Fly Fishing: Fly Friday: Rubber vs. Felt...

About the time Simms announced they would no longer manufacture felt soled wading boots, I took a chance at the Ennis Fly Fishing Festival on the above rubber soled jobs and, wonder of wonders, won the draw.

The next weekend we fished the upper Big Hole for two days and while I liked the hell out of the fit and comfort hiking around on dry land, alas wading the river...well to put it bluntly pretty much sucked.

Okay, the traction was a cut above boot foot rubber soled hip boots but not much. Without the aid of a stick no way would this ol' boy have been able to stay erect unless of course I shuffled around at a snail's pace amid the good graces of the wading gods...No matter how careful each step my foot slipped and, trust me, a bad deal given gimpy geezer knees.

But they were new so I thought just maybe over time would get better...The rest of the fall and winter season I tested them in mountain cricks, the Beav, Poindexter and a couple more Big Hole excursions. Overall traction did not improve.

My ratings: Good to go for Poindexter. Okay, if you're careful and stay out of the real heavy stuff, in the Beav. Not so hot on bouldery mountain cricks; adequate for those lacking algae; and as I said, hands down better than felt for hiking around.

Which brings us to the Big Hole. Where, to my way of thinking, lacking studs the boots are next to useless, if not downright dangerous...So there you have it...

Fly Fishing: Tying and fishing as you like it...not neccessarily what's best...

When I began tying some of the first patterns I mastered (relatively speaking) were traditional wet flies...you know the winged sort. How-to info being scarce, I pretty much relied on Ray Bergman's Trout for fly recipes. For the uninitiated, the fly plates/recipes in the book show dozens, if not hundreds, of patterns...If there were any left out, I can't imagine not being able to come up with a suitable substitute.

Traditional wets are, to my way of thinking, just about the niftiest trout flies around; only traditional salmon flies can match their gaudiness and tied right seem to me come about as close to art as any.

Naturally I fished most what I tied best. But after awhile it became clear the best fish getters were wingless...soft hackles. Though I don't think were called that at the time, at least not in our neck of woods. I'm pretty sure we just lumped them together as wet flies. Label aside, soft hackles were way easier  (for me, getting the duck wing slips just so was a bitch to put it mildly) and since, at least in my mind, worked better tying wingless was something of a no-brainer.

These days I tie flies of every sort--dries, emergers, cripples, soft hackles, nymphs, streamers, you name it. I like tying dries and soft hackles best. I like fishing both equally well. But, especially on small streams, our usual SOP is to fish dries up and swing soft hackles back down. Yes, I know, not the best way to max out the body count but...As a wise man once noted...a lot more to it than just catching fish...or something like that...

On another track, I use Zelon in a lot of patterns these days. And for what it is ( seemingly readily available synthetic and all) thought it rather pricey. This winter as I poured over the J. Stockyard catalog preparing my annual re-stock order I discovered a substitute (MFC) which is considerably cheaper...being a bona fide cheap skate in such matters I thought to order a hank...Bottom line I really like the stuff--cheaper, way more material,  looks and seems to work just as good...can't beat it.

PS If old news please note: A by God geezer...I do claim the right to being, you know, slow on the uptake....

Montana Outdoors: Photography

Way back when, desperate to break into the better paying hook and bullet markets Jack Samson, then editor of Field and Stream graciously took the time to pen a personal rejection (as opposed to the stock one liner: "With deepest sympathies we regret to inform your piece, How to (fill in the blank) does not fit our editorial needs at this time."

In essence Samson's letter read: You write pretty good but... Your idea, however, to somehow change Field and Stream's editorial slant does not and will not work...Study the style of the many writers we publish regularly and resurrect your pieces to mimic same. Above all, get a decent camera and LEARN  HOW-TO USE THE DAMN THING; Erwin Bauer's Outdoor Photography is a good place to start. Enclosed is a copy of my book Successful Outdoor Writing: if interested feel free to read and study it. Good luck.

And so as I was wont to do in those days, instead of heeding his expert and spot-on advice, in a fit of rage (like who do YOU think YOU are...) I tore the letter to shreds, vowed to never again submit to F&S...Like so there, your loss not mine. And of course the rejections just kept pouring in...Oh maybe one in ten got published but except for the random home run every now and then most paychecks sure didn't put a lot of bread on the table.

But while it took awhile eventually I got it...sort of. I bought a decent camera, learned how to use it at least good enough to know a properly composed, decently exposed image that also told a story. I came to study the style of the magazines and get a go on a query letter before even so much as turning on the typewriter (no word processors back then). While I still sometimes submit a finished piece to, say, a magazine I've not written before, the odds of acceptance go way up when you submit an idea (query) meshes with ED and he says's "let's see it."

So while I never made it big time and never will, I did eventually come to terms with rejections as nothing personal, just the way the outdoor writing/photog gig works.

Which brings us to the two photos above and the two below: None of which have much, if anything to do, with the included rant: Just two photos I shot on our recent birthday tour (Gale's) of the upper
Big Hole--where unlike our valley where seems spring has indeed sprung (winter never happened actually) up there still very much locked in winter.

  

The top two are pretty much as shot, as came out the camera. So there Jack, you no doubt would have no time for the subject but c'mon man admit it not all that shabby, eh? The last two are course well-doctored in Lightroom. No neither one has much (if any) editorial value or any value for that matter but damn ain't the pair sure purty...