, but I get asked sometimes, and spinfishers do seem to have
the worst time of it, esp. those mainly in salt. As I said, my theory
has always been the "muscle" aspect, and you seem to confirm this. If
you don't mind, what where you used to, tackle- and location-wise?
Were you simply trying to learn FF'ing to use in similar places as
spinning, or ???.
TIA,
R(ichard), but just "R" is fine, as well.
DCWDFF
>did bring the St. Croix for him to use, then as an afterthought grabbed the
>old fg (H-I) rod to allow me to toss a few bugs too. It wasn't until I got
>here that the thought occurred to me that I might have it backwards.
>
>Joe F.
Sounds like you have it right. Big Dale believes it is always proper to play
with ALL the toys.
Big Dale
psc...@my-deja.com
firm, rapidly accelerated power stroke that gradually diminishes to a
stop. I kept trying to fly cast with a spin cast power stroke - what a
mess. I still lapse into it from time to time. It was made worse by
an "expert" advising me to put a 5 wt. line on the cheap six weight I
had bought. Never did feel the rod loading so I would snap it forward
and back to cast. It introduced all sorts of additional bad habits
that still linger.
Don Thompson
>
> Any "tips" on the transition you feel I/we can use? I'm not an
> instructor, but I get asked sometimes, and spinfishers do seem to have
> the worst time of it, esp. those mainly in salt. As I said, my theory
> has always been the "muscle" aspect, and you seem to confirm this. If
> you don't mind, what where you used to, tackle- and location-wise?
> Were you simply trying to learn FF'ing to use in similar places as
> spinning, or ???.
>
> TIA,
> R(ichard), but just "R" is fine, as well.
As I stated in another (non-relevant) thread,I am disabled.My spinfishing
experiences are from my childhood and late youth,then a break of about 20
years without fishing of any kind,then back to spinfishing.So in later years
I had to fish where I could get to the water.I loved to fish for channel
catfish in rivers so I used heavy tackle and fished mostly under highway
bridges and in the back-country drive up clearings on the rivers.I had to
learn to cast accurately to the holes and I used a LOT of weight.Ended up
with some trophy fish that won local contests,but that was secondary.The
prime motivator was in the catching.I had plenty of time to try many things
and I used the experience well.Then I took up trout fishing in the
put-and-take ponds in the Front Range area(Denver CO and
environs).Ultra-light with a salmon egg stuff.Still had to be extremely
accurate to catch the bigger fish but accuracy is relative with spinning
gear in a lake-pond setting.I wasn't satisfied with the average 8-10 inch
stocker and trial and error taught me how to take the 14-20 inch fish
regularly.Things like what color "bait" works in a particular empoundment
etc.And the best rig for a fisherman who consistently catches fish.The local
two hook rig caused numerous holes in my thumb so I abandoned that rigging
in favor of a single hook on a slip sinker- barrel swivel and leader
setup.And the secret to the bigger fish consistently was a long cast.So I
used 3/8-1/2 oz egg sinkers on the line.As you can see from the rig it takes
a lot of "muscle" to cast properly such a setup.Not only for distance but
for side to side accuracy,and wind knot controll.After several years such
practice causes a condition called "muscle memory" to set in.IOW it took no
thought to do the job right.
The "tip" is embedded in the following paragraph.See if you catch it.It is
simple(to me).
I was exposed to fly fishing last year in the spring.My cousin bought a
house in Castle Rock CO and in the house was a large quantity of "old"
tackle.He doesn't fish so he called me and asked if I was willing to give
him 20 bucks for all that old junk.You Betcha,I said.In that Junk was a
Rolls Fly reel and a Fenwick Ferralite 8'6" flyrod.Both unused from the
appearance.No scratches on the reel feet ,rod perfectly clean and
straight.So I came to ROFF and asked a stupid question.Got no replies so I
posted a "Rather Pissed Off Message" about the snobs on the group.(Most will
remember it, grin)And got a bit of "flammage" in return.But I learned that I
might want to just let the rod and reel sit and get something a bit later in
model and try it out.I practised in the front yard a while and told of my
problems and the fellers helped me sort it out.Then down to the local
fishery to practise on water. I had to consiously and consistently,every
cast,let the rod do the work.I got to where I was doing "pretty good" but
not up to expectations when I underwent neurosurgery the last week of
July.Since then I am only dreaming of trying again due to complications.But
try again I will,even if I have to shift hands.
Regards,
Don Thompson
Charlie Choc
Ken Janik
"Mike Connor" <MIKE-...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:96121q$cjd$02$1...@news.t-online.com...
> It is often said that a slow to medium rod is best for beginners, but
> actually I have found that fast rods are better ( in the lower weight
> ranges, up to around a six weight ). Rod loading ( Oh!!!! Ohhhh!!! Sorry
> !!!! ), and timing, seem to be more critical on fast rods, but most
> beginners seem to find this easier to master than the timing and loading of
> very slow rods.
I've always found slower rods to be easier to "feel" the loading. Since I
started fishing with spinning rods, the drastic change of flex made
it more obvious what loading was supposed to feel like. I tried a faster
rod and kept trying to cast it like a spinning rod, drove me nutz. I've
had several other beginners express similar feelings.
