Peter Patricelli

BST Users
  • Content count

    993
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

About Peter Patricelli

  • Rank
    Elite Member

Profile Fields

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. This thread, as I stated in my opening, was spawned and is still linked in my mind, from a previous thread, "Fly fishing A.I." Hunter123 asked: "Hi, I went fly fishing at A.I. this summer, did ok on the back bays, horrible in the surf. I use a Orvis Silver label 9.5 9wt with a Rio tropical 9wt floating line and a intermediat sinking line. I couldn't get any distance out of either line. maybe 20 yds if that. I have read that I should over line the rod with a 10wt floating line. I did better on the bayside with the intermediate sinking line. I fly fish for Trout with no problems, but I would really like to do better in saltwater fly fishing. I don't want to run out and get a new outfit and not figure what I'm doing wrong with the Silver label. I have only tried the rod 3 or 4 times since getting it in the 1990's. Thanks " Hunter 123 later confirmed" I have surfed fished for 63 years. I have learned how to read a beach. It took years but was worth the knowledge gained. Surf fishing I do very well at the DE beaches and at A.I.,,,,,,,,,,I love the challange of fly fishing. Your right about distance, even when surf fishing, most of the stripers, blues, and smaller fish I catch with in the surf line, maybe 15 to 30 yrds out." I interpreted the question to be 99% about casting. He had the fly outfit for 30 years (and presumably was fishing with gear that whole time) and "only tried the rod 3 or 4 times since getting it". He was already casting 20 yards, "if that", and wanted more distance. "Doing ok on the back bays" I interpreted to be lighter and less challenging wind conditions, strength and direction. It turned out highly likely his lines were underlining his rod, and the tropical line was possibly too stiff in NE water temps. I recommended that to achieve his stated goal he needed to make more of a commitment, and the fastest way up the learning curve was lessons......which would have corrected the underlining problem. The first thing any reputable instructor would do would be take a few swings with the guy's own outfit. The sentences I reacted to,,,,,causing me to start this independent thread, was: "Casting lessons and distance are such a small part of the equation." and,,,,"With practice you will probably get another 10 if you just spend the time." (which I wouldn't disagree but it is made to sound like not really worth a lot of extra effort). and later...."join a surfcasting club". Hunter123's situation and problems are or were the classical trout fly fisherman wanting to make the leap into saltwater fly fishing, wanting to be as comfortable and fluent with a 9 wt + wind as he is with a 4 wt at 30 feet. THAT difference is what striving for that "extra 10 or 20 feet" (IN FLY CASTING) is all about. Working for that means more efficiency, fewer strokes, learning adjustments necessary for big, wind resistant or heavy flies, facing a direct or on shoulder wind, and with the loop control one needs for accuracy and reproducibility. Furthermore...there is virtually NOTHING that one learns in that quest that does not translate immediately in precise and more perfect dynamics right down thro the full list of rod/line combinations. In a float tube with my 3 wt, I am always throwing in a modest wrist snap double haul to throw a precise loop accurately. Try a "slam cast" under an overhanging branch giving you only 10" of clearance, to reach 30 more feet into the "unfishable" limb-covered sanctuary of the big mogens on the Deschutes River....while standing on tip toes to keep water out of your chest waders......without what one learns getting that "extra 10 or 20 feet". At this point I think everyone is talking past each other.....and are all in agreement. Of course, one has to be able to find fish,,,,,and of course one has to be able to cast TO the fish. I'm the one who starts sentences with, "it all starts with fish in front of you"....adding here, finding and getting to them. And of course, casting 100 feet with no "fish sense" to do that is just pure casting and not fishing, And, there are advantages to "limitations". I have written extensively about a certain Winston rod I once bought that promised it was designed and guaranteed to cast perfectly at 45 feet.....AND NO FURTHER....and that it would teach you (me).......because of that limitation......more about trout fishing than one knew up to that time. That rod did EXACTLY that.....and led