Here's a recent fishing report and a thought on proper rods. Dennis Worley,
manager of the Bellevue Kaufman's store, recently hooked and landed a 19 lb
summer-run on the Sky. Whether it was measured and released or not, I do
not know. Knowing Dennis is was released. You might give him a call and
mention the discussion we have had. Maybe find out few more facts on that
brute of a summer-run. Jere
----- Original Message -----
From: Keith Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2000 9:46 AM
Subject: RE: 6wt two hander
> Okay, You're right - I'm sorry for getting carried away. I'll tone it
down.
>
> I understand the concept of backbone of a rod when handling big fish and
to
> try to carry my point to the nth degree is certainly wrong. I should have
> been more specific. The discussion was about steelheading, specifically
on
> the Deschutes. While it's possible to catch steelhead in the teens there
I
> would say the average is under ten pounds. For this size fish a 4 wt rod
> can work (I'm not saying that would necessarily be my choice.) And, yes,
a
> 4 wt rod will absorb shock better the same model 8 or 9 weight.
>
> Let me give you an example. Watching ESPN's Fly Fishing America this year
> one trip was to the Western Colorado near Carbondale. Here, on the Frying
> Pan River it is common to site fish to large trout that run to 4 to 8 or 9
> pounds using a Mysis shrimp pattern on 5x fluorocarbon. In this situation
> many of the guides specifically use a 4 wt because a heavier rod won't
> absorb enough shock to catch these fish on flimsy 5x fluorocarbon. The
> guide on this segment of the show specifically pointed this out and the
> show's host caught the biggest trout of his life this way. Now you might
> say that this is simply not heavy enough gear to go after this size fish
> because you won't have the power necessary to get the fish in quickly
enough
> to avoid exhausting them. If you are trying to land the fish by yourself
> this could be the case but with a person to help net the fish the story
> changes.
>
> When I saw Chuck's harsh criticism of a master steelhead fisherman I must
> say my feathers became a bit ruffled. I should have applied the "wait a
day
> before posting" rule for when your blood pressure gets the best of you. I
> apologize to the list for using gear that was too heavy.
>
> Keith
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Justin Teegarden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2000 12:34 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: 6wt two hander
>
>
> Keith...Please don't flame...keep it to an admirable discussion.
>
> I still can't agree with your first paragraph here. show me a good shock
> absorbing "true" 4 wt. and I'll believe you. I also believe a heavier
weight
> can and should be used to catch larger fish. If not lets all use 9ft 3
wt.
> to go after chinook. As long as they are good "shock absorbers" it's ok?
I
> think you are referring to the spine of the rod. To handle large fish you
> have to have heavier spine, and better hook setting ablity, hence heavier
> rods. So to say the only advantage to heavier rods is to cast farther and
> to help you get through the wind is not exactly true.
>
> I'm sure we've all seen someone break a rod or two on a large fish. I
know
> I have. It's pretty common to see this happen on the Kalama when the Fall
> Coho are running. And those are broke on 8-12lbs.
>
> Justin
>
>
