Long Distance Casting

FAOL Community Fly Anglers Online
1

Here’s one maybe we can have some fun with.

Learning to fly fish in Michigan, I rarely had cause to cast much more that 60 to 70 feet. Almost no one I knew ever double hauled or worried about long casting techniques. But when I started doing salt, I found 60 feet was a short cast and 80 to 90 feet was more the norm, some over 100 feet. Now I never dreamed you could cast a whole fly line and shoot backing to boot, so I never learned.

Since my great salt revelation, I have found that long distance casting is normal in many places and double haul is the only way many people cast. I have found that people on bulletin boards from NZ and UK consider 100 feet as sort as a rite of passage and there are even 100’ clubs. They put great emphasis on distance.

Now I am sure many of you west coasters are familiar with this and even have casting clubs for long distance competition. But I have not seen it around here.

My question then, is this. Am I living a sheltered existence and all of the rest of you out there can go out and double haul 100 feet of line? Or throw a whole line and shoot another 20 feet of backing? Don’t worry, you won’t hurt my feelings if you say I’m a wimp.

Bob Bolton

2

If the fish are only, say, 35 feet away, why would you worry about distance shooting? It’s fun to shoot the whole line, even to the backing, but unless you’re going to fish the salt, I’d say accuracy is more important.

3

This is where I fish. I don’t think a 100’ cast will fit.

4

I credit Woodperson on the VFS board for this post…I wish I had made the
post

“Anyone who says that they have never tried to reach a fish that was @ the
limits of their casting range is a baldfaced, lying fisherman…”

A big Yeah to that.

And any fly fisherman that says they would not like to be able to cast 90’
is kidding himself too. (but not fooling me), Tell me you would not do it in
a fishing situation, tell me that you don’t want to work that hard on your
casting, but don’t tell me that deep down you would’t like to be able to
walk up to a 5 weight in the parking lot and pop the backing knot out of the
rod with a little snap when it comes tight.

There is nothing about being able to cast long that hurts one as a fisherman
that I can tell."

5

I fish saltwater most of the time.
If I concentrate (and the planets are all aligned just right) I can cast a full line.
I find though, that more often that not, a distance cast of 50 to 70’ is more in the range of where I will most likely be able to hook and land a fish
Maybe I’m an underachevier, maybe I don’t get out enough.
I’m not going to worry about it.

6

Call me a liar then Jerry. I fish many streams, but they all look like the picture I posted. I feel better about doing some tricky cast that put the fly right where I was looking. Especially if I get a take when the fly lands.

I used to be a golf pro. I was never a long ball hitter. I was very accurate though and would beat the long ball hitter on a regular basis.

I see no value on casting beyond a distance that you can see the fly. Unless you’re using lures…sorry…streamers.

7

the continual argument, “I would rather be able to cast accurately than long”. I only can assume that means they are incapable of doing both; and imply that one can not do both. Most I find who can cast a long line actually know enough about line control that accuracy is not a problem. There are those who enjoy limiting themselves by only casting short, that works for them, but not me.

8

Actually <not to boast> I can do both!! Took a few lessons from this guy who dressed funny … and I can wing it out there real good!! Do the short casts too, cuz that’s where my fish are … usually. :wink:

9

You are really off base. Look at gramps post. For some of us a 60 foot cast would put out fly out of the water by 40 feet on the other bank.

The only real skill most of us need is to be able to cast 40 feet without a full backcast, with a bush or trees behind us, and to be able to do a spey cast on a single handed rod. This would not even apply to gramps.

Now yes, while I can double haul, I can only cast about 65-70 feet with a 5 weight, and think it would be cool to “rip out a 5 weight in a parking lot and cast 100 feet or throw the whole line plus 40 feet of backing”. Most of the MEN here with testosterone would probably agree. I dont know about the women folk as they are more practical.

10

bdesavage, if you live a sheltered life, then so do I. In fact, I am not ashamed to admit that I had never even heard of the double haul until I found this site. As others have said I honestly never had the need. Yea, there were times before that I couldn’t reach fish with a single cast from where I was. My solution? Walk closer to the fish. Since I have learned that there is such a thing as a double (or even single) haul, I’ve tried it often on still water and it is a lot of fun. For a while I could cast a decent cast (not a good judge with distances by sight) but I’d guess around 70-80 ft., but I couldn’t get a decent hook set with that much line out. I was so used to just a little tug or a little lift of the rod tip and a good enough hook set. Finally a few weeks ago I did hook and land a nice little 2lb LMB from a pond on a double haul cast. It was lots of fun, but took forever to reel all that line back in too. I usually stick with the typical 20-40 foot casts and still manage to catch fish. HHMMM, go figure!

11

too confrontational.
gotta have fun.
may not need to cast that far, but fun to be able to.
cast to your fish regardless of distance.
accuracy counts.

12

Distance is great.

To get good at it, it takes practice and disicpline. And THAT leads to ‘skill’.

However, it is up to each of us to decide if we want to invest that ‘practice and disipline’ in the pursuit of the ‘skill’ of making long casts.

You can decide that you don’t need to be able to cast that far, or even HALF that far and still enjoy fly fishing.

Nothing wrong with that.

You can decide that you really DO want to learn to lay a fly out 100+ feet accurately, spend the time to learn to do so, and be justly proud of that ‘skill’.