me to to coin the expression....."wade long-cast short" fishing. But....that deep wading often benefitted from "saltwater" casting skills. It has been said, in BOTH these threads and a million times elsewhere, "there is no downside to being able to cast further", just as it has been said here, "you don't need to cast more than 60 feet to catch lots of fish.....if you know where to fish". Everyone agrees theoretically with both those statements. But one side of the "argument born out of agreement" is that one side has never experienced the advantages coincident with the reality resulting from the additional skills. Sooooo they downplay or belittle the importance of what they don't have and uptalk the rewards of staying in their more limited lane. That is just human nature, and fine as far as it goes. I started THIS thread specifically to start to explore the question.....what does one get from an additional 10-20 feet? That is, the skills requisite with heavier rod/line combination to fight the wind and big flies to get beyond "trout-level flycasting". The question is actually unanswerable, so much more than the extra 80% water coverage I started with, since the rewards are so extensive as to the horizons and fisheries so opened up as to requiring an encyclopedia and re-living my fishing life since age 13 (which I wouldn't mind at all). AND TO NOT DEFLECT OR DISCOURAGE people like Hunter123 who can only sense there is a reward out there. Hunter123 asked how he could move beyond. He didn't need to hear what he already knew.....keep doing what you have been doing for 63 years, keep struggling with wind and situations where he wanted to reach out further.........from people who have yet to learn and experience that larger, multi-dimensional reality. There are plenty of rewards at all levels of the process of living the lifelong challenge of fly fishing.....but they just keep getting better.
  2. I am SO glad this thread got revived......and corrected. For awhile there I was appalled. The message was.....don't take lessons. You don't need to cast that far. Use hardware to find the fish (within your limited casting range).....and THEN use the fly rod. Yeah, I know. Everyone sets out with their own goals and has their fun their way. If that is what he/they want, and all they want, who am I to care or criticize. But.....they have/had NO IDEA what they were walking away from fishing-experience-wise and blocking themselves from ever learning. Rather than start arguing, I decided that thesis was so thin and flimsy that most would see through it. And that is exactly what happened. Time....and trying a more challenging game......taught them what those wanting to move up the ladder of challenges already learned.....that the rewards of better, more efficient, and yes, longer range casting multiplies the possibilities and rewards by WAY MORE than the "square of the radius". The one thing that has not been said, here, yet,,,,,,the observation, stated here many times in other threads over the decade, is that for the ambivalent, curious, gear switcher...... improvement in their fly casting only really started when they left their hardware at home and made a commitment. Necessity is the mother of invention. One doe NOT learn how to handle wind by throwing their fly rod down with a curse and picking up the spinning rod. Not everyone really cares or wants to make the commitment. Not everyone will EVER be able to cast 80' or beyond, even with unlimited lessons and the most expensive rods. If the most important thing is JUST catching a fish, then in more than enough cases that is achieved more easily, sooner on the learning curve, with hardware. But everyone CAN improve their casting distance, accuracy, and efficiency with well directed practice, and/or lessons. And, to whatever degree that distance, accuracy, and efficiency improves......in my life and I know millions of others, it expands the world of possibility and dreams in a fashion similar to being given much more free time to fish and a much bigger travel budget. On an hour long clock of the fly fishing world, stripers on Cape Cod is about 2 seconds worth. And, actually, a pretty simple one at that. After chasing the monster bones of Biscayne Bay in March or April, I come to the Cape so I DON'T have to go into psychotherapy. We all choose our challenges. And most, once they have gotten comfortable with that level.....move the challenge up a notch. Resorting to bailout hardware backup does NOT move one forward or up on that scale. Thank you to those who resurrected this thread and re-directed it back to reality and instructive.