My $0.02,
- Ken
Mike Connor
hundreds at least, groups of fifty or more were not unusual on some Saturday
courses I have given ), including an ever increasing number of ladies, have
never fished before.
People are obliged to attend these instructional courses in order to
obtain a fishing licence, as minimum casting competence, and a test to prove
that one has attained it, is mandatory, if they can not cast at least
adequately, they can not pass the test. None of my pupils have ever failed
the test. All have passed first time. Quite a few after one morning´s
instruction. My wife passed her test after one mornings instruction ( she
had never held a rod before, and this is quite a while ago now ), with one
of the highest scores ever for a beginner in both disciplines. ( see below).
The test is overseen and documented by impartial fishery board officers, and
consists of landing a fly on a special target using "standard" fly-fishing
equipment. The target is a ring of concentric circles, each having a
certain points value. Casting is from several different starting positions,
placed from ten to forty feet away.
Ten casts are made, four from the first distance mark, and two separate
positions, three casts each from the other positions and distances. The
starting position must be changed after each cast. Normal overhead casting
must be used. False casting is allowed. The cast is considered complete when
the fly touches the ground.
A minimum 45 points is required. 100 points is maximum. All casts are
evaluated. No casts may be repeated. Failing to pass involves applying for
another test. Under certain conditions ( strong wind, driving rain etc ),
the chief tester may opt to allow casters to cast from a particular
direction, other than the one laid out on the course.
No other rules apply. The test, and results, are public. The vast majority
of my pupils usually manage about seventy points, some manage ninety or
more, and occasionally a particularly adept pupil has managed one hundred
points. I usually reward this with a box of flies as a personal gift.
The baitcasting test must be passed before one is allowed to take the
flycasting test. For "general fishing", ( no spinning or fly-fishing is
then allowed, and this is marked on the licence ), a score of forty points
in the baitcasting test suffices. For spinfishing, sixty points are
required, and for flyfishing, all other tests must first be passed, and then
the flycasting test may be taken. All this assumes that you passed the
theoretical written test involved in the first place, and have attended a
first aid course culminating in a test and a recognised certificate, a
special "introduction to Fly-fishing" course which has no test at the end of
it, and have a report from the local police as to your freedom from criminal
convictions.
General fishing, baitcasting, and flycasting tests are usually carried out
on the same day. Baitcasting in the morning, flycasting in the afternoon.
My own personal record is one hundred points eleven times in a row, and I
then hit 97 and ceased. This was the same day I set the club record for
baitcasting ( somewhat similar course, but four separate types of cast must
be made from various distances, side-arm left, side-arm right, pendulum cast
( simple), overhead cast, and two casts in excess of sixty meters using a
standard fishing rod between 1.8 and 2.10 meters in length, a fixed spool
reel, a plastic "weight" of 15 grams, and line of your choice.
Once again I scored one hundred points eight times in a row, then I hit
ninety, ( missed the bloody target altogether on the last cast !!! :))), and
ceased. One or two people from other clubs, notably a few from a pure
"casting" club, ( they do not fish, they simply cast), have beaten this
record, but nobody in my club has yet.
Two of the other instructors have since equalled the baitcasting record, and
one other instructor has beaten the fly-casting record twice, by scoring one
hundred points thirteen consecutive times, and fourteen consecutive times
respectively. This particular skill level does indeed require constant
practice, but has relatively little to do with actual fishing really. It is
pure repetition of standard overhead casts.However, if you do not practice
( especially the baitcasting), at least once a week for an hour or so, you
lose your "edge" very quickly.
Quite a few people ( mostly instructors ), regularly average over ninety
points. The test for instructors requires a minimum seventy points in three
consecutive rounds, among quite a lot of other things ! :))
However all this may be, the pupils get on much better with faster rods.
"Fast" in this case does not mean as stiff as a poker, and as I said, only
up to about a six weight. A rod with a definite tip action is however better
than a "through" action.
For people wishing to learn saltwater fly-fishing, mainly with #8 rods and
above, slightly slower rods are better for teaching them. Real "cannons",
compound the difficulties involved, and are much more strenuous to use.
It is also a mistake to teach somebody to cast with a rod which he will not
use for his normal fishing. Reasonable to good casters can get away with
all sorts of things after a while. But tossing big poppers, streamers, or
saltwater flies with a four to six weight is definitely not a good idea for
beginners. Neither is dry-fly fishing or light nymphing with a #8 to #12,
quite apart from being less enjoyable per- se, it is unnecessarily difficult
and frustrating.
The largest single problem for beginners, either complete newbies, or
spinfishermen etc, is the use of unsuitable equipment. Wrong rods, wrong
lines, etc etc. Simply fitting the people up with correct gear to start
with, goes a very long way to solving many problems at the start.
I now use either medium to fast ( on the faster side ), eight foot 4
weights, nine foot six weights, ( quite fast ) or nine foot eight weights
( also quite fast, but not "pokers"), for teaching people to cast,
depending on where and how they wish to fish. I usually insist that most
of the instruction takes place actually on water.
