ronk

Unless it's a boat anchor, ronk can cast it with a 4 weight.

 

Get used to hearing it.

 

Joseph

Anytime you'd care to see it let me know,o ye of little faith.

Heads up to anyone needing a fly reel. Gander Mtn in Joliet has Loomis Venture fly reels selliing for $100 in catalogs for only $70. Good looking gold reels and with the GLoomis name are likely of good quality.

Waterproof cases are available for some Fuji cameras such as Finepix a400 or a500 good to a 10' depth. I purchased the 4m.p. a400 on sale for about $90 and got the $70 case gratis! Am pleased with the picture quality etc. and the case has already saved the camera a cupl times when I flopped in the river. I usually fish alone and take pix holding fish with the timer by putting the camera either flat on the ground or propped at a 45 degree angle against a rock. Bending at the waist makes it look pretty much as if the pic were taken by another.

From what Tim says regarding the Dupage R. in his fine article in the newsletter on phopsphates its days as a quality stream for big smallmouths at least if not all smallmouths in general are sadly ending due to the excessive weed growth and augmented for the first time this year with massive algae growth as well.It's inevitable that this year's kill of big smallmouths will be a regular occurance if phosphates are not reduced.The main source seems to be the wastewater trreatment plants in Plainfield most of which presumably came on liine in recent years with P's explosive growth.What is puzzling is about 2 years ago at an ISA neeting at Gander Mtn in Elgin a speaker,who I believe was with the DNR, said that older wastewater treatment plants were not equipped to treat for phosphates leading one of course to conclude that newer ones,which seemingly would include those recent ones, should be.Why than does the situation get worse every year with the coup de gras this year being delivered by the algae? Was the speaker wrong? Or was it decided not to equip those new plants with that technology to save a buck? If the bottom line sobs running Plainfield had any say, the latter is the likely answer.

To get the fly down, I weight the hook with .030 lead or tie it with a cone head (which I feel detracts from the action of the fly). You can also fish it on a sink tip line.

 

Bear

I pinch a splitshot on at the hookeye which allows the same fly to be fished deep with the shot or shallow when removed.A good caster can cast the shotted fly nicely with a rod as light as a fast action 4wt. The shad pattern should be especially affective on the Kankakee where this past summer I saw big smallies targeting shad.

In the coldwater periods of Spring and Fall it makes sense to pursue fish that are happiest in cold water. I belong to a club near Braidwood that stocks Rainbows in a couple of strip pits. Although stockers, they're as beautiful and as hard fighting as their wild bretheren often cartwheeling out of the water repeatedly. I fish 'em from a floatube with a 4wt flyrod and forget all about smallmouths for awhile.

You know, the thing that struck me after reading the history of fly fishing is that every time I step in the stream, I am part of a something that stretches back thousands of years....and it was recognizable as fly fishing even then. In a way it is pretty low-tech compared to spin-casting, but I am attracted to the history, tradition and the art-form of casting (and, boy, do I need to work on my skills). There has to be some attraction to it more than the fish, because, there is no way to compete against spin-casting, in terms of fish-count.

Kevin,

You underestimate the effectiveness of flyfishing by your last sentence's blanket statsment.While generally speaking spinfishing is more effective in terms of fish count fly fishing is also effective and there certainly are times and circumstances when a good flyfisherman can compete with a good spinfisherman and even outfish him.This is true of warmwater species and especially so of coldwater ones.In one of his posts that phenomal spinfisherman Eric stated the way to become a better fisherman is to set aside the computer etc.and go fish.Since it's more difficult this is especially good advice when it comes to flyfishing.

Good question.

 

Every fly I fish with is tied with a Uni-knot...size 22 dry flies up to 6/0 Musky flies. On dries, I tend to snug them down but I leave the loop open on all the others.

 

Is this the best knot there is? In a word, no but for me I have confidence in it. More importantly, it's a knot I can tie with my poor vision. Those of you who have fished or tied with me know that I am blind in my right eye. I just cannot see the tag end of a knot to push it through any loop. I can struggle an get an Improved clinch tied (I certainly teach it enough) but I have no confidence in it. I teach a Blood Knot but never fish it because I don't see both tags ends well enough to have confidence fishing it. My leaders are a little kinky (because of the Double Surgeons knot I use) but so what?