  3. Joe Paranee posted: "Sorry it bothers you " Joe.......if I read your drift correctly, you missed the point of mine. IT DOESN'T.......in the slightest. Please re-read my last paragraph. I am happily and frequently guilty of ALL (but one) of the mentioned assaults on one's "flyfishing purity". I routinely fish for non-rising fish, as often downstream or sideways, have caught lots of stripers on gummy minnows, smothered my steelhead (and sturgeon) flies with commercial scents, and use an "indicator" for nymph fishing (if needed). As for that last one, no regrets at all about my ability to, if I don't have a corkie, use a dead-drift technique without an indicator. Learning it taught me a TON about reading currents and presentation technique. The only thing I haven't done is flop a fly out behind a coasting Bertram to a teased up marlin....and bragged about it. Your comment....as was the intent of my whole post .......should be directed at the poster of the comment I quoted, "Sorry if I'm slow on the uptake but is this fly fishing?" Flyfishing is, at this point, irrevocably and happily whatever any one person wants it to be. But.....I am personally more impressed with the skill involved in some techniques than others, and I distinguish between any arguable form of fly fishing that involves actual casting....... and "landing fish using a fly rod".........which I am also guilty of now and then. Another slight caveat: As the progression in technology has simplified tremendously the slope and height of the learning curve.....and widened the definition of "flyfishing", I think it has, to some degree, loosened and diluted the bond between "flyfishers". Back 65 years ago, if one even (ever) met another "flyfisher", the two of you rushed into an embrace and clung to each other because you both shared something really special which few others could appreciate the difficulty of. I am aware of that, and to some degree miss that, But the flip side, as it became simpler and more popular, through those decades, the awareness and demand vastly improved the target fisheries right across the whole country. The only hope for the future lies in that simplicity, popularity and demand......based upon the special qualities and rewards in learning it's self-imposed....and self-defined.....challenges. Good luck and tight lines.
  4. "Sorry if I'm slow on the uptake but is this fly fishing?" Back some time ago, the answer was.....upstream dry fly.....to rising trout only. One year, after spending a whole week float-tripping the Deschutes using a weighted nymph and dry line ONLY.....forcing myself to learn drag-free subsurface nymph fishing.....which at that time, using unadorned floating line, leader, and normal fly....was considered the PhD post-doctoral degree in trout fishing. By the end of the week I had it down....IN SPADES....and every trout in the run was MINE, if I bothered to stay in one place long enough. Six months later someone slid and pinned a bobber (here in NW we called them a "corky" onto the leader knotted to a weighted nymph...... and suddenly every neophyte could fish a drag free nymph technique after 10 minutes of casting instruction. ANYBODY could fly fish and catch fish quite effectively. LOTS of us old-timers, having prepped and learned for years the unadorned dead-drift nymph technique, grumpily asked....."is this really fly fishing"? And so it went. Tie on a "plastic" gummy minnow" and catch stripers. "Is this really fly fishing"? Put commercial baitfish scent on nymphs for steelhead. "Is this really fly fishing"? Someone who had never picked up a fly rod gets in an offshore boat....that drags a teaser and pulls a billfish up to the stern before cutting the motor. The completely inexperienced neophyte flops his/her line and big fly into the wake of the still moving boat where it drifts back to the waiting, jizzed up blue marlin...that eats it. "Is this really fly fishing"? I could go on.....and on.....and on. At this point, the clear, unequivocal answer is....."it depends". Depends on what?? What does the guy/gal in the mirror say? One answer per person......per day. Inconsistencies permitted......if not encouraged.