If people come along with unsuitable equipment, they use mine, or from the
club ´s equipment pool, (which until recently I was responsible for), until
such time as they can replace theirs. I will not teach people to cast using
some old abortion of a rod, or otherwise unsuitable or unmatched gear, it is
a waste of time. The same thing goes for baitcasting rods, and the casting
lessons for these, which I also teach.
Most of the other certified instructors I know, use medium action nine foot
#6weights loaded with WF#7F lines, and nothing else. They invariably teach
on grass, and quite a few of their pupils generally manage to scrape
throught the test with the minimum of points required, often on the second
or third try. The forty foot cast is the main bugbear here apparently. At
one time I used to get quite annoyed at this, but I no longer bother, as it
only caused bad blood. After the first Saturday morning, most pupils drifted
more or less unobtrusively in my general direction in any case, as even
beginners are not necessarily stupid, and they soon see what works and what
does not, irrespective of what anybody might tell them.
Some of the guys involved ( all on an honorary basis, although some like to
"recommend" gear from particular tackle shops etc, and invariably have
samples along with them, which they will readily part with for hard cash,
"as a favour" ! :)), see this as "getting somebody through a test".
I see it is as "helping somebody to learn something properly, which may give
him considerable enjoyment for the rest of his life", and as such not to be
skimped on.
On the 4 weights, DT#4F lines are loaded. On the six weights, I have some
with DT#6F lines and some with #7 or #8 shooting heads of appropriate
length. On the eight weights I have only shooting heads in various weight
ranges and lengths. These are from #9 to #12, and are used depending on the
type of fishing the person wishes to do.
I do not use shooting heads for the casting tests, this would be too
difficult, I usually teach this using the #6 weight rods, even if the person
involved has told me he wishes to learn saltwater fishing. I generally used
to hang on in the afternoon, and show the "Baltics", ( people here who fish
saltwater, invariably fish the Baltic sea, either here in Germany, or in
Denmark), how to double haul etc. and for this purpose the #8 rods were
used.
There are several problems with people who have done a lot of fishing
before, but never fly-fished. One of the main ones is their reluctance to
accept being told what to do. When I was younger, this problem was even
more acute, especially with older pupils. One gets the feeling that one´s
own abilities in this regard are resented, and instruction or criticism is
met with sometimes open truculence.
This is even more annoying when one considers that this is a voluntary thing
organised by the fishery boards and local fishing organisations, and no
remuneration or payment is involved.
I have not yet encountered many ladies who have fished using other methods,
( only a dozen or so, and they were no problem), and then wanted to try
fly-fishing, and so these comments apply to men.
Some other, often quite severe problems with spin-fishermen, and bait
casters, is their tendency to "punch" the rod forward, "reaching", and their
apparent inability to attain a uniform and well distributed power stroke.
This problem is compounded by slow rods, although it actually seems to clear
it somewhat at first. The main reason for this, is that a slow rod will
resist attempts to move it too fast, and some of the "jerkiness" etc, caused
by punching and incorrect power application generally, will be "ironed out"
to some extent by the rods slow action. This however does not solve the
basic problems, and somebody who has learned like this is invariably a lousy
caster, as the mistakes have not been removed from the technique, just
"glossed over" to some extent.
Many "self-taught" casters never even realise that they have problems at
all, and constantly wonder that others can cast better and further.
Just to ensure that nobody "misunderstands" this, it is a personal matter
how one casts, and there is no rule that says you have to be a perfect
caster to fly-fish, or even remotely good at it. If you are satisfied with
the way you do it, then that is just fine.
One last point, I keep reading that good casting is learned by "constant
practice". This is absolute nonsense, and usually only serves to further
ingrain bad habits. Good casting is learned by knowing exactly what you are
trying to achieve, and then using the best possible method to achieve this.
Once you are doing it correctly, a little practice, or better still,
actually going fishing, is much better than hours spent flogging away on a
lawn, back-yard, field etc.
Many of the "trick-casts" made so much of, researched, named, defined, and
described at great length by various authors etc, are in actual fact, only
the natural result of a good caster who knows what he is trying to achieve,
and the capabilities of his equipment, adjusting to odd positions or
conditions, and do not have to be formally "learned". This comes naturally
to most after a while, and is learned under actual fishing conditions, not
on lawns.
A complete beginner who has never fished before, should, and normally will,
cast quite adequately after less than a hours instruction.
After four hours instruction from a good instructor, preferably on
consecutive week-ends, and perhaps with a little practice in between, he
/she should be quite a good caster, and know how to roll cast, double haul,
reach cast, and one or two other tricks as well.
Bloody post got far too long again. Hope it was of interest anyway.
TL
MC
--
"Where fishing is concerned, most anglers are basically manic excessives"
http://www.mikeconnor.de
<rdean3...@flash.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:94b88tcon1jd0poec...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 9 Feb 2001 16:21:12 +0100, "Mike Connor"
> <MIKE-...@t-online.de> wrote:
<SNIP>purpose.
t_...@my-deja.com
As a self-taught flycaster, I may have the tip you're looking for...
IT'S THE BACKCAST, STUPID. Just keep screaming that at your student
and they'll eventually catch on...<G>
I learned my flycasting basics from a cheap video that I rented. The
video was adamant about one thing: not beginning your forward casting
motion too soon. I learned rather quickly why they were so adamant.
