Peter Patricelli

BST Users
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About Peter Patricelli

  • Rank
    Elite Member

Profile Fields

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. "Lastly I think scent is a critical component, but not something most fly fishermen are willing to dabble in. " I don't dabble in scent. I dabble my flies in it. Seriously. But that is for still-water steelhead........not, so far, stripers. But......lost virginity is welcome hedonism. All is fair game between a consenting adult.
  2. Steve is a close friend and fishing partner, both on Cape Cod and in Florida. That is Steve on the left side of my avatar. From that you can assume I have been thoroughly indoctrinated into the "wonders" of pink. Just yesterday my fishing buddy here caught the biggest smallmouth of his life on the PW, recommended for smallies by Steve. And, when while casting for snook in FL from my boat (with the PW)......Steve unknowingly hooked an 80# tarpon (tanin stained water in the Everglades), an unknown and unseen secret for not very long. Unfortunately, besides being overmatched, that reel only had 100 yards of backing, so Steve and his SIXTH tarpon hooked on the PW while fishing for other things, were soon parted. Steve's health issues are for him to disclose and discuss. Mostly armchair fishing at this point, but I still have hopes of getting him out here in the NW to get a REAL steelhead instead of those Walmart great lakes imposters. But I can tell you he LOVES hearing Pink Wonder stories, if you have any. I will also say that Steve does not pretend that he deduced that pink would be a great fishing color and then proved himself right, but only that from a random exposure, he was just smart enough to perceive that something special was happening and run with it for decades and a mind-boggling number of species taken. I will pass this along and I am sure Steve will respond.
  3. Yes, much experience with Scott rods, altho I haven't bought a top of the line rod from them (or anyone) in over a decade. My go to 8 wt (9', 4 piece) is a Scott S4s. Moderately fast, smooth, disappears from my consciousness. I haven't ever cast with a Scott I didn't like. But then, I could say that about almost all of the primo brands. Here is that particular rod in action: So......if I haven't bought a high end rod in a decade....what am I buying?? Well, until they discontinued that particular line, I bought a lifetime supply of Cabelas (6,8,10, and 12 wts) Three Forks rods.....retail was $69, on sale as low as $40.......WITH Cabelas guarantee. So......full disclosure......I also haven't cast a generic, low end fly rod in the past decade that I didn't think worked just fine on all the special trips I could take with the money I saved by NOT buying the heavily advertised top end rods. Scott rods are great rods, no doubt. But if you have to ask, then likely you need work on your casting technique. Paying more $$ won't solve it/them.
  4. Imaniac, Just curious by what you meant by "landlocked stripers". low tide? Or longer....seasonal?? Judging fish from pictures is always tricky because of potantial lens distortion and lack of size reference but that fish looks like a 36"+ head and a 26" fish body.
  5. "Wondering if there is something I can use it for? Maybe add a shooting head? Anyone try this?" In terms of your basic question, the answer is a rousing YES....all the time. Exactly as you envision it, the head and the running line are two components of basically a simple two part system. Every integrated full line is a potential modular interchangeable shooting head- interchangeable running line system....if/when dis-assembled.. Eventually something wears out, most commonly at either the front taper-leader hinge, or the head-running line transition which, with vigorous double hauling, ruins the coating of the running line in the first few feet of the transition into the head......the working section of the "overhang" going into the forward delivery stroke.. With the haul you saw that line, under great pressure. through the guides while in a near 180 degree loop. No way to recoat that segment of line, so I cut the bad section out, then put loops on the center ends and keep using the line or....much less commonly for me,,,,,mate the two lines again as described above. That simplifies it and removes the clickety-clack of the loops going through the guides (which some find objectionable) but lose the new interchangheable options......putting on a different head......or putting on a different running line. Been doing this for many decades, especially when I find a running line (slick shooting or poor memory/less coiling, or less commonly a head, which I really like an don't want to throw away. Welcome to the "head game".
