Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Skagit Floaters  (Read 39401 times)
riveraddict
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 418


View Profile
« on: May 22, 2012, 10:41:31 AM »

   Well, fate has seen fit to throw a significant curveball into my life. I won't get into the particulars of my personal circumstances, just suffice it to say that if you have an aging parent/parents, that it is probably wise to think about having a plan in place in case they end up not being able to care for themselves at some point in the future.
   Anyways, I am/will be out of my usual PNW salmon/steelhead environs more so than ever for the foreseeable future. It's not necessarily a bad thing as this circumstance has prompted me to continue expanding my applications of Skagit principles beyond the "usual" salmon/steelhead arena. As of late that has meant floating line tactics for bass. I have presented some thoughts on floating Skagit in the past, but my most recent focusing of attention to this aspect of Skagit is really firming up some of those previous thoughts and quite frankly proving quite exciting in actual capability. Of course, I can't "prove" or demonstrate a system's capabilities via a written post, the "best I can do" being at this time presenting an example that some of you may be able to duplicate. My example is a 9'6" Loomis Streamdance singlehander that has had a 4" lower handle added on. The line is a Beulah Tonic (can't remember the original configuration... sorry) that has been cut back to 256 grains @ 17'. To this line I have attached a floating tip of 50 grains @ 6' in length. This tip taken off the front end of a Cortland 9 weight Bass Bug line. The leader is a 31" butt of 20# fluoro, followed by 26" of 16# fluoro, then ending in a tippet of 32" 12# fluoro. There's nothing "scientific" about this configuration, just something I threw together for the purpose at hand and it worked well enough. I'm sure that with a bit of research and/or effort, one could come up with a more efficient graduation than this. The purpose is the casting of 2 1/2" - 3 1/2" streamers weighted with 1/60th ounce lead eyes. Now for the results. This setup casts the described flies with very impressive loops (considering the size/weight of fly on a class 6 rod) and really impressive line speed. Distances of up to 70ish feet were very do-able and bear in mind that this is with confined backcasting room. What really "wowed" me is Skagit casting's ability to "slide" flies under overhanging obstructions. Now, I'm not saying that it is quite up to par with sidearming an overhead cast with a singlehanded rod, but it seems fairly close and it is definitely several degrees better than I've ever seen anyone accomplish with a T&G based cast, especially with a barbell-eyed fly. Also, at distances of 50', 60', 70', I don't know that I could best the Skagit casting performance by using instead a sidearm overhead when casting a 3 1/2" weighted streamer at those distances. I believe that the "line ascending off the water into the D-loop" property of Skagit casting (a very seldom talked about or even recognized difference of Skagit casting from T&G casting) offers up an advantage for accomplishing very low trajectory forward casts as compared to T&G's "descending towards the water into the D-loop". In the T&G casting procedure there is an upward "thrust" of the rod into the D. In Skagit casting there is instead a separating-of-planes Turnover. The separating-of-planes Turnover is suited to being performed in quite a lateral aspect and can thus be manipulated to project the D also into quite the lateral attitude which then results in a very low trajectory Forward Cast.
   Another thought on casting. I must admit that for the longest time I was not an advocate of the C/Snap type casts... I saw way too many fly-to-rod-or-angler collisions. I learned over time that the most common cause of this circumstance was "pre-loading" the rod. In other words, too much power was being applied too quickly at the very beginning of the cast, which then "loads" (pre-load) the rod PRIOR to the line actually coming out of the water. The pre-loaded rod then "casts" the line into uncontrollable flight when the line does finally in fact clear the water, often resulting in the aforementioned collision scenarios. A major key to "safe" C/Snap casts is an initial slow, smooth acceleration which "breaks" the water tension on the line. Once this tension is broken, THEN the significant power application/acceleration is applied. This process then produces an aerialization of the line that is smooth, controlled and predictable. Since learning that fact and being presented with considerable angling scenarios involving slow or still waters, the C/Snap has become one of my most used casts for slow/still waters. The version I find most useful is in between a full-on C or full-on Snap. Basically it is a slow initial pull of the rod tip to break water tension, then a smooth but quick acceleration of the rod upward, using just enough power to aerialize the line, then follow "around" with the rod using just enough speed to just maintain "contact" with the aerialized line, and then just before the line plops back onto the water I give a slight push of the rod tip towards the water's surface, but angle that push of the rod tip directly away from me. This then results in the line forming an upside down "U" that starts at the rod-tip-on-the-water, and then scribes away towards the intended "target", to then turn in the upside down "U" and trace back towards and alongside me. Yeah, the description is complicated, but it is intended to just give an idea of what's happened. The shape and location of this line layout results in very powerful, high speed casts that produce the type of casting accuracy needed for casting under overhanging obstructions or into confined pockets. Of course describing casts in "writing" produces a very subjective conveyance... hopefully the next SkagitMaster DVD will remedy the situation.
   Using the system as described, with mostly the cast described, I have found that angling on a wading-friendly river that generally ranges from 50' to 100' in width, with a 9 1/2' 6 weight singlehanded/doublehanded conversion is not only do-able, but quite efficient and enjoyable... in other words it isn't just a "novelty" rig or gig. For someone that truly considers the fun of doublehanded casting to be a necessary part of the angling experience, this type of rod configuration can be cast singlehanded for "close-in" accuracy (25'-40') and then doublehanded for distance work. Also, there is noticeably less physical strain casting/fishing this rod in a conversion capacity all day long with 3"ish weighted streamers, than there is using the same rod strictly in a singlehanded capacity all day long.
   Lastly, I want to describe my "validation" process for the super short floating tips so that the credibility of the advice I give/have given via internet forums can be more thoroughly understood. I first started playing around with sub-10' floating tips on Skagit line some 5-6ish years ago. However, due to my experience using them being of rather, in my mind, limited nature (mousing in Alaska, some drylining for Grande Ronde Steel), I did not present any info about them publicly even though they were showing a lot of promise. About 4 years ago, circumstances provided me with ever increasing needs for using a floating line as quarry such as Washington Searun Cutthroat, Alaska Silvers, Montana and Colorado trout, Texas and Wisconsin Bass, became more viable subjects for doublehanded tactics due to the "advent" of light class Switch rods and with that increased experience I felt confident enough in the system to start suggesting that anyone interested in "experimenting" might find it worth their time to try a 5'-6' floating tip on their Skagit line. Then, finally, in the last year I took the short float tip approach and really put it through the gauntlet by pressing it into service through circumstances beyond where it "should" function in order to determine the window of capability. I now feel extremely confident that using a 5'-6' floating tip on Skagit lines is the optimum system for Skagit floating line work and recommend that anyone that is versed in SA concepts should acquire or manufacter one for their Skagit setup and experience the advantages that are yielded over the 10', 12', or 15' tips usually prescribed. I am so confident in thie short float tip approach that I have cut my MOW floaters back to 5' or 6' in length! So, now you know that story and hopefully the description of my "process" also conveys the fact that advice, recommendations, and/or opinions that I offer up in public on or about Skagit casting are not arrived at "lightly" and are pretty much about as thoroughly researched as Skagit subjects can get.                
« Last Edit: May 22, 2012, 02:37:01 PM by riveraddict » Logged

