Flyfisher vs Bass Master?

Non-Trout pursuits

Moderators: LabRat, dlcole

LabRat
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 8:44 pm
Location: Round Rock, TX
Contact:

Flyfisher vs Bass Master?

Post by LabRat » Thu Mar 16, 2006 12:18 pm

I was watching a video by Larry Dahlberg, who contends that in certain situations, a fly rod is superior to lures for covering water for largemouth and smallmouth bass.

That got me to thinking...if true, I wonder if a flyrodder could outfish spinning and baitcasting techniques in a tournament situation. Unfortunately BASS doesn't allow fly rods. Here is an excerpt from their tournament rules..

"TACKLE AND EQUIPMENT: ... Only ONE casting, spin casting or spinning rod (8 foot maximum length from butt of handle to rod tip) and reel may be used at any one time... "

I guess I had always ascribed to the school of thought that flyfishing might not be the most productive way to fish...just the most fun. Therefore I assumed that bait and spincasting were probably more effective. Now I wonder...

But it would be kinda cool to have a fly vs baitcaster tourney.

Thoughts?
Mark Dillow

User avatar
Coconut Groves
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 8:43 am

Post by Coconut Groves » Thu Mar 16, 2006 4:30 pm

I think if the fish are in the shallows then it would be close between light spinning tackle and a flyrod. The main difference with baitcasting/spinning is that you can get in many more casts and cover more water in a shorter amount of time. You also have a two way drag system on the baitcaster/spinning reel, which is a huge advantage over the fly reel.

The rods are very different as well - there is much more muscle on the baitcaster and spinner than the flyrods. Fighting a fish on a fly rod would take twice as long just due to the action of the rod, the drag, and line management.

If the fish are in deeper water, there is no question - nothing beats a baitcaster. It takes a heavy bait to get down deep and the action on a deep diving crankbait is second to none. I define deep here as 15' or more, which large bass are known to be in, especially off of points and bluffs.

I think going to head to head in the shallow would be a neat contest, but overall, bass fishing is best done in most conditions with baitcasters and spinners. I've bass fished my whole life (less now that I flyfish), but more recently I changed to ultralight gear. Much funner and more of a challenge.

Now let's see how well the baitcasters do on a dry fly hatch.... :)
"Strip... Strip... Strip...... Fish On!"

User avatar
Rob from Shasta
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 2:16 pm
Contact:

Post by Rob from Shasta » Fri Mar 17, 2006 8:07 pm

A little off the subject, but not much...I've always fished different methods, and when going out and about in the Shasta area, I'd always bring both my spin and fly gear, and my creel was stuffed with lures and flies both. You'd never know if you were going to be in trout or bass waters.
One time I wandered down a hill, leaving my fly pole in the car, down to a little hole that was occupied by smallmouth, bluegill, and the occasional brookie (I know a weird combination, but this hole had all three.) I decided to target the smallmouth.
Well, long story short, my usual lures weren't working. The smallmouth were shallow, and were actually watching me fish to them, probably laughing at my futility. The water was gin clear, and I could actually count the lines on their gillplates.
I remebered a friends hint, and began experimenting with flies and a clear bubble float with my spinning gear, being too lazy to go and get my flypole. Needless to say, it worked, VERY well.
I agree, in shallow situations, I believe a fly can beat a spinnerbait, if fished correctly.
Happy St. Patty's day to all!

Shasta Rob

Jimbo Roberts
Posts: 1205
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 8:26 am
Location: San Antonio, TX

Post by Jimbo Roberts » Sat Mar 18, 2006 10:03 pm

This is one time where spinning and baitcasting gear would rule the day 99 times out of a 100. I've done a lot of competitive fishing on the Texas Bass Trail in the 1980's and 90's. Fishing; BAST, Honey Hole, and Two Guys Bass Tournaments. I can't think of a time during these tournaments where flyfishing gear would have worked better and caught heavier stringers than conventional gear. Still I like to flyfish more than conventional fishing and will use it anytime it's possible. Also as I remember the rules to limit the lenght of the fishing rod that can be used was not to eliminate flyfishing, but instead to eliminate the use of doodling rods by the old timers that were as much as 15'.