If you begin your forward motion too soon, you crack the end of the
line like a whip and the fly goes into orbit... I was using primarily
poppers at the time (targeting crappie/bass) and I must have lost a
dozen of them that first summer.
Have the student watch you cast. Make them pay close attention to the
timing of the forward casting motion. When they try it, have them
watch the line going back and forth, being careful to let the backcast
straighten out before beginning the forward motion.
Ten years later, I think I'm an OK caster. I thought I was an awful
caster, but Mark Faulkner took me to Fisherman's Paradise last August
and he seemed to think that my casting ability was OK at worst. Much
to my surprise, he said that I was "pretty good" at casting. My
rollcasting is excellent, mostly from years of salmon fishing in AK and
pond fishing in NC with brush at my back.
I hope to go fishing sometime this year with an FFF-certified casting
instructor who I recently met. He'll probably have to sit down to keep
from falling down with laughter after he sees me casting.
Tom G
self-taught and still learning
Don Thompson
"Mike Connor" <MIKE-...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:961cga$u1k$03$1...@news.t-online.com...
<snip>
Whew.Glad I was "Born in the USA" where fishing is a rite of summer for
small boys and anyone else who desires to try. No "tests" required.It is
"catch on or quit" and few quit.
Don Thompson
.
rw
>
> (No reason I can't let him try both,
> just wondering what the "experts" think.)
I'm no expert, but I think he should try both. In fact, take as many
different rods as you reasonably can, and let him try them all. Who
knows what he'll prefer?
--
visit my web site: http://home.earthlink.net/~royalwulff/
rb608
moot. Although it was my first rod, and I learned the beginnings of fly
fishing with it, that fiberglass rod was awful. I couldn't cast it worth a
damn myself, much less give it to the newbie. I'm sure that it's
underloaded with a 6 wt. line. I'm also sure that part of it was my
inability to adjust my technique to the rod; but egads it was horrible.
As many have surmised, he had a lot of trouble waiting for the back cast.
That, plus his ingrained tendency to cast between 9 & 3 was a tough habit to
break. He also had a tendency to go sidearm. By the end of the hour,
though, he was throwing some pretty casts, and was at least lip hooked on
the sport. We'll see. I'll let him make the next move.
All in all, a pleasant lunch hour; nice weather, a good cigar, a little fly
fishing, and maybe a few hits on the flask. That, and it's Friday
afternoon. If I wasn't having dinner with the inlaws tonight, all would be
right with the world. <g>
Joe F.
Charlie Choc
>People are obliged to attend these instructional courses in order to
>obtain a fishing licence, as minimum casting competence, and a test to prove
>that one has attained it, is mandatory,
Oh oh, do you mean I will have to pass a casting test to get my license
over there?
--
Charlie...
Mike Connor
news:9619eu$g...@news.or.intel.com...
> I've always found slower rods to be easier to "feel" the loading. Since I
> started fishing with spinning rods, the drastic change of flex made
> it more obvious what loading was supposed to feel like. I tried a faster
> rod and kept trying to cast it like a spinning rod, drove me nutz. I've
> had several other beginners express similar feelings.
>
> My $0.02,
> - Ken
>
>
I have heard, and read this quite a lot too, and at one time I was of the
same opinion, but I now have some trouble believing it. It goes against my
experience. ( see last post ). Having handed quite a few beginners "soft"
rods in the past, and watched them struggle hopelessly, I now refrain from
doing it. Quite a few of the instructors have also argued with me in the
past about this, but have all now given up, as it is obviously not borne out
in practice in the majority of cases.
It might be somewhat different for people who have been casting a while, I
don´t know, as I mainly only had to do with beginners.
Timing, is a very funny thing. A piece of line accelerated backwards
requires a certain amount of time and power to straighten out. This period
is dependent on the speed with which the line is accelerated, and the length
of line involved. This is directly dependent on the speed with which the rod
may be moved, and the ability of the caster to achieve this. The keys are
correct timing, and correct power. Each is useless without the other. This
applies to fast or slow rods.
"Fast" rods, ( Fast means a stiffish tip actioned rod, when loaded with the
correct line, and cast at optimum distance, or with shooting heads ), are
capable of accelerating the line to a greater speed than "soft" rods. ( soft
means a rod which flexes to the butt when loaded with the correct line, and
cast at optimum distance). The optimum distance for any particular rod/line
combination may vary considerably.
These things may be influenced by over, or under-lining, hauling, and a few
other things, and as the terms "Fast" and "Soft", themselves are not
quantifiable, are in any case subject to a wide range of interpretation.
Soft rods force one into slowing down the the whole casting sequence, it is
true, as if one tries to move the rod too fast, it simply is not capable of
storing or releasing the energy properly, and the cast fails.
For short distance casting, ( which is basically what practically all trout
fishermen do most of the time)soft rods are usually more pleasant to use, as
they load early and easily, and for short casts, timing is not such a major
problem.