  5. Ray, I have several points on the board in my mind that touch on some of those concepts. The first was on south Monomoy when, while i guide's boat, we pulled onto a 4-5' deep grassed flat that had a number of boats clearly concentrated for some reason. We quickly found the reason they were there. There was a large concentration of big fish that were laid up over the vegetation really not even cruising, just being gently pushed this way and that by boats floating through. Most of the fishermen were gear anglers, but whatever they/we were using the result was the same. No one was hooking up. After working through the usual flies with no response our guide counseled....pull all the flash out of your fly (2 color clousers).....then cut the fly down shorter and pull out some of the material to make it more sparse. Nothing yet. We were retrieving modest speed but even then were catching bottom. I decided to go to my fastest, deepest sinking head to get the fly right into the level of the dour fish.....and to keep it there and NOT on the bottom.....strip it like hell. Longest cast I could throw, wait 10 seconds, strip like hell. I got half the cast in when the fish took. Everyone took notice and looked. Bu the fourth fish they began inching closer to us. And so it went. Second time different guide, different flat (Brewster flat in CC Bay), but same situation. Boats noticing the fish, 4-5' deep grass flat, laid up fish and dour, no one hooking anything. After pulling out my hair for 30 minutes I remembered the Monomoy situation...and started pulling out hair from the clouser, shortening it up, put on a fast sinking high density line, long cast, strip like hell. Bingo! I told my boat partner what to do.....and he hooked up. I got a second fish before the rapidly changing depth (big CC Bay tides) moved the fish off. In the long run, in this endless, timeless process of dissecting the principles of physics, geometry, camouflage, etc., etc. in trying to determine the secret principles among the 1200 variables to each situation. That is maybe about the same number of neurons in a striper's brain. Even if there was a magical fly for every situation.......fate would dictate I would not have one in my fly box. Tease, tease, tease, reward. Tease tease tease, reward. That is why we love it so much. Other principles I have learned: some types of bigger flies can, on the water, be made smaller. Some types of "flash" in flies can be removed to look more subtle. The closer you can get the fly in front of the fish....the better. Tie those flies and your flybox is bigger, more diverse, than it looks. And, SOMETIMES, the less time you give those 1200 neurons in a striper's brain to think about it....the better. Whatever you try once you have found fish and know they are seeing your fly.....is.....something new that you haven't already tried and struck out on. Even if it is completely "out of the box". In fishing, there are few rules of common sense or general wisdom are are not.....made to be broken. I have a friend who, while fishing with me at Harkers for the big Alberts, while we were drifting through fishey water and I was blindcasting for distance and retrieving like hell, he cast his intermediate line out, same fly, and didn't retrieve at all. Just stood holding his rod and let it slowly drag with the drift of the boat. He caught equal numbers of fish as I did. And I was reminded of the times fishing dorado in Baja how often when landing a dorado it would empty it's stomach and there would be several "floaters", half-digested baitfish floating on the surface. Then, once, I saw, minutes later, a dorado come up and take the floater. So I started paying attention and eventually determined at EVERY regurgitated, dead, half digested baitfish floating on the surface.....was eventually taken. Soooo.....dead-drifting dry streamers for dorado (and I presume many other schooling predators) anyone? We'll never figure it all out. But is is sure fun trying. It's been a few years. I hope you are doing well. Merry Christmas!
  6. Mike, You and I both know this is a lifelong passion of infinite complexity and depth, and the rewards are set only by each of us in our self-chosen goals. However, God or Fate or Mother Biology has a sense of humor since our bodies do not grow with our experience. Almost 50 years ago in a public contest with an off the rack, typical NW steelhead fishing outfit, 30' shooting head, 9 foot leader, yarn fly, mono running line, I threw a measured 137'. Now, at 77, my arm strength has deteriorated to the point that I couldn't reach the basket for a standard basketball free throw. Seriously? In short, my days of finding MORE distance are over.. So....in the fading twilight......I CHOOSE to stick with SH rods and the unoperated shoulder-elbow-wrist that I first brung to the dance. My distance, when it comes down to that, hasn't suffered as much as my loss of strength would predict, perhaps due to some real technological advancement in rods and lines....of which I take continuous glee in, the associated ad hype and ridiculous