User avatar
Ron Mc
Posts: 551
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2002 9:28 am
Location: downtown Bulverde, Texas
Contact:

Post by Ron Mc » Mon Mar 20, 2006 7:07 pm

hey Jimbo, is this competetive enough? :mrgreen:
Image
it's an 8-1/4' Henshall-style rod with a Bluegrass 33 reel.
Both c. 1910. Just had the rod rebuilt.
Absolute hoot to lob 3/8 oz. Need to go bass fishing with my dad.

check out the double bridge guides and 3-ring tips:
Image
Ron Mc

Jimbo Roberts
Posts: 1205
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 8:26 am
Location: San Antonio, TX

Post by Jimbo Roberts » Mon Mar 20, 2006 11:05 pm

That's the ticket! Love that huge brass guide next to the handle. And that carrying case, that's worth as much as the rod I bet. Kinda of like antique lures in their original boxs, worth much more than just the lure alone. I bet that reel is a direct drive knuckle buster, like the one I learned to fish with back in 1957 on a solid glass rod. I wish I still had that one. You had to be very careful when casting or when the fish took the drag out. Those were the days of learning to fish for Bass on Medina lake in a Lone Star 14' aluminum boat with an tiller operated 18hp Evinrude. The trolling motor was me sculling the boat with a canoe paddle.

User avatar
Ron Mc
Posts: 551
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2002 9:28 am
Location: downtown Bulverde, Texas
Contact:

Post by Ron Mc » Tue Mar 21, 2006 8:50 am

for me it was Lake LBJ in the the aluminum semi-vee with Evinrude 9-1/2.
Need to show you my 1951 Wards Hunting and Fishing catalog - you'd flip over the old boats, not to mention the rods and reels.

On that rod, the first guide, BTW, is a big red agate in a nickel-silver ring.

yes, the Meek reel is direct drive, triple multiplier, non-level-wind, but you can't imagine how substantial and smooth it is compared to the later mass produced reels. The line is 10-lb. braided silk. Very easy to cast 100' and more with no backlash. With that long rod, everything moves so slowly and smoothly.

Image
Image
a collector friend of mine just found one of these without the 1905 patent stamp (only the 1904 patent), which dates that reel very snugly.
Last edited by Ron Mc on Wed Mar 22, 2006 6:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ron Mc

Jimbo Roberts
Posts: 1205
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 8:26 am
Location: San Antonio, TX

Post by Jimbo Roberts » Tue Mar 21, 2006 11:13 am

A long time ago I was at McBrides in Austin, it must have been in the late 70's. I went in to buy a Shimano reel and the man behind the counter showed me an antique reel. He handed it to me and asked my opinion of the reel. It was a hand made reel, I forgot the name of it, that was made by some Doctor in Tennessee or Kentucky they told me. It was increadibly smooth and very good shape considering it was over 50 years old. It too was direct drive. He told me I could have my choice between the new Shimano or the antique reel for the same price. I thought about it for awhile and considering I was going to use it for tournament fishing I said I'd take the Shimano. He and several of his buddies laughed as they handed me my new Shimano and said that the antique reel was actually worth about $200 and the new Shimano cost about $50 at the time. I often think about the one that got away! Jimbo

User avatar
troutbum
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2002 11:49 am
Location: On The Water :)
Contact:

Post by troutbum » Tue Mar 21, 2006 11:28 am

FROM KEEBLER:
I think if the fish are in the shallows then it would be close between light spinning tackle and a flyrod. The main difference with baitcasting/spinning is that you can get in many more casts and cover more water in a shorter amount of time. You also have a two way drag system on the baitcaster/spinning reel, which is a huge advantage over the fly reel.
I absolutely disagree w/ that! I can get at least 6 casts in the strike zone before you can get the first one reeled up (if we're talkin' shoreline at 50')
The rods are very different as well - there is much more muscle on the baitcaster and spinner than the flyrods. Fighting a fish on a fly rod would take twice as long just due to the action of the rod, the drag, and line management.
I disagree w/ this as well, I guarantee I can land a bass just as fast if not faster w/ a fly rod...now doin' the kamakazi whip it over the gunnel is a different story. Bass don't run, there's no need to put them on the reel.
You can only do this if you know how to fight big fish on a fly rod...most people don't.
If the fish are in deeper water, there is no question - nothing beats a baitcaster. It takes a heavy bait to get down deep and the action on a deep diving crankbait is second to none. I define deep here as 15' or more, which large bass are known to be in, especially off of points and bluffs.