Nothing wrong with that either.

What is ‘wrong’ is either side of this issue thinking that how far you can ‘cast’ has any bearing on how ‘good’ a fly fisherman that person is. There are outstanding casters out there who have trouble catching fish. There are folks who have trouble casting 30 feet who catch lots of fish. One doesn’t necessarily equal the other.

I know that those who ‘can’ double haul and pitch a 100 foot cast easily will tell everyone that will listen that if you just do ‘this’ and learn ‘that’ it’s ‘not hard’. Folks learn at different rates, coordination and physical abilities differ wildly, and many folks have ingrained ‘bad habits’ that while ‘wrong’ for the pure cast are now second nature to them and are very hard to ‘unlearn’. Not everyone CAN get it, at least not without a lot of that disipline and practice.

For some, it is NOT easy to simply learn. And, as we get older, it can get harder.

I know it’s hard to believe, but many folks find taking instruction, practiceing something, and trying to ‘learn’ a new skill to be hard work and not in any way ‘fun’. Many people have serious trouble taking any criticism, especially in a group setting, and are self conscious about looking ‘bad’ as well. Hard for these folks to even consider taking any kind of casting course unless they have the money to get private instruction.

For many of us, fly fishing isn’t all our life is about. It’s something we like/love/enjoy doing, but we have other things we have to spend time on as well. Work (I know it’s a four letter word), family, even (shudder) other hobies than fly casting. Some folks would prefer to spend ‘extra’ tying flies or building rods rather than practicing the cast.

So, if you want to cast far, learn to do it. It really isn’t ‘hard’ if you have the drive and determination to take the instruction and practice applying it. If you are happy with your fishing as it is, then don’t sweat it.

Nothing wrong with either approach.

Good Luck!

Buddy

13

AMEN BUDDY!

Excellent post. I agree 100% with everything you said. 8)

14

Bob,

Sure there are advantages with being able to cast more than 100 feet but they are in techniques that can be applied to much shorter casts in certain situations. What’s the sense of being able to cast 100 feet or whatever distance if your fish are 1/2 that distance and you can’t come close to putting the fly where it has to be? There’s casting for: A)Distance; B)Competition; C)Showing Off; D)Accuracy; E)Necessity; and F)Fishing. The first 3 have nothing to do with the sport of fly fishing. I’m sure there are those who will disagree but this is just MHO.

Deezel

15

Bob,
I doubt I could get to the 70 ft. mark. I dunno, I’ve never tried. I fish small spring creeks and around 30’ max, if that.

I do do some bass fishing and pike/muskie stuff but anything more than 50 ft is rare there. I can do that alright w/a dbl. haul but seldom need to try for more.

Maybe I should seem just for the fun of it…I have a son who “reaches out” a lot. I’ve just never tried.

Jeremy.

16

I enjoy casting and working on my casting [u]almost[u] as much as the fishing and I can tell you I would love to be able to cast to the end of my line and I envy those who can. That being said, I don’t need anymore than 60’, roughly, to reach my quarry 95% of the time. I will cast huge distance one day, but I’m not in a really big rush…at least not until I see a big fish 100’ out from me.

Brad

17

No matter how far you can cast there will always be a fish 5 feet farther than you can reach, whether it is 10 feet, 100 feet, or 200 feet. Reaching him and catching him are two different things.

:shock:

18

I’m not a great doublehauler but I wish I were…folks that can tend to use it on almost all casts [I’m told]…and are able to expend less energy on even short casts…making long sessions of casting [fishing] less fatiguing.

19

Well, not true in my case. I worked hard in California to cast a long distance. Maybe not 100 ft, but not too far off. When I got to Colorado I never saw a need for long casts. Even on the bigger rivers. Well, big for my area anyway. Since I didn’t need long cats, I dropped to a 3wt and never say to myself “I need to cast longer than this rod can do”.

I’ve said it many times. I see no sense in casting a fly farther than I can see it on the water. Keeping in mind I have poor vision.

20

Hi,
Our club had a casting clinic with a friendly competition as well. The competition involved a series of accuracy tests and a distance component. My 3 best casts were all about 61 feet, within inches of each other. Most rivers I fish I never come any where close to needing to cast that far. However, if I’m fishing a lake, the further I can cast the longer my fly is being retrieved along the bottom and so the longer it is in the zone. Also, there are some pretty large rivers that, on occasion, I also fish. One of my most memorable fish landed was on the Rangitieki, and in a nice riffle above Te Awa camp a rise would start each day just before noon. On the far side of the river was this one fish that always seemed to be the first one to start taking off the surface. There was a tricky set of currents to deal with as well as this fish sitting just beyond my casting range (this was a couple years ago, so my best casting wouldn’t have been 60 feet, probably closer to 50 or so). However, we had some pointers at the club the week before, so I was practicing while on the river. All weekend I fished this riffle, took a number of nice little fatties (ave 1.5 lbs). All weekend this fish was mocking me. However, I continued to practice what I had learned at the club, and finally, on the last day, I was able to place a fly where I wanted in order to get the drift, and sure enough, I could see him turn and grab it. Like all the others, this one was a nice rainbow of about 1.5 lbs, and wasn’t even the biggest fish of the weekend. But it was the most satisfying.
Since then, I have noticed that there are always fish just beyond my casting distance.

  • Jeff