: "CAST" your vote?
11-11-2000, 12:47 AM
The question is, Should fly fisher's be responsible for their back cast?
Many of us who fish the beach or drift a boat know that there are times when others might unintentional get in our way. No matter how diligent we are, we seem to have our close calls.
Maybe we need some kind of marker when in a boat, like a skin diver, that says "Fly Fisher Present." For those of us on shore we could post a sign, "Fly Fisherman at Work"
Your thoughts on this or events of a close call.
Where do we draw the line?
11-11-2000, 07:21 AM
One should always be aware of the back cast, especially when fishing popular jogging or bikeing spots.
Flyfishing from shore sometimes draws a lot of on lookers,
more then one time I had to move on for this reason.
Being responsible for your backcast is part of being a responsible fly fisherman.
11-12-2000, 06:45 PM
The flyfisher has 100% of the responsibility but if we were there first I don't think it too outrageous a request to ask the person or persons in the way to step to one side.
I agree, no less than a plug caster needs to heed jetty walkers or chunk baiters need to heed boat channels and swimmers. It's the sportsman's responsibility to lay the line down for folks using the beach, IMHO.
On the other hand, I have experienced intrusions of the intentional and offensive nature from kayaker's in a steelhead river, boaters on the flats, swimmers wanting to swim in front of me while I was wading 100 yards from shore and working surface breaking fish and coming nearly to physical aggression over the matter (Sam, remember that ridiculous event?).
Courtesy goes both ways, either can be the offender.
I go on the simple principle that whatever I hook, I get to keep. To my credit, I have a spectacular collection of toddlers, canines, and tree branches. I once came up with a bikini top, size 36 D, but the damn liberal conspiracy in Chatham made me return it!!
11-25-2000, 09:40 AM
This just happened to be a timely response to the questions of a back cast.
<a href="http://www.shorecatch.com/BobPop.html" target="_blank"><!--auto-->http://www.shorecatch.com/BobPop.html</a><!--auto-->
11-25-2000, 11:29 AM
I would think we are responsible one way or the other. The beach is public and ,at least from a legal point of view, we are excercising an activity that has some potential of danger to someone walking by, even if they see you. On the other hand if they are warned that the back cast will come and ignor the warning that may be a different story. Also, someone standing behind to watch who is warned is also... but I would think that if they don't move you have to... which is really no big deal since moving ten feet to one side or another should not matter depending on your direction of cast and where you want to get to. Here's the real issue. If you don't see them and they don't see you or they don't know about the back cast, all things being equal the law might presume that since the nature of the activity can be dangerious, the location, and the use of it by the public, you would ,or should have forseen that without checking behind you you would be liable for any injury you might cause. Just my opinion.
I agree that we are responsible for our backcast. I'd compare it to what happened to a freind out duck hunting a few years back. there he was at 5:50, 5 mins into legal shooting time , when a freindly fisherman,(of all things, a fly-fisher), comes wading in front of his decoys that he had been there at 4am to set out. when this was mentioned to the fly-fisherman, his response was, that's ok, you can shoot right over my head, I don't mind. do you think if a stray #2 steel pellet hit this guy, he'd say "that's ok"? my freind packed up and left. we are always responsible, even when others are ignorant, stupid, or mean spirited... hmmm, maybe I should start voting libritarian, I think they'd be inclined to say "they got what they deserved". but this is Mass where any bozo can sue you for their stupidity... my $.02 Tom D
Some would call such a mishap "natural selection" http://22.214.171.124/images/flytalk/Wilk.gif
Seriously, I agree - it all boils down to consideration and intelligence, both of which were missing in this case.