 

I am very interested in what others have to say, perhaps a Waker fly for Steelhead that needs to be tied with a Riffle Hitch to properly wake but I can't think of any other.

 

My Tarpon flies are snelled, does that count?

 

 

Joseph

While it's important to retie often with any knot it's especially important using an open loop for streamering or bassbugging as the sliding of the hookeye along it weakens the loop.I've lost several nice fish when it broke not at the knot but at the loop itself.

I am planning to purchase a setup and try my hand at fly fishing next season, at least part time and in select situations. I think it will be a great challenge, a nice diversion, and hopefully a relaxing as well as a great learning experience. I'm very interested in everyone's repsonses to the excellent points Eric has posted. In addition, if I went out today and fly fished, how should I approach the cold water season?

The best approach would be nymph fishing using the high sticking method. Basically it's J.G.'s float n' fly approach with fly gear.

Shading by phytoplankton blocks out light and prevents periphyton and weeds, yes. It's a function of depth and water clarity. At low depths, phytoplankton can't block out light so that becomes less important. In general, there's much less phytoplankton in small streams (and proportionally much more attached algae) and much more phytoplankton in large rivers (and proportionally much less attached algae).

 

Phosphorus in shallow water can do a lot of things...mostly get bound to the substrate, but also promote algae growth on the leaves of aquatic plants and promote the growth of the plants themselves. Because most rivers in Illinois have much more phosphorus than they can use, there is no statistical relationship between algae growth and the amount of P in the water. I'm not sure if that's true for aquatic plants.

[/quote

Is there a reason that this was the first year that phosphorus caused explosive amounts of coldwater algae in the Dupage whereas it began causing the excessive weed growth at least 5 years ago?

Ron, I agree that P loading is a problem in Illinois, but you're not going to find many limnologists who agree with the notion that increased P in the water column generally leads to higher water clarity. In large rivers, nutrients cause phytoplankton blooms that cloud the water and reduce water clarity. In our statewide data sets in rivers, we found a nphytoplankton (augmented by bioturbation by carp and other bottom feeders) is what makes the water cloudy behind those dams you want to save.egative correlation between the rate of algae growth on hard surfaces and the amount of phytoplankton in the water column. Suspended

 

The P standards for the state are still being adjusted, but it appears that a "decision tree" approach will be used. The graphic below is what was resently presented at an IEPA meeting as an instrument to determine when and where P regulations should be enforced. The notion appears to be that in situations were P effects are mitigated (by high turbidity or canopy cover, for instance) enforcement of P standards will be limited or set aside. There are some aspects of this model that I agree with and others that I find disappointing.

 

On the plus side, some rivers would benefit from restoration of 35% canopy cover (although that's not possible on large flows and heaven knows why the number is 35% and not 50% or 10%). I was fairly vocal in those meetings about including a canopy cover standard and I hope it fosters more riparian restoration. Those trees will provide riparian cover, and when the river meanders, they'll fall in and create habitat. Anyone familiar with Illinois streams knows that habitat is the single most limiting factor for biodiversity (and smallmouth fisheries) in Illinois.

 

On the negative side, the 0.075ppm cut off for enforcement is disappointingly low given that in some experiments it is just about at the peak level of growth for periphyton. The national standard has been 0.05 but here in Illinois, we're on the verge of deciding that we just can't meet that standard (and granted, there are some complexities here that make this a complicated situation for soft-bottomed, warm water streams). The regulation also rewards conditions that cause high turbidity in streams (and conflicts with EPA turbidity regulations).

 

Tim

Am I correct in concluding from what you say that phosphates produce different negative results in different rivers,i.e.the suspended phytoplankton in the Fox vs. the weeds and algae matts in the Dupage and now becoming more evident in the Kank and that the one type cancels out the other?If so and if we must live with phosphate pollution's negative results, as a fishermen I certainly prefer its results on the Fox to those on the Dupage/Kank.My reasoning that phosphates at least in the Dupage can actually lead to clearer water is that the weeds and algae matts they foster filter out and hold whatever washes in with rain.We've all experienced kicking up clouds of muck while wading thru the weeds/algae.The clearer water in turn allows for more sunlight penetration which causes still more plant growth.Nothing scientific just seat of the pants reasoning.If Oregon succeeds in banning phosphates altogether perhaps it will shame other states into doing more.