Depending on just how "soft" the rod is however, there comes a point when
one is forced to actually "wait" quite a while for the line to straighten,
and the power must be applied in a completely different way, and in
different amounts, and this eludes many people
Unfortunately, when this is coupled with one of two fairly common beginner
faults, namely, starting the forward stroke too soon, and applying too much
power, or allowing the backcast to drop too far, starting too late, and once
again applying too much power in an attempt to compensate, then the whole
thing becomes very difficult to master.
The "perceived" optimum distance varies even more, and is dependent on the
caster. Many casters have a "preferred distance", which they use most,
sometimes taking a step or two back, or a step or two forward, or using a
single haul, braking the line etc, in order to maintain it. Most are not
even aware that they do this, it has become second nature to them, and they
have no problems with it.
This distance, and the amount of power applied is seldom varied when casting
normally. This works quite well, until such time as the distance required
( whether shorter or longer ), is not obtainable with that particular
combination of timing, power, and "tricks", and then the whole thing just
fails.
Beginners usually have no problems at all casting a certain fixed length of
( usually relatively short ),line, either with a soft or fast rod. Where
the problems start is when this is varied. The possible variation when
using a soft rod is very large indeed, as this rod is only capable of
relatively slow acceleration, and power application, the amount of time
required for a long length of line to straighten is considerably greater
than that required by a fast rod, and the amount of power which has to be
applied with the correct timing becomes ever more critical.
The vast majority of casters tend to use the same amount of power on all
their normal casts. Most especially beginners do this. For longer line, not
only a different timing is required, but also different amounts of power.
This is far more difficult to master ( AT NORMAL DISTANCES), on a slow rod,
than on a fast one.
A fast rod loads and recovers much more quickly than a slow one, hence the
term. The total amount of time available for the line to straighten is
considerably less than for a slow rod, and the fast rod is able to store
more power, more quickly. This makes the timing for casting at normal
distances (minimum, say ten feet, maximum forty feet with a normal DT ),
much easier for a beginner, simply because it varies less, the power
required to achieve this is also far less variable, ITS CORRECT APPLICATION
OVER A PERIOD OF TIME is also far less critical, and a slight mistake may
introduce a fault, but it will not neccessarily collapse the cast.
Distance casting is another thing entirely, and as it is not something
complete beginners are likely to do, especially not with soft rods, is not
relevant to this discussion.
I am perfectly well aware that this goes against what most people have
heard, or indeed what many experts say, and I am quite willing, indeed eager
to discuss it, especially if anybody can find any holes or incorrect
reasoning.
One other point which often has me confused, is this idea of "feeling" the
rod loading. Most especially with regard to shooting heads. I have now
heard quite a few people mention "waiting for a tug on the line" and various
other descriptions. In my opinion, if you feel tugs on the end of your line
when casting, then you are doing something wrong, as it means you have
introduced slack somewhere, or you are using weighted flies or something, as
otherwise it would not be possible for the line to tug.
You may feel a large or weighted fly tauten the line a bit as it turns over
and comes to an abrupt stop, but under normal conditions, with say a dry fly
or small nymph at normal distances, the cast should be as smooth as silk,
with no tugs or anything on the rod. I have never felt anything much at
all, and I am a bit puzzled as to what is meant by this.
JR
> Timing, is a very funny thing.
On ROFF it's hard to distinguish the simple typos from the flashes of
brilliance.
JR
Mike Connor
Seriously, you just need to bring the papers I mentioned in order to obtain
a tourists licence. The rules stated are only for residents.
Before everybody rushes over to Germany to buy a tourists licence in order
to partake of the magnificent fishing, let me just add a little damper. A
tourists licence is only any good if you have somewhere where you will be
allowed to fish. As many clubs insist that only holders of the
"Sportfischerpruefung", and "Sportfischerpass", may fish, ( the first of
which is the certificate you get when you pass the test, and which enables
you to apply for a licence, the "Fischereischein", and the second of which
is a document certifying your membership of a club, your right to general,
spin or flyfishing, which you may obtain after receiving your licence, and
joining a club which issues such documents ), you will not be able to fish
anyway. Some clubs, and a few privately held waters, do apparently allow
tourists without these documents to fish, but if you wish to do so, inform
yourself beforehand.
TL
MC
--
"Where fishing is concerned, most anglers are basically manic excessives"
http://www.mikeconnor.de
"Charlie Choc" <cc...@bellsouthyourpants.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:ore88tk6tr74qg0c5...@4ax.com...
Charlie Choc
>No Charlie, I got you a special dispensation ! :)
>
Whew... <g>
--
Charlie...
Michael M
Germany before you can fish. As you are well aware, we don't have
anything like what you described here in the UK. The non-migratory fish
licence costs something like 16 quid, and involves nothing other than a
pre-season trip to the local post office and filling in of the most basic
personal details (name & address), and the shelling out of pound notes.
This system seems to be quite sufficient for all parties involved in the
sporting and sustainable pursuit of trout. Or so it would seem....
I'm not sure if I quite follow the reason of the German system, (which
could seem draconian if the intent was somewhat misunderstood). What is the
logic behind the German system, (if it is not a method to "refine" the
active flyfishing population)?
What is your thought on this Mike?
PS, Does the flycasting test have a DIN number! :-)
Mike Connor
occasions. The reasons for, and the events leading up to this particular
complex of laws and regulations, are themselves exceedingly complex. Not all
are explainable logically.
