Mike G

The open loop is said to provide better action. Therefore, just to be on the safe side, I use an open loop as much as possible with 2 noteworthy exceptions. The Exceptions are: 1. Cases where the fly presentation requires that the line form an angle with the axis of the hook shank like that riffle hitch. 2. Cases where the size of the open loop begins to exceed 1/4 the size of the fly. This is subjective for me since it is based on looks. I draw the line at about size 12. For these cases I use the Crawford Figure Eight which I can tie instinctively due to my early addiction to Fishing Facts. I think the Figure Eight is less bulky too. (This thread suggests that I re-evaluate my prejudices.) The Uni is the best open loop for me. Here best is a relative term. Though I try to use the non-slip mono loop that Lefty Kreh promotes, It is going to be a while before I can tie it small enough to use with medium and small flies. That makes the Uni my best option. On the other hand, though tying the Uni comes very easly for me, I do not like how it slips and snugs tight once in a while. Maybe I should not be so hard on it since the Uni even works with The Tyger Wire I bought to use where Pike and Muskies are common. There it is.

Outstanding Video! Thanks for giving us the link, Kevin. Everyone should watch it. (Adult supervision for children 12 and under. The audio is not edited for prime time.)

I could say,"Dream on, Eric." But then I remember that I once thought cell phones were just a fad. Now I say that a subscription to a service like that would be the ideal gift for the angler who has everything. I want one for Christmas even though I do not have everything. Before we start wondering how this relates to the USGS programs in place, let's say that continued full functioning of the current USGS programs would be the foundation of the "subscription service." The service would dispense public information from sources like USGS, SMA Chapters, etc. along with proprietary information. A big part of its value would be having all the information in one place. Now I am dreaming.

Mark and Joseph, The Hairy Fodder is my best shot. If I had the perfect answer, I would not have asked the question a while back. Originally, since I figured some Bassbuggers were reading Eric's posts regularly, someone might make a suggestion if I asked. Right away Eric pointed out that it was not about the bait as much as the confidence the angler had in whatever bait he used. That reshaped the question, I think. In my quote below I admit that it could take more than one fly. So I took my best shot. I came up with a confidence fly that does some of the things a thumper can do, "retrieve at various speeds below the surface, yo-yo it up and down the water column, and slow roll it anong the bottom." Now the Coyote, that Joseph contributed, adds a spinner blade to the equation though it does not have the skirt. Having never fished it, I can't say how well it performs the list of tasks and if it is a confidence bait. It is a great answer, however. "Consider the Thumper a fishing tool. It is very versatile. One can wake it across the surface, retrieve at various speeds below the surface, yo-yo it up and down the water column, and slow roll it anong the bottom. It is a buzzbait, a spinner, a crankbait, and a jig. It could take more than one fly to do all that. But if I could have only one, I would take a Hairy Fodder in white. IT is a jig, rattle bait, bunny with a silicon skirt." Of course, if the Thumper was the perfect bait, we wouldn't need anything else. We know that it takes more than one fly or lure to fish from top to bottom and to deal with variable conditions. Right now I am happy with how the discussion has gone so far. Though I hope to see more flies nominated, I have learned some things.

Since the thread pays tribute to Eric's catches, it is only fair that Eric's own response changes the direction of the play like a blitzing linebacker changing a deep post into a scramble. Eric's coments point out the fallacy of the magic lure. The magic is really somewhere else and it is not really magic. In the fishing equation, the knowledge and skill of the angler are several times more important than the lure or fly. And those two are not developed without TOW, Time on the Water. Good reminder Eric. Now to keep my word about getting back with my choice, I have to scramble. The choice of lure is still important. A Bassbugger chooses his bugs, like a craftsman chooses his tools. Consider the Thumper a fishing tool. It is very versatile. One can wake it across the surface, retrieve at various speeds below the surface, yo-yo it up and down the water column, and slow roll it anong the bottom. It is a buzzbait, a spinner, a crankbait, and a jig. It could take more than one fly to do all that. But if I could have only one, I would take a Hairy Fodder in white. IT is a jig, rattle bait, bunny with a silicon skirt. I don't have a picture of a white Hairy Fodder; so I doctored a picture of a dark colored one to give the idea :rolleyes: I will be tying some this Winter using these excellent instructions from the DRIFT site. http://dupageriversflytyers.org/DRIFT03fly...p?In_fly_nbr=57

In white that could be the answer to Eric's Thumper.