camosled
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 809


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: May 22, 2012, 02:12:53 PM »

Skagit Master 5 is born!


JM

Logged

riveraddict
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 418


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: May 22, 2012, 06:26:53 PM »

   The tactics/techniques in casting and angling that I've focused onto since SM1 came out have yielded very positive results and I am extremely amped to get this stuff "on tape" because trying to convey "the particulars" or the "wow factor" of said casting in writing just isn't ideal. The short floating tip, combined with the "in-between a C/Snap" cast that employs a true out&around Sweep, creates casting speed and precision that is very exciting and I believe of a nature not duplicable with T&G type casts when casting "non-traditional" flies on a comparable class of rod with a floating line system. At this point I would be so bold as to say that the only advantage that a comparable T&G type cast could offer is that the SingleSpey does have a faster cycle time. However, one must ask, is that faster cycling time worth a reduction in repeatable casting consistency with non-traditional, weighted flies as that is definitely not a strength of the SingleSpey. If one casts/fishes only classic/traditional flies then said trade-off is most likely desireable. However, if one angles in ways beyond classic/traditional, then probably not.     
Logged

hooker
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: May 23, 2012, 12:09:03 AM »

There's a reason why I drifted over to this forum....good stuff as usual riveraddict.
Logged

Horatio
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 32


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: May 23, 2012, 05:14:23 PM »

Sorry to hear of your circumstances Ed. Thoughts are with you.