prices, mocking. (I hope I never encounter another sentence that complex!) Even if I DIDN'T lose 20 feet due to tech advancement, they still owe me more than 40 feet in promised, incremental, guaranteed gains. But, before it is too late.....thank you. But I'm still using $60 rods! "There is absolutely no disadvantage in being able to cast well." Amen "Frank Daignault (who) accuses us (flyguys) of selecting water and conditions that we can cast in rather than where fish are likely to be." I think Frank missed the whole point of tying one hand behind your back and balancing on one leg.....while fishing. I also think if he super-glued a fly outfit onto his hands and had to truly grasp that challenge he would be surprised at the productivity of some water that gear fishermen regularly eschew. Remember, it was only after 200 years or so of gear fishing that it took the transplantation of Florida-style saltwater fly-fishing to "DISCOVER", in the late 1980's to early 1990's, the striper fishery (sight-fishing) on the flats of Monomoy!! It seemed odd to me to be actually defending the advantages of better/longer casting distance, but someone needed to say it. Unless simple distance is the chosen goal, and for all of us who revel in immersing ourselves (up to the armpits.....or worse) to participate in the mini-dramas of the food chain in that wonderful, beautiful, natural world........even those of us who have stopped counting the fun by the numbers of fish.........AN 80 FOOT (OR BETTER) CAST COVERING FISH-HOLDING WATER STILL PUTS ME IN DIRECT TOUCH WITH 77-88% MORE OF THAT WORLD, MOMENT BY MOMENT, THAN A 60 FOOT CAST! Those 20 feet are a quantum leap in what it opens up. It is SO worth, to me, cheerleading that reality for young'uns like you and the infant trout fishermen still wet behind/under their waders wondering what the line holding hand should be doing during a cast. For those still on the fence all I can say is.......do you remember how much fun life was before you discovered sex? Well............
  7. In a related thread, the discussion turn to the question of importance of distance casting was brought up by the OP who was embarking on the shift from fly fising for trout and gear for saltwater fishing to saltwater flyfishing. He said he was casting 60 feet in some venues but wanted more and wanted advice on improving his distance. Since there is honor among fishermen to never question estimated lengths....of fish OR casts.....let's accept that 60 foot figure at face value. The 60 foot figure is quite familiar to me because that is classically where the trout casting, especially in the NE with smaller streams, works just fine with little emphasis on shoot, or double hauling. Given a 9' rod, a 9' leader, a few feet of overhang and a 30-40 foot head on a WF line....there is pretty much your 60 feet....with little to no shoot. The discussion then went several directions. 60 feet (if the standard 60 feet)....really isn't all the bad, most strikes occur within that distance.....if one chooses their water and times carefully the fish will be right there. Attention to “fish-logic” and reading the water can make up for lack of distance. And, lessons are only going to get you another 10-20 feet. That got me to thinking. The first thought I had was so obvious I had never really formalized it as an awareness......how often a fisherman will choose the water to fish based on their casting comfort. Lots of people having lots of fun who can't get much beyond 60 feet. Do the work of finding those places, the times and tides. Have fun. And I realized I, and really everybody, does a version of the same thing: check out and concentrate on places that would seem to offer a good chance AT FISH THEY CAN REACH. The second thought I had centered around that question......what is an extra 10-20 feet......achievable with a good double haul and shoot.....really worth? What does it “GET “ you? The most simplistic and concrete answer to that starts with geometry. The area of a circle is equal to PI times the square of the radius. If one thinks as a fisherman, extra distance is not just 10 more feet, but the AREA that his casts can cover....which is ten more feet.....SQUARED......times a constant. Soooooo, let's look at that. Say you are standing on a featureless open flat sight fishing ....looking in all directions.....and can cast 60 feet. One then can theoretically cover an area of 11,310 square feet. If one can cast 80 feet......that area balloons to 20,106 square feet......That is a 78% increase in area, very close to doubling your shots if the spotted fish are randomly distributed. I would add an additional factor. Without the funneling effect of current, cuts, distracting bait, etc., 99% of the time the first 20 feet or so around you is devoid of fish because they have already seen or sensed your presence and have shied off. That means you are surrounded by 1257 square feet of “dead” water. Subtract that from both the 60 foot area covered and the 80 foot area.....that becomes 10,053 and 18,849 respectively and you have realistically increased your active fishing area by 88%. What about the more common scenario, standing or wading along a shoreline with lots of structure and deepening water, but with the shallower fishless (hopefully!) water behind you. Your fishing arc is reduced from 360 degrees to some arc lesser than 180 degrees.......say 1/3......60 degrees......30 degrees both right and left of perpendicular. The area now being fished is 1/6th of a full circle. How does that effect the advantage of an 80 foot cast over a 60 foot cast? The formula says that area is pi R squared x degree of arc/360. 