  6. Stripernut1, I said haddock.....meant polluck. At 60' you are in the typical "dredging" depths for stripers, and there are several fully integrated lines made precisely for that purpose. However stretchy....or your standards....they sure work damn well for stripers. It is your wheel to re-invent if you wish. I suspect that in your "rock and rubber band at 130' " test that most all the stretch was in the rubber bands!! Or....that the rock was too light? Rocks don't weigh as much in the water as they do in the air. I suspect they wouldn't break because the rubber bands stretched until the rock lifted off the bottom. Have you considered whether GSP braid might NOT have popped the rubber bands in that set up either? I am sure that you can demonstrate that gsp braid has less stretch than braided dacron. But.....having broken off a LOT of snagged gear over the ages, no matter whether stretchy nylon.....thru gsp braid.....they will ALL break unless the "anchor point" gives and comes up. I fish for White 200-400# pounds on the Columbia using 80# GSP braid. When I snag on the bottom I must pull back a surprising 4-6 feet of straight pull at serious tension to break the 3-4 foot #50 leader. That "stretch" is a combination of a little bit in the leader, the rest a combination of actual GSP stretch AND minor current/drift induced curve in the line. THAT system has about as little stretch as one might ever achieve. But at the same time the system has wonderful "sensitivity" to light the sturgeon often just hover in the current over the bait while mouthing it over and over. There are, after all, positives to stretch.......up to a point. Negatives to too stretchy begin when one has trouble setting a hook in a hard mouth before the fish can eject the fly, and not feeling a subtle take fast enough. But the negatives to too little stretch begin when there is too little shock absorbency and the most brittle part of the system, the hook, the leader, etc. gets needlessly fractured. You are welcome to try some of this "low stretch" australian mono. Send me a PM with an address and I will send you 100' or more (you specify) to play with. But if you think dacron is too stretchy, I doubt you will be happy with this stuff. I am also thinking that even when you try the LEAST stretchy line made, you might decide that the standard set by your previous test might have been unrealistic.....or not functionally different in an actual fishing situation. Let us know what you finally decide "works"...for you......along with a picture of the fish that proves it.
  7. Stripernut, just saw your post. "The "rubberband" lines that I had tried in the past where hollow-core dacron, which had to much stretch for the application..." Dacron as a material has basically ZERO stretch. Woven and braided, there may be some very short initial stretch to get the weave tight but from there stretch at all. If woven dacron felt too "stretchy" to you, then my best guess is that you are really feeling all the curves and angles that reduce sensitivity. It feels like "stretch", but isn't..... really. Give us the details, the depth you are fishing, the head, the leader, the fly. WHEN are you feeling "stretch"?
  8. "Mono doesn't sink though. It has a specific gravity less than water." Wow. I just cut off a chunk of the Lc-Stretch australian line and dropped it into a glass of water. You are going to have a hard time explaining how it rapidly ended up sitting on the bottom of the glass. Some years back, when I was spending 6 weeks a year fishing a very technical and specialized fishery that demanded 20' heavy leaders fished at very specific depths with a very slow retrieve and no fish-moving takes at all.......VERY hard to detect and therefore a premium on everything being STRAIGHT so the stop was quickly felt, I built a 4' plexiglas column tube filled with water into which I could cut small segments of any line/leader material and time the drop to the bottom. The goal was to design a long leader which would, like the "compensated density" heads we were using, sink as perfectly flat as possible to keep the whole layout flat with minimum of curves, angles, and irregularities. Over the time of that testing, I watched and timed over 50 nylon and fluoro segments of varying the bottom. I also have extensively fished 20' dry fly leaders with very long 7X tippets that the surface tension.....until wave action sunk them.......and then they sank. Fluoro sinks faster.....marginally......than the average nylon. Not one of them floated. The OP never said what he was using for a head, nor HOW deep. He only asked about sinking running line......without stretch. Use lead core for a running line if you wish. To each their own. But there would be little option for casting. Just a line dump into the depths, which, if there is any wind drift or current irregularity, will result in a wide sweeping curve. Mono, with less drag coefficient, will have less curve depending on the heavier weight and drag of the head. That's my guess altho I have never used lead core for a running (or whole....for dumping) line. But I can say that mono running line results in less curve than coated braid fly-specific running line. But, if using lead core for running line, we're talking about fishing and maybe catching some fish with no casting, basically gear fishing with a fly rod and a fly reel. That's OK with me. Been there and done that, pulling clams off the bottom at 120'.......with mono running line. My fantasy holds up better with some casting and NOT working out the kinks in 100' of lead core lying on the bottom of the boat during the retrieve. I hope the OP reports back. Haddock.....on a fly rod and an interesting oddity.