I've been thinking along the same lines, a shorter more powerful skagit floater for larger muddlers. The Rage w poly tips is a nice line, but at 30', maybe a bit long for shorter rods. Do you have an idea of ideal grain weight ratio to head weight for a 5-8ft floater?
Logged

mkskagit
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 70


View Profile Email
« Reply #5 on: May 23, 2012, 07:24:55 PM »

Before I broke my 13' 8/9 I was fishing a 700 grain rio skagit flite with approx 2 ft float tip, and 4 ft of 40 lb mono, then roughly 10 ft of 20 lb maxima and getting great results.  I was able to chuck huge bugs in heavy winds with this outfit with great turnover while striper fishing here on the east coast. 

Then I snapped the rod landing a fish.  Trying the same tip and leader system on a 12'6 7/8 with a 550 flite wasn't the same, terrible results.  I then borrowed a fresh out of the package medium mow floater from my brother, threw 3 ft of 40 lb mono and anywhere from 9- 12 ft of straight 20lb maxima and the results are back to being great.

Certainly very different tackle and fishing than what you are talking about RA, but similar principles maybe.  It was interesting to see how the grain weights affected the stroke and overall performance. 

I wonder if a heavier grain weight for said rod, allows you to fish a shorter float tip.  Would my results be the same if I cut my brothers mow back a few feet?  These things I wonder...
Logged

riveraddict
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 418


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: May 23, 2012, 09:56:58 PM »

   Appreciate the words of encouragement, guys.

   Horatio, when trying to select a floating tip for a line, I don't technically go by weight. Instead, I look at the diameter of the terminal/working end of my Skagit line (disregard any short tapering down used on lines with commercially manufactured loops. That taper is incorporated to keep the size of the welded loops small. Instead, go "back" 6"-12" where the line becomes "fat" again and use that diameter as a reference point) and select a tip that appears to be of a bit smaller diameter. Length for me is already set - from 5' to 6'. The going-by-diameter "thing" pretty well guarantees that the weight-per-foot of the tip will be slightly less than the Skagit head that is "casting" it, which then pretty well assures good turnover. I will also change out floating tips according to the fly being used... largest diameter for large and/or heavy flies, smaller diameter tips for smaller flies. Of course, at some point if one gets too small of diameter tip on - whereby the "step down" from the Skagit head to the tip is too great/abrupt, then casting will start to get weirded out. But there is a fair range of different diameter floating tip that can be cast on any particular line to be able to provide a range of presentation aspects from brute power tips for large/heavy flies, on down to finesse tips for smaller fare.

 
MK, yeah, I don't know what to say about that. Does that 550 Flight cast other tips well on that rod?       
Logged

yuhina
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 156


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: May 24, 2012, 07:35:57 AM »

Basically it is a slow initial pull of the rod tip to break water tension, then a smooth but quick acceleration of the rod upward, using just enough power to aerialize the line, then follow "around" with the rod using just enough speed to just maintain "contact" with the aerialized line, and then just before the line plops back onto the water I give a slight push of the rod tip towards the water's surface, but angle that push of the rod tip directly away from me. This then results in the line forming an upside down "U" that starts at the rod-tip-on-the-water, and then scribes away towards the intended "target", to then turn in the upside down "U" and trace back towards and alongside me.            

Thanks for the great post! Ed, 
I am amazed how you continue to refine the casting techniques... really enjoy reading your thoughts and innovations in casting techniques as always. Can't wait to watch the SM5!! BTW, I still fish the ultra short belly configured with a bass line float tip you mentioned to me few years ago... Thank you!
Hope the family situation get better and well...  Mark
Logged


fishswing
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 19


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: June 06, 2012, 10:54:20 PM »

I love this topic. I love swinging for steelhead but I grew up a bass guy and the last couple years I have been doing just what you are Ed. I am in Portland and I fish for bass from shore along the Willamette. I started cutting up lines under the thought process that I wanted to fish with skagit style casts from shore for bass. The river in town is not much of a moving river so this is like fishing from shore on a lake. #1 I knew that I was not going to get a swing that let me have my line downstream set up for a new cast. #2 I also realized quick that I wanted to fish by stripping in line right back to my feet. I ended up cutting up some old lines and making really short skagit heads. After many lines and some time spent up at Rajeff Sports cutting and welding I now have a couple heads that work well. All three heads are about 240 grains and I use a 9'6" 5wt rod. The first head is a 18ft head made from a scandi line. This head allows for better overhead casting when needed but still skagit casts well and can turn over a modest sink tip. I use it for poppers with good results. Most often I put on a 5ft intermediate poly leader and about 5 feet of level tippit. The second head is about 14ft. This head is much more like a skagit and cast very well. I can toss a 10ft extra fast poly leader or 10ft of T-8 and a solid 2-3inch weighted streamer. Like Ed mentioned I can basically roll cast this line out to 60+ feet. I have yet to convert my rod with a lower handle but using a haul when casting allows for some bullet casts out to far distances. The third line I have is a 10ft skagit made from a Skagit Switch. I have yet to really try this line other then some test casts. It seams to launch well and can handle large tips.