It would take up far too much space to go into all the various factors which
influenced these things here, but I will try to give you a few salient
points.
First of all, it is the law, how it all came about, is really only of
academic interest to those bound by it, or (in the case of the UK for
instance), those threatened by similar developments, notwithstanding the
fact that many seem blithely unaware of anything untoward, and others just
laugh it off, saying "it could not happen here" etc etc Strangely enough,
that is precisely what most anglers said here as well.
When I was a young man, living in Yorkshire, nearly thirty years ago,
anybody who had said that fox-hunting would be banned, would simply have
been laughed at, it was an integral part of country living, and look at what
has occurred, the law is going through the government, with every likelihood
of succeeding.
Thirty years is not a particularly long time, and such changes are possible
in much shorter time scales nowadays. It is not a big step from legislating
against cruelty to animals, ( for which reason fox-hunting is apparently
being banned), to banning fishing for exactly the same reason. If fish had
fur, then anglers would be in the same boat as the fox hunters. As it is,
it is only a matter of time.
Although, if matters proceed to their logical conclusion in the UK, it is
a moot point whether fishing will be banned, before there are no fish
stocks left to fish for. And guess what? Anglers will be blamed for a lot
of it, although angling is known to have little or no effect on fish stocks
when compared to large scale industrial operations.
The likelihood of changing such laws, once passed, is basically zero, in
fact more restrictions will definitely occur as things progress.
As I had no part whatsoever in making these laws, and as I do not subscribe
to such restrictive controls in any case, I am unable to explain all the
reasons for it. I am simply bound by it because I live here. Those
responsible for it, in actual fact a good many of those who are now worst
affected by it, due to their complacence, divisiveness, pathetic attempts at
appeasement and many other things, are the real culprits. Most especially
various angling organisations, whose officials are more interested in
politicking than in angling, and who are unable to see beyond their own
noses.
The problem is widespread, because such organisations attract such
penetratingly pitiful people, much like "normal" politics, and these are the
people who then get powerful positions, as the anglers are too busy angling
to be bothered with it.
Another of the main reasons for all this, is the steady increase in
political power of the green party, and their fringe group members, such as
animal rights activists and a few similar groups. The green party is the
natural political home of such people, and as they tend to be extremely
industrious, even fanatical in their devotion to various causes, they are
welcomed as basis workers whatever their views.
When I came to Germany over twenty years ago, the green party was little
more than a joke. Now they are a very powerful political party part of the
present government , and with several of their members as cabinet ministers.
Not many people joking now.
Once in power, such parties reward their industrious workers with positions
etc. It does not take very long for a determined and half way intelligent
individual to obtain such positions, they are much better motivated than
most people in any case. They are consequently far better represented in
positions of power than "normalos" or "moderates", and they are then able to
begin realising their aims with relatively little opposition.
They have been extremely successful in getting restrictive legislation
passed at a number of levels. Their aims are quite simply to stop people
fishing, hunting etc. among other things They are doing remarkably well at
this. Their success record in Germany is amazing, and is increasing almost
daily. These people are active in many countries though, they are well
organised, well financed, and very highly motivated. I suppose for many of
them the "crusade" is as much "religious fervour" as anything else. One
reason why logic and reason fail miserably in any confrontations with such
people.
Many are little more than terrorists, ( On that particular note, it is most
interesting to see several German cabinet ministers being questioned about
their past activities as members of, or with connections to terrorist
organisations ! ), others are far more subtle, and no less dangerous. This
sort of thing attracts considerable numbers of loonies of various shades and
persuasions. Especially those looking for a "meaning" in life, or wanting to
"save the planet" etc etc etc.
Basically they wish to control others, and force them into doing what they
consider is right. No different to any other bunch of fanatics really. As
few anglers or hunters are fanatics, except perhaps some in pursuit of their
sport, and the individual and complex nature of such sports, they have
little chance against well organised opposition. To "Joe public", shown a
picture of a fish dying, or a bird strangling on fishing line, or ostensibly
dying of lead poisoning from anglers lead weights etc etc , this suffices to
label all anglers as irresponsible murderers. Protest is useless in the
face of such, and so it goes. Couple this with the fact that to many, such
sports smack too much of elitism, and you have won a large sector of the
public over to your views without even resorting to particularly dirty
tactics.
All these things combined with some absolutely brilliantly orchestrated
propaganda can achieve things that most people would simply not believe is
possible.
The law here states that it is illegal to kill a fish, or indeed any other
invertebrate unless you wish to eat it. Any activities, which do not
conclude as rapidly as possible with the humane death of such an animal,
for the purpose of consuming it, are illegal, and will land you in big
trouble.
Only people who have the relevant qualifications may kill invertebrate
animals, and part of the reason for the test is ostensibly in order to
obtain these qualifications. Juveniles may not kill invertebrates at all.
This means juveniles may not fish. In some federal states this is relaxed to
a degree, ( fishery law is basically state law, and it varies somewhat from
state to state).
I could go on for hours, and pages, but I think you get the drift. Most of
ROFF has heard a lot of this before, and I am sure they do not need repeats.