  9. I have a suggestion not mentioned above. But first, the problem I have had whenever I have tried a braid involved in the shoot is that it is too limp and readily tangles into instantly cinched and impossible to pick out tangles. My 65 year experience with mono as a running line to a head, first regular mono, then the first generation fly specific pink stuff (Amnesia.....haven't even considered it for decades......because.....) still coiled and tangled (after stretching) too much. For the last 20 years I have used Rio SLik Shooter, first in the 20#, and now only use the #50 specifically (in 8 wts and up). It is quite stiff, stretches out nicely (especially after a good sized steelhead or three) and remains that way for the rest of the day. BUT.....Slik Shooter still has a lot of stretch. In an attempt to avoid the recurring problem I has having with super braids as backing burying into themselves (and losing the best fish of the year.....year after year) I asked do those huge big game hardware reels NOT have a problem with the outer line, under massive tension burying into possibly looser wound inner stuff? The answer was, I decided, that mono's hardness and constant diameter without tension AND larger diameter to strength ratio JUST DOESN'T.....much, BUT.......regular mono is way too we all know. In fact it was on this forum that I aired my frustrations above and my wish to find a NON-stretch mono heavier than #40 to try as backing. A gentleman from BC, Canada not only answered, but sent me a 500M spool to try. The line is "Lc-Stretch" made by An AUSTRALIAN line not available in the US! On the spool it states "allows minimum stretch for rapid reaction.......thin diameter and enhanced sensitivity improves catch rate. That spool is 24kg breaking strength, 60mm diameter. I can report that, as a backing, it does what I wanted, spool casually and not bury. is such large diameter that I can only get 100 yards as backing on my biggest tarpon reel (an old Fin-Nor #3). That is NOT enough!!!! But I have used it while dredging for stripers (as backing) and it performed well. However, it is very hard, in actual fishing, to separate the feel of line stretch from the mushy feel of major curves or angles in the line. Read below. It IS, at this strength, of sufficient diameter to be comfortable on the fingers. IS less stretchy than any mono or braided-coated fly line backing I have tried. BTW, I have also used lead core for 65 years, but only as a head and never as a running line. My prediction would be that it would be a real stinker as a running line if one were to truly try and cast (and shoot!) it. But then, when "dredging", there often may be very little actual casting involved. The problem of stretch of the actual line is really only one component of your problem. Any sweeping irregularities of the lay-out of your "down there deep" system from the fly to the tip of your rod.....such as a wide, sweeping curve of the running line to the head, or a sharp angle between the laid-out head and slower (or NON-) sinking running line creates a mushy, stretchy-feeling problem especially when trying to feel a take and set the hook. Mono sinks nicely, and its low profile presents little drag. It will follow a fast sinking head going down nicely and remains reasonably straight. This stuff, or any non-stretchy mono (Slik Shooter itself might be worth a try) if you can find such a beast, would be on my list of "worth a try" alternatives. It is nicely stiff, slick for casting, and grippable. And, I still have most of that 500M (free to me) spool left........if you want to try some.
  10. I would think a 7 weight if you think more of the white bass use and size, or an 8 if you think more stripers to be caught. For my taste a 9 would be too much for white bass and a 7 too little for stripers unless you could always pick a less windy day and schoolie only. My biggerst striper so far at 47" I caught on my 8 for mackerel. I wouldn't consciously choose to do that again, but we survived, the rod and I.....and the fish....of course. Oh....and 9 foot, of course. ALL my rods from 3 wt to 12 wt are 9'. If you are only fishing white bass and stripers from shore and you are new to this, save your money by getting a very basic reel with modest drag. You won't need any for white bass and only rarely for stripers. Once you start getting good at this you can upgrade. You'll be the first to know. Inevitably someone is going to say they always use a 7 wt for stripers.....which is fine if that is their game. Of course, one could do that with a 3 wt, point the rod at the fish, and pull it in. But I like having some modest control over the bigger ones and getting the fish landed and released quickly. To each their own. but a 7 or 8 would be my recommendation.
  11. Both my 3.5's went free spool about the same time. Both were fixed by Archuleta, and I bought two extra clutches......which I haven't used. They just pop in and I recall. But since then I have moved on to more demanding fish and reels with better drags, so don't use the 3.5's much any more. I may never get to need those two extra clutches.......
  12. Mike, laminAr flow. Good news about your health. Meeting Ant next week for 10 days in FL on my flats boat,..... Biscayne Bay, the Everglades, and perhaps the Keys. One night bridge-light fishing in Miami for tarpon with Capt. Bob Lemay . Should be interesting. Sorry you're not going to be on the Cape. With the proper attitude adjustment (available for free for those with National Health service) you would have a walloping good time. Funny story about my first meeting Ant: I was at super-secret-spot #5 and really into fish. From where I stood I was looking back at the parking area @ 300 yards down-current and saw his car pull up. Few know of this spot and we try to keep it that way. When he got out of the car I didn't recognize him and when he pulled out a fly rod my heart sank. I was out there for all to see.....with a fish on. As he was walking toward me closing the distance, I hooked and landed two more fish......cursing quietly the whole time. At least I didn't have one on when he got to me. He stopped on the shoreline about 30 feet below me and said, "Hi....doing any good?". I thought.....what a stupid question! Might as well go BIG. Straight face......,"I haven't touched a thing in two hours." After the fleeting puzzled look...a smile. "Oh....was that your first? I'm from England by the way" though I couldn't figure that out from the accent. "Oh (sh*t!) you know Mike Oliver?" We both understood each other from there and things went swimmingly.