I remember going in over my waders in one spot in a pool that was slightly higher, but not much. That whole spot is filled in with sand now.

 

I remember the bottom being a whole lot harder to wade because of the cobble rock. The rock is still there it's just smoothed out with sand and further coated with the new green carpeting. That has to impact all the bottom dwelling creatures.

 

It's pretty sad when you think about it.

 

2 seasons ago a little furthur downstream it was just choked with weeds, not algae.

 

And yes, come to think of it in the last few years we have caught more LM. I remember them looking slightly unusual and just attributed it to them being river fish. Maybe they were spotted bass. I think I have pictures some where. A few were pretty nice fish.

Mark

The primary sourc of both the eel grass and algae is the increase in phosphate pollution caused by urban sprawl.Although banned from laundry detergent since the 70's,it's use continues in fertilizers and dishwashing detergent and winds up in our rivers.Just as it fosters plant growth on land in fertilizers it does so in water as well. As the weeds increase and the water becomes clearer more sunlight reaches the riverbed causing still more weed/algae growth.The algae thrives in coldwater and largely disappears when it warms only to be replaced by the eelgrass at that time.While this condition is increasing on the Kank it's already an epidemic on the Dupage which as I've said before is becoming a 20 mile long salad bowl.In our area only the Fox has been spared perhaps because it's murky water allows little sunlight penetration.If so and if the murkiness is because of the dams than those advocating their removal should be reminded of that old addage"be careful what you wish for".

 

[quote name='Mark P' date='Oct 22 2007, 11:59 AM' post='15124 Also remember that you have the option to over line the rod to make casting easier if you are going with the larger flies or when fishing in very windy conditions like Argentina is known for.

 

If you are a good to great caster, you should be able to throw at least 70' of line even with the lighter rods (3/4 wt.).

 

Of course, you should choose the optimal setup for rod length, weight, etc... for your needs but working on your casting is far more important than anything thing else.

Mark P,

I completely agree with you re.casting ability being by far the most important.A good caster will cast better with a poor rod than a mediocre caster will with a good rod.i.e."it's not the arrow,it's the indian".It's disappointing how many long time flyfishers are little better casters now than they were in the beginning.In order to cast heavy and/or wind resistant flies well one should concentrate more on learning to dubl haul than what style of rod to use.I'm sorry if this offends anyone but it's the truth of the matter.I also concur with overlining the rod being beneficial casting large flies.The development of lengthening the belly in recently developed flylines seems to me to be a tacit recognition of this.It may be that such lines need not be overlined.While I have not as yet tried these lines I'm sure they're very good. Another line worth considering that I do use is the Triangle Taper designed many years ago by Lee Wulff.It's an excellent rollcasting and mending line and with a thin running line it casts for distance excellently as well

Really? By whom and why?

 

 

 

Joseph

I mispoke. Meant to say'loop knots and knots other than the improved clinch or trilene knots" Was so advised by Feathercraft Fly Shop who sells fluorocarbon under the shop's name.They said if you must use a clinch use it unimproved as it's less likely to slip apart with fluoro but that's a pretty weak knot and I lost a big smallie last qweek when it did slip.

Loop knots are the knots of choice for fluorcarbon when tying fly to tippet.The improved clinch or trilene will slip apart and even the unimproved will if not tyed very carefully.l

What you find to be obvious isn't necessarily so. In fact, in this case it's simply not true.

 

"Rough fish" have no inheret tolerance for handling. If you value experience , then consider my experience with thousands of hours electrofishing, seining, gill netting, fyke netting, lab culture, pond rearing and hook and line fishing. I can tell you that gizzard shad, suckers, most minnows, and all darters are often less tolerant of handling than smallmouth bass. For every thick-skinned common carp there's a gizzard shad or a silver redhorse that dies when you look at it sideways.