Thanks Kevin! Those look like fishing outtakes from "A River Runs Through It." I believe Mr. Borger had a part in the production. Of course they are not outakes though they fill in things that are missing from "The Movie."

Hey Spin Folk, Mike Clifford! Thanks for bringing up that wooden rod. It has produced a nice series of reflections on fly fishing. In return I will tell you this about spinning. An article I read recently pointed out that 1950 was a milestone year in fishing for bass. It roughly marks the time when spinning tackle was introduced in the United States from European sources. Fishing for bass with "spinning size" (@ 1/4 oz) lures became instantly popular while UL spinning lures (1/16 - 1/8 oz) became similarly popular for trout and panfish. Imagine that, or imagine bass fishing before that. It is hard for me because spinning gear and spincasting gear seen to have always been around. I have to adopt my father's viewpoint to see it. Until he was close to 40, my father would have gotten along with fly rods and bait casters as his basic tools. There was no spinning. For light presentations it was the fly rod. The bait caster was for lures 3/8 oz and up. (BTW, no free spool reels backs then.) In a sense, my intro to fly fishing, which came from my father and my uncle Bob, was a coincidence. Though they both eventually adopted spinning gear, they did not ever abandon fly fishing as others may have. From them, I got the impression that as a kid it was OK for me to use spinning tackle though eventually I would be expected to graduate to the "adult world" of fly fishing and bait casting. As it turned out, I got my own first fly rod 50 years ago. BTW I can't pin down a date. The rod arrived in stages because I built it from a kit which featured a new fangled hollow fiber glass blank and new fangled nylon thread for winding the guides. Things were evolving. Thus my basic tools became fly rod and spinning rod. So much for the history lesson, Mike. I guess, to see it completely, one has to look at the whole history of fishing. Oddly, taking the long view, spinning has not been around very long though 60-70% of the fishing today is probably done with spinning or spincasting gear. Very interesting.

You do not need me to tell you that Eric has been putting some impressive numbers lately. He has been smokin' 'em on a white Thumper. We know that our fly boxes contain flies that can do everything a Thumper can do and more. I have a few in mind that I will get to, but I would like to see what others think first. So what is our fly equivalent of the Thumper? BTW This is what Eric's Thumper looks like .........................

Kevin, Here I would say that some thing have stayed the same while some practices in fly fishing have changed rapidly in the last 50 years. Fly fishing has kept up witth the times. Though that 19th century wooden rod and the rod I just bought look somewhat alike on the outside, the new one is light years ahead in several ways. On the new rod, the blank is graphite, the uplocking reel seat is aluminum alloy, the wrappings are nylon, wrappings are coated with a durable UV resistant epoxy, and so on. Reels, lines, leaders, and flies have similarly evolved since the late 19th Century when wood was common for fly rods. This is not to say the old ways, greenheart rods, silk windings, varnish, silk lines, gut leaders, and so on, did not die hard. It was a deliberate process. You point out a thing that, I am glad to say, didn't change. That would be the challenge of going after fish in the most sporting way. The fly fishing is still the leader in that category. So the fly fishing tradition has proceded cautiously and not thrown everything overboard at once. It kept the best parts as it moved along.

Thanks Rich, Though I have visited the site, your post reminds me to visit it more often. With the off season coming on, we'll have more time to browse it. It's like getting a book to read for winter.

Kevin, Good comment. Now it struck me that those were the first "artificials" fishermen. Today's tournament circuits that prescribe artificial lures and forbid live bait are right in line with that tradition. You are right about the numbers issue. When one picks up a fly rod, she/he has to set aside that concern about "count." The transition is often compared to going from rifle hunting to bow hunting. To some that may seem a step backward, though, personally, I think of it as a real step forward in either sport. Why? That is a topic that would fill books. Maybe I will write an article some day.

Thanks for the invitation, John.

Thanks for showing us that, Mike. Though my simple answer to the question is, "No," it is nice to see this revival.

Jim, The Meatloaf hit said "Two out of three aint bad." Let's shake on that.