The best part of this setup is that I can cast straight out, let my fly sink and then strip back in with my desired presentation. With the short skagit head and mono or braided running line I can really launch far distances with little effort. It then allows me to strip the fly back in until my running line/head junction is just outside the rod tip. At this point I can go back into another cast and the fly is just about on the bank thus maximizing my in the water time for the fly. It allows me to avoid having to false cast to get line back out. I tend to use a perry poke type cast. I pull the line out of the water, dump it in front of me and then with a simple sweep/d-loop I am set back up to launch. 

So far it is just a lot of fun to tweak lines and try to fish bass from shore with a different approach. I have a couple spots in town that I know hold fish and have plenty of back casting room. Now and then I bring the regular bass bug line and cast away because that is fun too.
Logged

natek
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 13


View Profile Email
« Reply #9 on: June 06, 2012, 11:11:38 PM »

you cant go wrong with a skagit short with the appropriate mow floater on the end either.  maybe a little long for the short rods but on my 12'6'' and 13' rods they rock.  for that matter its shorts on all the rods all the time. 
Logged

riveraddict
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 418


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: June 08, 2012, 10:21:42 PM »

   Glad to hear of other anglers getting into the really short lines. When it comes to strip-type presentations, I think that it's pretty tough to beat this system.

   The addition of a 2nd/lower handle isn't absolutely necessary, but I've found that it provides a couple of handy attributes over having just a single. In the event that I must cast off my offhand side (left side for me as I'm righthanded), I have far more power, precision and consistency using a twohanded mode, than just singlehanding. Also, in the case of casting larger flies, a twohanded mode yields better results for me. The only downside that I've experienced with having a 2nd/lower handle addition is that when casting singlehanded I must always maintain vigilance of the runningline as it sometimes will wrap around that lower handle. Oh yeah, it's also real nice to be able to grip two handles rather than just one when a 9# carp gets incidentally hooked up on a 3 weight flyrod... saves a lot of wear and tear on the old wrist!

   Now that it's Summer here in the Midwest, my fishing has become all floating line work. I've never spent so much time as I have the last couple of weeks, with just floating lines. Lots of fun, lots of new learning. A "new one" for me... I was of the belief that Skagit casting really had no merit for fishing in an upstream manner. But, with the floating line I am finding that said belief may be a big misjudgement of capability on my part. The fact that floating lines can be manipulated around so SUCCESSFULLY in arcs of greater degrees than can sinktips, is making for some very interesting experiences of angling in the upstream direction. So far I am finding that Skagit upstream casting is quite suitable for throwing streamers, poppers, or other such fare as is not fished on a dead drift, but I am thinking that with the correct leader configuration that even dead drifting may in fact be practical! More experiments!       
Logged

hyfly
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 68


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: June 09, 2012, 09:34:42 PM »

When i started to cast skagit style 3 years ago it was my main intention to use it for Atlantic Salmon . My goal was that if i could learn skagit style i would be able to fish were limited or no back cast situations would prevail thus escaping the crowd. The Matane river in Quebec is particular in that no sinking lines,leaders and weighted flies are allowed. My salmon rig consist of a 13.4  #7 weigh, a 500 grn Wulff  Ambush head and either a 10 ft polyleader or meow tip followed by 6 to 8 feet tippet. With this set up i can cast upstream and use either bombers or buckbugs and easily control the drift without inducing drag or inappropriate drift. Skagit and floaters are  a big plus for me  and i now use it for every type of quarry that requires dry fly of all types.

Hyfly
Logged

Bill_I
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 24


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: June 26, 2012, 04:01:17 PM »

riveraddict,

Not to be a nay sayer / devils advocate as I do appreciate your work,studies analytical way's which have brought benefits to all.

But....

As we seem to often be on similar verticals with the latter being short switches, conversions of single handers etc.  Here are my thoughts experiences. 