60 degrees is 1/6th of 360 degrees. In this case I am not going to subtract the initial 20 feet because of the structure or depth which really allows for fish to get in quite close to you. For the 60 foot cast that becomes 11,310 divided by 6 = 1885 square feet. For the 80 foot caster that is 3,351 square feet. That is the same 78% increase as for the original 360 fishing coverage. The point is, in the real world, one's opportunity to put one's fly in front of fish in very common fishing venues increases with the SQUARE of the distance you can cast. That potentially translates into an almost doubling in opportunity regardless of the venue. If one searches out those fishing spots which present fish within one's casting distance, then the amount of qualifying water on the Cape also increases enormously. So, for the trout fisherman looking to make the jump to saltwater flyfishing, the big learning curve is making the jump from false-casting presentation to (comfortable, efficient) double haul-shoot presentation......that 60 foot cast to a 70-80 foot cast. OR....get a double-handed rod. Note there are some important corollaries to this radius squared reality. First, every foot further, since it is squared, potentially reaps huge benefits......in terms of water coverage......altho at extreme distances decreased fishability eventually reduces those advantages. The second reality, which we all have experienced, if not appreciated, is that the basic energy involved in getting that extra foot, or five feet, or ten feet.....goes up by the SQUARE of that distance. That is because the distance killing drag of wind resistance goes up by the square of the velocity needed to reach that extra distance. It takes more energy to cast 80 feet than 60 feet......only IF one can cast 80 feet in the first place. If one is struggling at 60 feet to get further, then the inefficiencies involved are way beyond what three efficient 80 foot casts require. And beyond all of this very mechanistic approach, the cast dynamics necessary to move beyond that 50-60 foot barrier carry over to ability to deal with the challenges of wind, accuracy, etc.. In the final analysis, the point of all this is to have fun and enjoy oneself.....NOT to base that on numbers of fish caught (after at least ONE.....or occasionally) or distance one can cast. If all we wanted was fish, gear fishing is simpler, and nets or dynamite simpler still. But the point of this game is to BE IN THE GAME. No one fishes water that does not have fish. We have all chosen a self-challenging method that basically ties one hand behind your back and makes you stand on one leg. There are multiple dimensions within that self-challenge, and a fluent caster simply opens up for themselves many new venues or territories that fish frequent. It is worth the effort. Instruction is worth it. Have fun out there.
  8. Puppet, " As you note about your Legendary friend, plus or minus 30 feet is not really going to improve an angler's productivity." I just want to clear up what might be a slight misunderstanding on your part about my (best pure fisherman I know) friend. He is NOT.....if one watches carefully........casting restricted. But his whole life (now 87) his fishing was based upon swinging flies in rivers for steelhead, so he often bases his casting on an unusual combination of water hauls rather than air-based false casting......only when the conditions allow. He can....and will....false cast in the air when conditions dictate....but he is happiest lengthening out a sequence of water hauls (in non-fishing water) until he has the exact angle and length he wants and THEN makes one perfect cast and presentation. And from that point on he exudes fish slime. But there is never an inch of extra, unnecessary effort involved. and to be clear....he is NOT distance restricted. The first time i met and fished with him I was wondering.....WTF?......but I knew his reputation and stature. So I kept my thoughts to myself and continued watching carefully. But, when I heard that when guide-boat-paired with a newbie, I understood exactly the hilarious mistake the newbie made when he first saw THE LEGEND cast.......of offering to cast for him. I'm going to put some other thoughts you raised in a separate thread....since they are, when explored, quite eye opening. No problem or disagreement with you at all. But it is an interesting question and the answer deserves to be seen by a larger group than just those following this thread. Good luck!