I kinda agree w/ you here...but at depths over 20'. I have fly lines that sink at 11 inches per second...that's all of 16 seconds to hit 15 feet.
And a well tied fly is a he11 of a lot sexier than a piece of hard plastic, when a fly stops in the water, it still pulsates w/ life and looks alive.
The problem here is you lose sensitivity to the strike, there is so much downward belly in the line, you can miss the light strikes.

I started fishing club tourneys when I was fifteen back in the seventies...Always took a fly rod...didn't always use it, but there were quite a few tourneys that I won and the difference was the use of a fly for certain circumstances. The rest of the club used to gauck and tease...in the beginning. At sixteen I wieghed the most fish for the season. They didn't tease anymore.

I don't think fly is the only way to go for bass, but at times does have a distinct advantage to conventional...
On a side note: On more than one occasion, the redfish cup tourney has been won on fly. One of the Texas teams has asked me to give them lessons so they can have the option if they need to use it.
Fish Hard, Fish Safe!
Capt. Scott
www.flyfishingtexas.com

User avatar
Rob from Shasta
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 2:16 pm
Contact:

Bass Record Broken

Post by Rob from Shasta » Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:56 am

Since we are speaking of it, my wife just called me and said she heard on the news the Largemouth record was just broken down near San Diego, with a catch of 25 lbs. - I'll remove this post if I hear she's wrong...

Shasta Rob
Last edited by Rob from Shasta on Thu Mar 23, 2006 11:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

gstrand
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 8:56 am
Location: Round Rock...
Contact:

Post by gstrand » Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:58 am

Last edited by gstrand on Wed Mar 22, 2006 12:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image

User avatar
Rob from Shasta
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 2:16 pm
Contact:

Post by Rob from Shasta » Wed Mar 22, 2006 12:03 pm

Thanks Gus-sounds like it's not going to be official-but it's good to see that good fishing ethics are spreading (as far as his catching and releasing, and withdrawing his application for the record)

I once tail hooked a huge German Brown on a Lake near Hat Creek. The fish would have been a personal record for me, but I couldn't have kept it or considered it a true catch either.

Jimbo Roberts
Posts: 1205
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 8:26 am
Location: San Antonio, TX

Post by Jimbo Roberts » Wed Mar 22, 2006 5:35 pm

The article says it could not be accepted as a IGFA record because the catch violated California state law that the fish be hooked in the mouth, which it wasn't. So the IGFA record is moot because to be an IGFA record it must also comply with the state game laws. It is a hugh fish, but not legally taken under California Laws. They never said where it was foul hooked by the way. Also California state laws demand that the fish must be immediately released back into the water which it wasn't as they took it back for photos. Also the scales on which it was weighted were not certified. I'm not trying to diminish the catch of this monster Bass but it was wrong in many ways. I'm sure that if it could have been considered a legal catch in any way they would have taken it because such a catch would be worth literally..... MILLIONS of Dollars..... to the angler who caught it.

User avatar
Ron Mc
Posts: 551
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2002 9:28 am
Location: downtown Bulverde, Texas
Contact:

Post by Ron Mc » Wed Mar 22, 2006 6:48 pm

man, where was I with that Henshall rod. :mrgreen:
Ron Mc

User avatar
troutbum
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2002 11:49 am
Location: On The Water :)
Contact:

Post by troutbum » Wed Mar 22, 2006 7:51 pm

There's a much better story on the ESPN web site about it....
SH... where is it.....here:
http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/fish ... akley_25.1
I think it's very cool, what he did and his honesty about foul hooking the fish...and he really didn't give a sh!t!
He knew he did it.
Knows he's done it.
Think I've been there?
I got e-mail from as far away as Japan commending me on the release of mine...something to be said about that...
He's not losin' any sleep.
Fish Hard, Fish Safe!
Capt. Scott
www.flyfishingtexas.com

Post Reply