If one of these posts stops one person from voting for some green or other
nutcase, then it is worth it.
TL
MC
--
"Where fishing is concerned, most anglers are basically manic excessives"
http://www.mikeconnor.de
"Michael M" <mas...@snapper.karoo.co.remspamuk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:t88pqc5...@corp.supernews.co.uk...
rw
>
> The law here states that it is illegal to kill a fish, or indeed any other
> invertebrate unless you wish to eat it. Any activities, which do not
> conclude as rapidly as possible with the humane death of such an animal,
> for the purpose of consuming it, are illegal, and will land you in big
> trouble.
>
> Only people who have the relevant qualifications may kill invertebrate
> animals, and part of the reason for the test is ostensibly in order to
> obtain these qualifications. Juveniles may not kill invertebrates at all.
> This means juveniles may not fish. In some federal states this is relaxed to
> a degree, ( fishery law is basically state law, and it varies somewhat from
> state to state).
I suppose you must mean "vertebrate" animals, Mike, not "invertebrate".
Why is the distinction made along vertebrate/invertebrate lines? Isn't
that anthropomorphism? Just because we are vertebrates, does that make
ALL vertebrates deserving of special rights and privileges and
protections that we, in our arrogance, don't extend to members of other
phyla, such as lobsters, clams, squid, jellyfish, ants. barnacles,
termites, sea slugs, mosquitoes, and even plants and bacteria and
viruses for that matter? Hell, even mad-cow-disease prions have rights!
This is pure, naked, bigoted phylumism, and we shouldn't stand for it!
Someone has to stand up and speak out for the oppressed phyla! Power to
the squid!
Michael M
Yikes, it sounds terrible. OK, no complacency from me now on. What
should we anglers do about this, if indeed there is anything we can do? The
current hienous sin that the present government are attempting to
orchestrate is banning of hunting with hounds (fox / stag / hare [coursing]
hunting ), as it is deemed (by 80 % poplulation as I heard one Labour
activist) to be a "cruel" sport: by which I imagine to be a pastime that
requires cruelty to be inflicted upon animals. This is of course
trash-politik that is typical of our polar-politics government (here in
UK). When th fuel crisis was hitting hard last Sept, the government's held
a stand over overwhelming popular opinion. The people clearly expressed a
wish to have tax cut on fuel, but the government declined to accept this.
How can such a government do such hypocritical things?
So much about "devolution"; the opposite is happening closer to London.
In brief, the rural areas / ways of life are increasingly being trashed by
government actions born from city minds.
Imposing one's petty morality upon another is a sin indeed.
Mike Connor
increase as more and more people obtain an "education", become more and more
divorced from reality, have more than sufficient leisure time, and little
perspective or hope in their lives, in an increasingly complex and hopeless
world, and are unable to find anything meaningful or sensible to do with it,
and fix their attentions on some weird idea or crusade etc etc etc. Most
such people have more regard for their twisted ideas than for their fellow
men, and their views are coloured by this.
Most politicians do what they do for money and power, ( if not at first, at
least after a while ), they very rapidly become completely detached from
reality, as they have no further need of it, and their main aim in life then
becomes prolonging their own tenure and increasing their influence and
power, regardless of the cost to others.
The few who really would like to do something, or are even capable of making
sensible and logical decisions are effectively blocked. What we then get is
fuzzy compromises, and stopgaps, which invariably compound the problems
instead of alleviating them. Others are just loonys who have some program or
other they wish to put over at all costs. We have seen a few prime examples
here. No sensible person would continue to bombard people with irrelevant
political bullshit, which they have made perfectly clear they do not want to
hear, unless he was driven by some irrational urge.
No sensible person would continue to bluster and rant, apparently mainly to
his own detriment, and for no good reason, without having some irrational
and seemingly irresistible urge to do so. Many of the people in positions
of power are there as a direct result of their irrational urges, and
abnormal drtives, and can hardly be expected to act normally in any case.
Governments exist to govern, and they must consolidate their own existences
as a major priority. One reason for all the useless, complex, and even
dangerous legislation, which controls everything from drinking beer at
certain hours of the day, to pissing in the open, is the fact that once a
complex government exists, it must function in some way in order to justify
and prolong its own existence, and the result is unstoppable expansion,
massive waste of materials and talent, and the production of masses of
unnecessary claptrap. Most of which serves only to confuse most issues more
than they already were, or in support of pressure and lobby groups, and
mainly to the detriment of those being governed.
Anglers and others, as individuals, are completely powerless. The only way
to at least delay some things is to organise and fight. However, due once
again to the nature of the pastimes concerned, it is very difficult to
organise such things. Many anglers, hunters, etc, do what they do,
precisely in order to escape from mush of the crap they see happening, and
do not wish to be embroiled in either politics or fights in connection with
their favourite pastimes. I can understand that, I feel much the same way
myself.
One thing that does grieve me somewhat though is the fact that otherwise
intelligent people allow themselves to be hoodwinked continuously, and led
like innocent lambs to the slaughter.
I have no really brilliant patent suggestions to make. Join an angling
organisation, and make your voice heard, is the best I can offer.