  9. "90% of my fish this season took the fly within 15 yards." UNfortunately......the distance at which the fish take the fly is only a small part of the equation. Sometimes they will smash it the moment they see it. But in my experience, the majority of the time the fish will track the fly, sometimes a considerable distance, before taking it. Why......depends on a lot of factors, most of which are beyond the fisherman's control. When sight fishing, one sees it all, and we have all been in the situation of a tracking fish, interested but not sure. After the first time the fish gets nose to fly but does not take, most will begin a series of manuevers....speed up, slow down, get jerkiy-er, trying to look panicked but keeping it right in front of the fish, anything and everything you can think of until the fish stops following the fly......or gets spooked by running into the angler. Sometimes the take only comes as the fly gets into shallower water.......or is lifting to the surface. Presumably the fish anticipates loosing his chances for that maybe meal. Or maybe because the fly is on a shorter line the jerks translate better to fly movement. If using a weighted clouser over sand....on a long leader......stopping all movement suddenly can be a deadly tactic. The clouser will suddenly drop head first into the sand......exactly the manuever a real sand eel would use to drive deeply straight into the sand to escape. It is do it or lose it decision time for the fish. If they react to it, it will be, in shallow water, a monumental headstand, tail wagging in the air, as the fish drives down and engulfs the fly with a big bite of sand. A short cast doesn't give much time for you to throw your bag of tricks at a fish. My point is......is most situations, you are casting a LOT further than 15 yards to get those "within 15 yards" takes. Casting "20 yards".....if exactly true......is 60 feet. Assuming a 9' rod......and a 9-10 foot leader.....means only casting 40' of fly line. That is, in most cases, right where the division point occurs for "trout fishing" would be converts........when the saltwater line head is past the tiptop (and cannot be false cast much further without the (trout fishing) mechanics falling apart) and it is time to double haul and shoot. THAT is where saltwater casting divides from the trout fishing caster. "Reading the water and finding fish is the hard part. 90% of my fish this season took the fly within 15 yards." I totally agree that distance casting can become a distraction, and some of the best fishermen I know are not necessarily the longest casters.. In fact, the best fisherman I know LOOKS like a very weak caster, so much so that once when paired with a overly-virile young newbie in a guided boat, the newbie watched the "weak-looking" casting .......and offered to cast for this white-haired, quiet, incredibly experienced LEGEND......who quietly demurred saying "I'll just flounder along as I usually do". What the newbie failed to appreciate was that each of those "weak" casts were JUST enough, time after time, in situation after situation, close OR far, to result in the perfect presentation. AND.....invariably......the challenging conditions (WIND!) of saltwater fishing are going to be managed better by the caster with better and more efficient dynamics. "Reading the water and finding fish is the hard part." How true........especially when one's casting limit is short.......or the wind is in your face. It is a big world out there. It is nice.....and more productive, to have options. If the OP is currently drastically under-lined, then getting a new line could be completely curative. As I said before, the OP gave us NO CLUES as to his actual level of understanding the appropriate dynamics. But it takes a certain level of cluelessness to not recognize the problem of serious UNder-lining. I still stand by the recommendation of lessons. But at least he will have given himself a chance....to step up to another level..... and the result will totally be of his own doing. One of my (now, sadly, deceased) dearest fishing buddies was a terrible, terminal.....40' trout caster.......and......resultingly a very poor fisherman. But the joy and surprise reactions he had when he DID actually catch something was so honest and real that the sun shone thru thunderheads and gale winds fell to flat-assed calm. It was so much fun just being there to see it. There is something in this for all of us.