Compared to surgically implanting a radio-transmitted EKG in a fish and monitoring it's responses to stress in a controlled laboratory setting, what field experience do you have that would cause you to reject this paper? Personally I haven't seen Cory's paper to know if it merits defense. I do think applying a four minute time limit derived from bonefish is too broad for smallmouth, but I'm not convinced that's what he said.

 

If Jonn's professor intended to convey that scientific studies were all biased and therefore not useful, that professor is doing his students a great disservice. Bad studies do occur, but science is designed to root those out over time. Even in criticizing those papers, the professor in question was engaged in that process. If he were merely trying to convey the need for critical thinking and skepticism where science is involved, perhaps then he would not be leading his students astray.

 

If we have to chose between the field experience of some one who has worked diligently for months and possibly years under the supervision of trained professionals to address a specific question, and some one who has a vauge intuition about something they've never lifted a finger to research, I think the choice about who to believe is rather obvious.

And this is why catch and release is a questionable conservation strategy for some of those larger species. One study showed that a very high percentage of tarpon (a species with unavoidably long playing times) become exhausted during handling and are eaten by sharks after being caught and released. Bag limits may actually kill fewer fish and be the more reasonable way to go in some cases.

I don't understand the rational behind your statement re bag limits.Please clarify. Also I'm sure a study of bluegills(a member of the same sunfish family as the smallmouth) would conclude that none could possibly be alive after being out of water for 45 minutes but this spring I personally experienced that it is possible.In this hypothetical situation the choice of who to believe for me would also be rather obvious.Too often a study with one conclusion is contadicted by another study whatever the subject(fish,human health etc.) .Therefore I think they should be taken with a grain of salt and rejected if they do in fact conflict with our own personal experience.

Being new to flyfishing, what fly patterns have been productive for Fox River smallies? Any pattern in particular that exceed expectations?

In addition to the usual subsurface patterns (clousers, bunnies,etc.)try pounding bassbugs against rocky shorelines especially for bigger fish.Use flies in the larger sizes due to the murky water.

Let's remember that we're looking at a press report about the research, not the research.

 

You have to be careful when the press starts quoting scientists because it's very easy for things to get lost in the translation. I've been through this dance a few times with the press and I can just about guess what happened. The subtext I see here is that Cory intended to say these results were applicable to other species in a general sense. I suspect he tried to point out the effects of temperature and other things on handling stress and none of that ever reached the printed page.

 

You can understand the reason this information was reported this way. Every fish, hook, temperature, species, season, and hooking depth puts complexities in this data. Its very difficult to pack all that information into a few sentances in a news report, and in fact Cory doesn't have that data. We don't even have a tiny fraction of the whole story here. Maybe we should call Cory and ask him to comment on his findings.

 

What we shouldn't do is dump science in favor of bar stool assumptions. Ask any fisheries biologist which is a more fragile fish...almost any sucker species (rough fish), or smallmouth bass and if they're not passed out drunk they'll say the sucker.

Tim,

You defend the researcher by surmising that re other species he was just speaking in a general sense.It should be evident that I was speaking of rough fish in general and in general most are significantly more tolerant. I agree we should not dump science for barstool assumptions but that we should reject classroom conclusions(which as Jonn G. points out are often rejected by other classroom conclusions)when they fly in the face of our own hands on in the field experience.While Mark is right in stating that it should not take 4 minutes to land and photo a smallie there are other species were it takes longer such as steelhead trout,salmon,various saltwater species perhaps even including bonefish themselves given those runs they make.If we accept this study why bother with c+r if they're likely doomed to die anyway?

Ah, the late Buck Perry, the Father of Spoonplugging. I believe his list (and the decending order of importance) lends itself more to his method of spoonplugging than it does smallmouth fishing. Buck tended to spoonplug deep where color is indeed, the least important factor and therefore I think we are comparing apples to oranges.

 

Fly size, shape, color and movement (pick whichever order make you happy) are equaly important to my own myopic eyes, your mileage may vary but I like white and olive.