Note - i don't just use skagit heads rather I use Skagit,Scandi and anything in-between .  Ditto casting.  I fish a whole lot of river smallies and trout with short two handers.

"slide" - side arm - for overhang tucking
I agree ,  have experienced,done,used.  But,  you link this to skagit casting virtues.  I do it a lot for tucking in under branches etc.  But,  can do it well with a Scandi head with the powerful little Rio Scandi Short Versi Tip on 10' switches getting a lot of water time currently.  I do tend to fire via a snap T.  I don't feel I am up-grained aka Skagit.  I consider the snap T a water born cast but,  maybe it's a sustained anchor to some as to them,  it may drive the head/anchor more? 
I don't know but,  with either a skagit or a scandi head it works - "slide".  So I don't think it's unique to Skagit and I use it a lot.  A tight fast low trajectory loop helps to.

* shorter skagit floater - shorter skagit head total length for increased strip - example smallmouth, frog water,etc.
It really don't matter if the heads total length with tip was just 15' or 33' the latter of which I use most often on 10' two handers.  If stripping in is a valuable feature to catch fish........then I strip it all the way in to about 10' for full benefits of.  Just like on a single hander with wf-f.  The difference is getting it back out to shoot or anchor and shoot.  With the shooting head , switch rod I just typically with one hand for best feel,  roll the head out to the back.  With a little practice it's easy to hit the mark.  From there I just take it into a one shot back cast and fire if overhead or anchor it via a snap,circle,snake,single and fire spey.  Obviously,  the head in use,grains etc. will limet over head or not and the preferred spey cast anchor.
If shore casting, two hand over head a lake for Pike/Muskie with a switch x 30' head I want all the strip in possable because they follow long. ........just strip it in , roll out - load & fire. Same length or shorter or longer head on a river.......same thing, convert to a anchor-load & fire.
To me if there is a benefit to stripping,  than strip all the way.  The time for rolling it out is of no waste at all as it equals no more than the extra strips gained which should be of benefit or we would not strip at all.
The head length difference of a ultra chop/shop  skagit to a even long scandi makes zero difference .  There is no reason to only strip to the back of the head.  Just as a good single hand caster quickly learns to move that striped line out fast, double haul and fire a new,  you quickly learn to roll that head which was stripped in out fire or anchor and fire.  Sometimes I do have to re-set and strip back one for proper over hang but, no big deal. I don't know at what length would be non efficient to roll out accurately.   Lately as noted I have been using a 33' total length multi sink tip a lot on 10' switces.  That ratio is 3.3 and very verstile for me distance to close.  It rolls out easy.  Maybe a short belly ratio of 4x would be tougher to judge?  Not sure never tried.
My point being 'skagit" and a bit shorter because of - really does not make it unique, proprietory nor a virtue of Skagit alone in regards to increased stripping.

Nice read you wrote,  I enjoyed it.  The couple points noted above I am not saying I disagree with but,  just showing other options and that it's not necessarily exclusive to........still very good fishing/casting tips just the same.  Yes, the lower 4" added to single hander converts makes a substantial differance along with some other good points.
BTW- if anyone would enjoy running and playing with my custom built 10' glass 6wt (single hand rate) rod ~ you would !   You really need to find a older glass rod off ebay x 9' and convert.......if anybody ever did Smiley

Thanks
Logged

riveraddict
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 418


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: June 27, 2012, 09:50:35 PM »

Hey Bill,
   As regards stripping all the way in or not, most of my strip-retrieve type fishing has been for bass, resident stream trout, or searun cutts on clearwater streams that I can, in most places, position myself to put the fly onto the opposite bank. That opposite bank - the "high" bank side - is the one that contains the majority of desirable cover where the fish prefer to hang out. Even though I could generally wade out far enough to be positioned less than 30'-35' from the intended "targets", I have found that standing back 40', 50', 60' increases the amount of interest I receive from fish during each angling session. It seems that the combination of clearwater and significant fishing pressure does educate such fish to "make a connection" between the presence and/or silhouette of an angler, with that of "danger". Thus, it is uncommon to have these fish wander more than a few feet from their bankside structure to take a fly, even more uncommon to have them follow the fly for any considerable distance, and extremely rare to have one eat the fly when it is within "sight" range of an angler. Pretty much, if you can see the fish, then it ain't gonna eat. Thus, most of the time, stripping in past the head-runningline connection is a waste of fishing time for me, but I still do watch my fly up to the point of re-casting just in case I do in fact have a fish follow in past "the usual" no-take boundary! So, as the old saying goes, "different strokes for different folks", or in this case perhaps, different strokes for different fish!