  10. Sorry, I don't know what "A. I." refers to. "I fly fish for Trout with no problems, but I would really like to do better in saltwater fly fishing." 98% of us were there......in the beginning. Do NOT go out and "buy a new outfit"......searching blindly for some gear combo that corrects whatever casting deficiencies you might have. With that little contact with your rod in 30 years......would seem to indicate a low level of interest/drive. If you think this is going to be simple, easy, and immediate.....then....well....you are wrong. If your interest is ONLY IF it is going to be simple, easy, and immediate......then few, if any, will want to spend the energy to try and help you. It is and can be fun, but there IS work involved.....and potentially some frustration at the learning curve. Consider this: Millions of dollars are spent each year by hundreds of thousands of golfers on lessons. And the basic golf swing is FAR MORE OBVIOUS AND INTUITIVE than a salt-water effective cast. Probably 1/4 of all threads on this site.....going back a decade involve some attempt at diagnosing/correcting/tteaching casting proficiency. There are some wonderful threads if you go looking for them. Without seeing your casting in person or in a video it is almost impossible to even know where to start. You give no clues......or even hint you know what a haul,,,,,much less double haul,,,,,or shoot....is. By FAR, the best advice is to find a certified casting instructor and get first-hand.....hands-on lessons. Non-certified instructors can be 1) free.....but 2) more variable to downright problematic in their own right. If you really want the thrill-of-the-chase of doing this all right here in the ether-world.....then have someone make a video of your casting strokes......and post it (or a link to it) back on here. And begin the work of a lifetime.
  11. Dacron was, 70 years ago, the modern, synthetic improvement over the organic stuff (cotton, silk?) that was used at that time....and THAT was the stuff that rotted. I've forgotten what it was, but when wet it had to be strung out to dry after EVERY fishing day when it got wet At age 14 I put generic Dacron 20# on my first, of many Pfleuger 1498's. As anyone can attest, I ride my equipment hard.....and put it away wet. I STILL have that reel, with the same Dacron backing, 63 years later. DACRON DOES NOT ROT OR DETERIORATE! There IS a quaint problem with Dacron that is not disturbed for many years (as in decades) which I think is due to either temperature variation expansion and contraction.....or.....dry to wet (in-place undisturbed on the reel). It seems to spontaneously develop a wavy pattern. Quite quaint and artistic, BUT,,,,,it can cause binding problems when suddenly disturbed after 20 years of non-exposure. I thought it was funny until the first bonefish or really big striper took my old reels into decades unexposed backing territory,,,,and it got bind-y. The solution, if one sees the waves start to develop, is simply pull it all off and rewind it every few years.....before a trip for the big-uns. I can barely handle that much maintenance. I'm not going to get into the braid versus Dacron debate. My personal experience with braid has been negative....repeatedly......on level winds (sturgeon) and fly reels (tarpon). I believe I know why....and how to prevent it......but that would involve regular, careful attention to maintenance that just isn't in my repertoire. At this point I have restrung all my saltwater reels with 30# Dacron......and put it away wet. They will certainly outlive me.
  12. What in the he** is going on at the head of that fly. It looks like it is wearing glasses.
  13. Beware of cow moose with calf. Very big. Very nasty. Very protective of calf.
  14. Thank you. It WAS worth asking the question.
  15. "I have test-casted them all, but they need a proper build to do them justice." I am curious how you "test-casted" them. Casting someone else's finished rod would be the only way I know, but you make it sound as though you test-casted the blank.....which leads to a point some (or....maybe.....I) might not be aware of. The proper action of the fully built rod depends upon the details of the "build"....in the form of....number/spacing/weight/design of guides, length and weight of wrapping and finish, weight of tip top, etc.. In my experience I have always found it very difficult to judge how the final action of the rod will turn out just by swinging/bending the rod......altho one thing is certain. All those weighty components only act to loosen and slow the action, never stiffen it. I have finished a rod, found it intolerably slow, stripped everything right off of it and re-wrapped it using every trick I know.....with notable but only slight improvement. And, to extend the implications......if one has cast a factory (or other....fully) finished rod they like, and obtained the blank, one should take note of all the components and details and carefully adhere to them in the "build" if one wants to maximize reproducing that great action. But, with regard to "test-casting a blank".....do you know something I don't? I would love if there is a way.