TL
MC
--
"Where fishing is concerned, most anglers are basically manic excessives"
http://www.mikeconnor.de
"Michael M" <mas...@snapper.karoo.co.remspamuk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:t88vfr1...@corp.supernews.co.uk...
>
> Yikes, it sounds terrible. OK, no complacency from me now on. What
<SNIP>
Mike Connor
news:3A8469F8...@earthlink.net...
>
> I suppose you must mean "vertebrate" animals, Mike, not "invertebrate".
>
Perfectly correct. A slip of the keyboard I´m afraid. I am a bit tired
tonight.
> Why is the distinction made along vertebrate/invertebrate lines? Isn't
> that anthropomorphism? Just because we are vertebrates, does that make
The reasoning is sometimes obscure, but apparently is based on the
assumption that vertebrate animals are more susceptible to pain and stress,
and as such must be treated with more care. Also some people ( obviously
perverts themselves, as no normal person would have such weird ideas ), seem
to be worried that juveniles who were allowed to kill vertebrate animals
would then grow up to be perverted, and possibly find pleasure in torturing
or killing animals etc. As I said, I do not subscribe to any of this
nonsense, but if it is the law, I am bound to abide by it on pain of
punishment, just like everybody else.
There is very considerable uproar and discussion at this present moment, as
to whether "we" ( wish I knew who "we" are, as far as I know the new cabinet
minister is responsible for this load of bullshit ), have the right to kill
and destroy over 400000 cows, as a ( possibly quite useless, and in any
case badly reasoned, and purely populistic measure on the part of an
incompetent government, but that is apparently beside the point),
preventive measure against "mad cow disease". The animal rights people are
having a field day. I wonder what they think happens to these animals
normally? The public is reacting more or less as it always does, without
rhyme or reason, and the politicians are pleased at having shifted the focus
from their own massive incompetence to a "moral" issue. Bloody wonderful.
Quite a few people ask me to explain some of these things, and I am afraid I
am seldom able to do so, as that would require far more knowledge and
intelligence than I possess. In order to follow some of the twisted "logic"
involved, I would have to be either a loony or a politician myself. Both of
which fates, were I bound to choose either, would doubtless result in my
immediate sell-immolation.
Guyz-N-Flyz
for large squid. Anyway the program profiled the Humbolt Squid of the
Pacific (I believe). These sons-a-bitches are some real mean dudes and
don't need anyone's protection. Hell, they got these conical shaped beak
mouths that can tear ya to pieces in a second (if memory serves me). They
go into feedin' frenzies and attack anything in reach of them, including
their own kind. Ya wouldn't have much of a chance with one of these fellas
in an underwater duel!
Opie --calamarie anyone--
"rw" <royal...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3A8469F8...@earthlink.net...
Power to the squid!
rw
>
> My frequent desktop projects of tying flies and building rods in my office
> has finally piqued the interest of a co-worker, heretofore a spin fisherman.
What's your job description, Joe?
Mike S. Medintz
<mas...@snapper.karoo.co.remspamuk> wrote:
> Yikes, it sounds terrible. OK, no complacency from me now on. What
>should we anglers do about this, if indeed there is anything we can do?
For starters, don't vote Green :)
>The
>current hienous sin that the present government are attempting to
>orchestrate is banning of hunting with hounds (fox / stag / hare [coursing]
>hunting ), as it is deemed (by 80 % poplulation as I heard one Labour
>activist) to be a "cruel" sport: by which I imagine to be a pastime that
>requires cruelty to be inflicted upon animals.
I remember hearing some Labour MP saying on TV about a fox-hunting
ban, "I don't care about the animals, I just want to fight the class
war!" I'm guessing that some of your countrymen get as stupid about
class as we do about race.
And is that ALL hunting with hounds? There's parts of the US where
that's practically a local religion! (Never understood why hunt deer
with hounds, but evidently some hunters and dogs like it.)
>This is of course
>trash-politik that is typical of our polar-politics government (here in
>UK). When th fuel crisis was hitting hard last Sept, the government's held
>a stand over overwhelming popular opinion. The people clearly expressed a
>wish to have tax cut on fuel, but the government declined to accept this.
>How can such a government do such hypocritical things?
Why does a dog lick his own neuticles and leave messes on the rug? He
can and nobody's ever taught him better.
Mike S. Medintz: med...@mindspring.com
You can't hide beneath your covers and study your pain
Make crosses from your lovers, throw roses in the rain
-Bruce Springsteen
George Adams
>
>Quite a few people have asked me to explain some of this, on a number of
>occasions. The reasons for, and the events leading up to this particular
>complex of laws and regulations, are themselves exceedingly complex. Not all
>are explainable logically.
<Balance of informative and scary reportsnipped>
All you guys who professed support fot the Green Party during the recent
election in the U.S. should read Mike's post at last twice. Any of you who
would offer support to Nader, or who feel PETA is getting a bad rap from
sportsmen should read it until you commit it to memory.
Any of you who feel "it can't happen here", don't even bother to read it,
because you wom't understand.
George Adams
"From the rockin' of the cradle to the rollin' of the hearse, the goin' up was
worth the comin' down."
___Kris Kristofferson "The Pilgrim/Chapter 33"