 

Joseph

Other than using brighter colors in dirty water and quieter colors in clear water I don't think color matters much.When it comes to surface fishing Lefty Kreh subscribes to the Henry Ford approach,i.e. you can use any color as long as it's black perhaps because it shows up best against the lighter sky it's silhoutted against from below. I prefer white or chartreuse because it's easier to see when cast amid shoreline cover.The past few years I've mostly fished the Dupage. Since it's shallow and clear I've mostly fished the surface at least after the water gets int the mid 50's and above.It's more involving and exciting. I seem to catch a high % of big smallies on the surface. Also the obscene increase in weeds just below the surface makes a nuisance out of subsurface fishing.Those weeds do give the flyfisherman one big advantage as he can pick up the fly to avoid them and snap them off with a strong backcast.On the Kank I fish mostly subsurface and both on Sugar Creek in Indiana. I haven't fished the Fox much but plan to fish it more now that the Dupage has become a 20 mile long salad bowl.

Sorry, but I will continue to measure and take pictures as well. I don't think I am killing too many smallmouths. Sometimes the fishing community takes catch and release a little too far! Also, Norm, don't believe everything you read. Upon working on my masters degree, I took a class on being critical of research papers and projects. I learned one thing, many research projects tend to produce the results that were theorized (before the project begins) by the researcher. In addition, in a year there will be another test that will say smallmouth can't be out of the water any longer than one minute.

 

I don't want anyone to think I am into hurting smallmouths. Anyone who knows me will tell you that no one loves and respects the fish more than I do. But measuring and taking pictures, if done in a timely manner, does little to hurt the population.

 

Sorry for the rant, but I feel very strongly about this topic. Let's just fish and let them go and not have to whip out the stopwatches.

Well said, Jonn.I hope that our belief in catch and release doesn't lead us to unsupported extremes.Any study that states that what's true of one species of fish is true of others should be rejected on it's face since it's common knowledge that different species have different limits in handling stress from trout with the lowest to so called rough fish with the highest.Different fish also typically face different levels of stress during a fight. A fly caught wild trout faces a higher level than a smallmouth due to the longer fight necessitated by the lighter tackle.Yet the more stress vunerable trout when fought and handled properly lives to fight another day as witness the success of catch and release on trout waters.A bonefish presumably expends a tremendous amount of energy during a fight making searingly fast runs of as much as 200 yards sometimes 2 or 3 times before succumbing.

In addition, baitcasting versus spinning. 90 mph fast ball versus little league. In yo' FACE!!!

For 25 years I did both sometimes spinfishing to locate fish and than switching until I gave all my spin gear to my brother 15 years ago hoping his 2 boys would take up the sport as they became older which alas didn't happen as like so many kids today they developed no connection to the outdoors.While I know that in general spinning gear will most often catch more fish at least for warmwater species I also know that those who put forth the time and effort to become good flyfishermen[and make no mistake it does take more time and effort than spinfishing demands]will most often find that they would rather catch 2 flyfishing than twice that spinning not because they've become flyfishing snobs but because they find flyfishing more challenging and more importantly more FUN.Even you might,Eric.By the way if you'd ever watched the little league playoffs you'd know that a fastball at 75mph reaches the hitter as fast as a 90+mph in the majors due to the mound's being closer.

All I've said so far applies to fishing for warmwater species.When it comes to trout/salmon fishing spinning is definitely minor league compared to the challenge and intricacies of flyfishing which can require using gossamer leaders and casting flies the size of mosquitoes.

Long story short, my Avid 7-weight fly rod broke 4 times over the course of 1.5 years. The 4th break was 5 minutes into a Smallie Hunters outing and less then a dozen casts AFTER I got it back from the 3rd repair!

 

After speaking with a service manager and explaining the situation, he volunteered that I receive a new rod. A brand new Avid with the IPC blank technology was delivered today! Yippee! It's nice when a company takes care of its customers....even though it took being a squeeky wheel.

Most flyrod makers provide free repair/replacement against breakage.Rather than praising yours I would question the quality of any rod so susceptible to breakage leaving me up s...s creek sans paddle 4 times.