   As for the side-slinging capabilities of Skagit versus Scandi, that is one subject that we'll just have to agree to disagree on for now because the foundation of such a discussion would have to revolve around the definition of "Scandi" and here in North America that definition seems to have become at the very least a bit ambiguous and somewhat askew from that of its European originators.     
« Last Edit: June 27, 2012, 10:09:18 PM by riveraddict » Logged

riveraddict
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 418


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: June 28, 2012, 08:53:19 AM »

   OK, I can't resist and am compelled to elaborate a bit more on the Skagit-to-Scandi comparison. In past interactions that I've had with some of Europe's most noted Scandi casters and Underhand casters (guiding them, fishing with, or discussing/demonstrating at casting demos/trade shows), the overwhelmingingly apparent fact related to me about Scandi casting was it being a shootinghead casting system based on T&G (touch-and-go) anchor concepts. Be aware that said "condition" does not mean that waterborn and/or SA (sustained anchor) casts are not/cannot be used in Scandi casting. It does imply however, that the BEST casting performance will/should result from the use of T&G based casts, that "fact" being contingent on the circumstance that the casting technique being used is in fact true Scandi technique with a true Scandi rod-to-line weight relationship.
   Now then, before moving on with this subject, we need to establish a couple of definitions about anchor types. First is T&G. T&G is exactly as its "name" describes and I think it's safe to say that its definition is not up for question. It is a very momentary, brief touch-then-go contact-of-the-line-with-the-water. The T&G anchor contact with the water is of a brief enough duration to maintain as "live", the momentum in the line that was created from the initial pickup of the line from the water. This is because that initial momentum is critical to the effective accomplishment of the cast. If that momentum is in fact abolished by too long an interval of line contact, the cast suffers dramatically. The Singlespey and Snakeroll are the prime exemplars of T&G anchored casts.
   Next is Waterborne. If memory serves me correctly, Simon G. coined this term. I don't remember his exact definition for Waterborne, but the term has been used to describe the "other" type of anchor used in casts whereby a brief enough water contact for an effective T&G anchor could not be replicated and instead a RELATIVELY significant amount of line contact occurs, most notably the "modern" Doublespey cast. Note the use of "modern" here, used to distinguish the fact that there is an "original" version of the Doublespey cast that appears to fulfill T&G concepts, but seems to have disappeared around the same time that bamboo rods did, leaving the implication that the heavier tip weight of those old rods and the resulting inertia, had much to do with the successful accomplishment of the Doublespey in a T&G manner. The important factors to bear in mind when considering Waterborne anchor descriptions for the purposes of this discussion are the general implication that significant line contact anchors have been presented as happenstance, unavoidable, just-the-way-it-is-so-gotta-deal-with-it-the-best-as-possible circumstances. This conclusion is heavily bolstered by the glaring omission in the past, of references towards PURPOSELY trying to INCREASE to a significant status, conditions of water tension onto the line during the anchor phase. In other words, the term Waterborne does not promote a sense that considerable and significant water tension is a DESIREABLE condition.  
   Next! This is where "sustained" comes into play. I coined the term Sustained Anchor (SA) in order to distinguish from all others, an anchor procedure whereby SIGNIFICANT amounts of water tension is in fact a desireable, necessary, and advantageous circumstance of casting and it is therefore PURPOSELY and INTENTIONALLY CREATED and PROMOTED by incorporating goal-specific techniques into the casting/anchoring procedure. Thus, the term SA clarifies from Waterborne, the concept/goal of an intentional promotion and use of water tension as opposed to any avoidance of it.
   So, what is the comparison of side-slinging abilities between Skagit and Scandi. That depends on what one considers the definition of Scandi casting to be. Here in North America the definition of Scandi has become so hybridized that I am very reluctant to make any public comments on it any more. However, if the question is instead changed to a comparison between the side-slinging abilities of T&G casts and SA casts, then I would say that SA casts have the advantage. This is not to say that it is some dramatic, drastic, life-altering difference, but rather that SA casts will offer up a few "degrees" better performance when it comes to slinging flies under obstacles.                
« Last Edit: June 28, 2012, 09:32:42 AM by riveraddict » Logged

Pages: [1] 2
Print
 
Jump to: