Post by severnfisher on Oct 7, 2007 21:26:50 GMT
Wm,
I've had the same thing said to me on a few occassions. It doesn't make it true though.
Because I like fly fishing I nearly always fly fish nowadays, even when another method might be more productive. That is because I get pleasure from pushing the boundaries a bit and a fly caught fish in marginal conditions for the fly - 'dirty' water for example - gives me more of a 'buzz'. However, what should I do if the physical characteristics of the pool or run are such that it can't be fly fished? Are salmon caught like that less of an achievement? I don't think so.
If I choose water suited to the fly, because that is what I like doing, does that make the fish I catch more of an achievement, than those caught by a spin or bait angler on different water?
Nope.
a bit more on fly fishing snobbery.
One of the points I was trying to make earlier with the examples of anglers A and B is that in terms of applied watercraft there are many accomplished bait and spin anglers out there who are in a different and higher league to the majority of 'fly only' anglers who are basically fixated on a life-style image of what game fishing is. I think for instance of another angler known to me, we could call him C. He was born and brought up in, and has lived for 50 odd years in the same area of the Severn valley that I have lived in for the last few years. Until becoming aware of what has been coming out of the river on the fly, he never once in that 50 odd years considered his local river as a game fishery, never mind a realistic fly fishing prospect. He's done well for himself and can afford Bonefishing and tarpon chasing, has fished good beats on the big 4 etc but only broke his salmon fly duck by going to Russia. Which if you ask me is a bit like paying to lose your virginity at 40. Anyway C is full of all the stuff about the superiority of fly caught salmon. If he ever manages a salmon off the Severn on the fly it will have to be a suicidal one. But I'm sure C and his mates will all consider it much more significant achievement than all those fish caught by mere 'wormers' like angler B.
He would be wrong. A good angler is a good angler. Method employed is irrelevantal. A young lad who can catch spate stream salmon on bait by relying on water craft and a 'folk memory' of the ancient lies is much closer to what it is to be a true fisher, than lord or lady poshington farquar who have to rely on the services of a ghillie or boatman on a well stocked beat, even if threy catch their fish on the fly.
Tom
p.s.
nice fish WM
Only today I spoke to a gentleman after I landed my fish and his words were`Never caught a salmon on the fly, only on the spinner`.
I asked why he said this and was told that`it would give greater satisfaction to know that the fish was caught on a fly, as the fly is the king of fishing methods and only fitting for the king of the river`. These were his words not mine!
I asked why he said this and was told that`it would give greater satisfaction to know that the fish was caught on a fly, as the fly is the king of fishing methods and only fitting for the king of the river`. These were his words not mine!
I've had the same thing said to me on a few occassions. It doesn't make it true though.
If you were given the choice of methods which would produce the same results for the conditions on any given day (use of Fly or Spinning)which would it be?
Because I like fly fishing I nearly always fly fish nowadays, even when another method might be more productive. That is because I get pleasure from pushing the boundaries a bit and a fly caught fish in marginal conditions for the fly - 'dirty' water for example - gives me more of a 'buzz'. However, what should I do if the physical characteristics of the pool or run are such that it can't be fly fished? Are salmon caught like that less of an achievement? I don't think so.
If I choose water suited to the fly, because that is what I like doing, does that make the fish I catch more of an achievement, than those caught by a spin or bait angler on different water?
Nope.
a bit more on fly fishing snobbery.
One of the points I was trying to make earlier with the examples of anglers A and B is that in terms of applied watercraft there are many accomplished bait and spin anglers out there who are in a different and higher league to the majority of 'fly only' anglers who are basically fixated on a life-style image of what game fishing is. I think for instance of another angler known to me, we could call him C. He was born and brought up in, and has lived for 50 odd years in the same area of the Severn valley that I have lived in for the last few years. Until becoming aware of what has been coming out of the river on the fly, he never once in that 50 odd years considered his local river as a game fishery, never mind a realistic fly fishing prospect. He's done well for himself and can afford Bonefishing and tarpon chasing, has fished good beats on the big 4 etc but only broke his salmon fly duck by going to Russia. Which if you ask me is a bit like paying to lose your virginity at 40. Anyway C is full of all the stuff about the superiority of fly caught salmon. If he ever manages a salmon off the Severn on the fly it will have to be a suicidal one. But I'm sure C and his mates will all consider it much more significant achievement than all those fish caught by mere 'wormers' like angler B.
He would be wrong. A good angler is a good angler. Method employed is irrelevantal. A young lad who can catch spate stream salmon on bait by relying on water craft and a 'folk memory' of the ancient lies is much closer to what it is to be a true fisher, than lord or lady poshington farquar who have to rely on the services of a ghillie or boatman on a well stocked beat, even if threy catch their fish on the fly.
Tom
p.s.
nice fish WM