Joseph, Then we are both in. ISA activities should have a fishing component. In my initial statement I was basically "fishing" or "stirring the pot" for responses because I did not want to limit my comments to the first two points I recommended at the expense other possible activities. Indeed, ISA cannot do everything much less stock food pantries. So it should stick with what it does best and with what it can do best for people and the environment. That would be fishing related activities. Still, I am in a slight bind in regards to the food issue because, especially at this time of the year, I see hunting organizations showcase the programs that share their bag with the needy. Though west coast fishermen and even Great Lakes fishermen can likewise share their catch of salmon, I personally do not care to deliver legal Smallmouth fillets to the local pantry. I would rather C&R. That is my problem, I suppose. Perhaps I will pledge X$ to the local pantry for each inch of Smallmouth Bass (C&R) that the Smallmouth gods send me. Now all of this is outside the ISA mission statement and beyond the banner of conservation. I will pursue this thought on my own. On the other hand my first two points cover my feelings on 2008 conservation activity. The third should be taken as an invitation to discussion of other options.

Like Steve, I think helping the gauging program and adding the temperature monitoring deserve top consideration for projects outside ISA. We would get a triple bang for the $. First, continuous monitoring is one way to insure that alarms sound when conditions deteriorate. Second, since some of this data is available via the web, as a fisherman, I have a chance to preview conditions on the river before I leave home. Third, in the ongoing discussion on global warming, we need all the hard data we can get. The USGS data would provide some of that. Certainly set cash aside for ISA projects like bank restoration and planting vegitation. Since caring for family members has taken a lot of my spare time lately, I have not been able to get to those events. But I like to see those things happening looking forward to when I can go. I know that those who participate enjoy seeing the tangible results too. Though I have nothing specific in mind, a third category is what I call general good works. Programs for disabled, for veterans, for kids, for food pantries, and for many other things all fall in there. Though these are not conservation activities in the strict sense, they are conserving people. We should be able to spare something for them too.

Steve, We can help. Rod building is a simple process; don't be afraid of it. For the first few I buildt, I got good results just following the instructions on a 4 page pamphlet that came with the kit. As Nick pointed out Flex Coat has some good materials. Their Step by Step Rod Building is a good 48 page book available from Jann's Netcraft for $5. Let me know if you want to borrow my copy. BTW making your first rod from a kit is a good idea since a good kit will have all the right components to go with the rod. As you start reviewing material, the important thing to keep in mind is that you can make building as simple or as complicated as you want to. For example, you can build the handle by mounting the cork rings directly on the rod and sanding it to shape with a sanding block and template. This is a task that some use a lathe for. But if you do not have a lathe, you have another way. Likewise, a rod wrapping stand is a nice tool to have. Though I have one, I made a lot of rods without using it because I was away in college dorms or at friend's homes. We used the cup and book method to put tension on the thread. (Put the spool of thread in a cup, and pass thread between the pags of a book to maintain tension. Stack another book on top to increase tension) There are many other examples of steps in the process where you can take a simplified approach in lieu of something more complex. Ideally a place like Coren's or some other class would be the place to go for a first rod. But distance could be a problem. We need to know your general location to suggest places or locations. Though ISA has had presentations in the past, it does not look like any are on the current schedule. If the interest is there, I suppose that would change. So get back to us. Pmail me if you do not want to give out location information on the board.

Nick, That Boo alone makes you a Black Belt in my book. I have built about a dozen in fiberglass and graphite and rebuild 3-4 others.

No use prolonging the agony. SP SM SP SP LM SM SM LM SM Rich, this is like picking the score for the next Bears's game.

Nothing warms a cold winter's night like building a rod that you plan to put into action when it warms up in spring. (OK there are some other things. But this one is G Rated.) I used to build glass and graphite rods "from scratch." Lately I have mostly been using my skills to repair or modify my rods. I was just wondering if anyone else builds. Show of hands?

Great! That is one of those "wish I thought of that" flies. Since I have a bag of flank feathers, I need some ideas on what to do with them besides Hornbergs and fanwings. It reminds me that, if I only had the time to do it, there is a lot of good material to be mined out of U-Tube.

Waay Coool!

John said that about as well as you can because "moderate" actions can vary from Brand to Brand. My moderate 8'6" 9 wt. Shakespeare Honey Green would seem slow next to a Moderate Graphite of similar line weight and length. Length is not subjective. With Bamboo and glass rods 8'6" was a standard all round length for general fly fishing. Adding length to that pushed the weight limits. Graphite solved the weight issue. Now 9' might be considered a standard length. And you could go to 9.5 or 10 for low in the water casting all other things being equal. Now there are experts here who will add to the details of picking the right length and weight.

Joseph, Thanks. Being compared to Hayakawa is an honor. We could use more like him. The life or death of the weekly quiz is beyond my powers. It is up to you, I assume. I will see you at the Bassbuggers 4th Monday. Mike