  13. Mike, "Is the wind velocity that much less one foot above the water than say three feet." ABSOLUTELY!! When at my recreational house in the Columbia River Gorge.....a world class destination for windsurfers and other wind-dependent watersports......and historically the world's #1 salmon and steelhead river......I watch flocks of seagulls, geese, etc.. flying directly into the wind 1/2 to 1 foot over the water on almost a daily basis. They aren't down there for the fun of it. It's called laminar flow, and the closer to the surface, and the more irregular the surface ((waves!) the slower the wind. Not only is there less wind down there, but with a shorter head being "shot", there is less NON-moving running line (already turned over) hanging up there in the wind to be blown around. AND, as the running line is smaller diameter (as opposed to the longer head line AND the running line behind it which must be a heavier diameter to support propagating a loop) the wind has less effect on it. You know when you've done it right since the whole thing snaps right out though there is hardly any wind at all. Which is my point. You are on for a dinner bet. Just so long as it doesn't have to be british-english food.
  14. I dunno about all those opinions. Since I haven't thrown a line with a head longer than 30' in more than 20 years, and half the time throwing pure heads with mono running line, much of that time in one of the windiest places in North America, I would love to stand next to those posting above me here and throw into a 20 mph headwind, same fly, and see how my casts match up. Not saying I like it and seek it out. Not saying it doesn't take special technique with a learning curve. Not saying it isn't work. I'd rather do it wading (low to the water) than up in a boat console (high). But....a 9' SH rod, get it low and keep it low, hard, fast, narrow loop, weighted fly to straighten out the leader. Low backcast, lower forward cast no more than a foot over the water It takes good to excellent technique. No one is talking certified distances under equal circumstances, wind strength, angles to the we would have to be side-by-side. I'm willing to be proven wrong. But I gave up on the longer heads decades ago, partly because of my awareness that the extra false cast and longer line being false cast up there exposed to the wind created so much trouble and wind effect that was un-necessary......... and haven't felt in the least compromised. Always lots of compromises, just picking up a fly rod instead of a gear rod being the first of the many following insanities. We are all practicing a chosen handicap.....just for the fun of it.
  15. Mike, "Ok Gravity is the same irrespective of mass. So is it not the case that a heavy reel and a reel weighing say 50% less will have the same effect in terms of helping to accelerate the rod." Mike, Maybe for you, but for the rest of The speed of the acceleration due to gravity is the same for all objects. At rest....acceleration object weighs....what it weighs. When free-falling AT the accelerational pull of gravity...all objects weigh ZERO.......from the moment of release. At any CONSTANT falling speed, no further ACCELERATION downward, a skydiver who's wind friction has reached a maximum=pull of gravity.....around 115 mph (acceleration = 0) weighs EXACTLY what he weighs at rest on the ground. Anything less full, free gravitational acceleration and the object weighs some proportional weight depending on its initial weight and just how close.....or slow it's acceleration is compared to gravitational acceleration. Why would they use heavy weights to power catapults to throw rocks, boulders,.....or pumpkins......a hundred yards or more? Exact same setup as a rod rotating upward and over the top in the acceleration phase of the cast. Longer rod....slower the rotation, the greater percentage of the reel's weight will assist the acceleration of the rod. I'm not enough of a mathematician to calculate how much help, but it is there. I have wondered about this for >50 years and it wasn't until this thread when all the guys (except you) joined in talking about the fatigue problem with their long TH'd or switch rods and light reels. And I bet if we dissect exactly what you mean by "swing weight" we might discover that gravity applies to you as well. A very long but very light rod is going to have less mass out front......= easier and faster rotation.....= faster downward reel acceleration.......= less reel weight helping the rotation. And, there is always the variations in both personal casting style and preferences in "feel". I'll be the first one to say that this analysis might be flawed or irrelevant. So much depends on rod position vis-a-vis vertical. Approaching vertical the reel weight isn't helping much at all at any weight, and past vertical hurting even more than whatever helping there was initially. I would have to go back and look at my strobe pictures of actual casts.....and I have none of TH'd casts, switch rods, anything other than a SH rod of 9'. All is good, Mike. Just pulling on your reel seat.