The sphere of controversy regarding fishing for trout seems to be growing faster than I can keep up.  We hear talk of how hero shots and grip-and-grins when photographing fish needs to end and now we expand into another area of concern:  one which offers some interesting points to consider.

So much of this seems to be driven by the fact that many of our rivers (most applicable to the trout waters out west) and streams (most applicable to our eastern trout waters) feel the stress of high temperatures (I believe this means water temperatures) and increased angling pressure at the same time.

Those of us who feel the need to keep up with the latest fishing-related news are aware of the drought conditions plaguing the west and various actions proposed and adopted to address those stressed waters and the trout.  On the flip-side, here in the east it's a different ball game.  We had our time of it last year.  And, believe me, it wasn't good!

On it's face using these two factors as a lead-in makes for the beginnings of a good case.  But, at least the way I look at it, it's the beginning of a developing problem.  You may be thinking, "O.K., Dave, why would you say that?  Well, read on and I'll tell ya'.  

From what I see there's a really big difference in the way fishing is viewed - and managed - out west.  I see that there's more "high profile" talk about crowded conditions and fishing when water temperatures rise.  And that's not necessarily a bad thing.  To contrast, I'll use my home state of Pennsylvania.  And, since I live just shy of the middle of the best PA has to offer trout anglers I'd say I have a bit of knowledge of what goes on here and I not only get to see it I get to hear what folks are doing and saying.  Of course, there's always social media that may, at times, provide a snap shot of what anglers are thinking.  And, regardless of how you may feel about it, there's the issue of climate change and it's purported impact on that which is near and dear to us.  

I'll admit that I can't understand why you would close fishing down on a specific waterway in the early afternoon whether it's out west or anywhere else.  Yeah, I recognize that the decision is driven by water temperature.  And, yes, I understand that the span between daytime highs and nighttime lows may be significant.  And I'm pretty sure the decision to close is supported by anglers, as well.  I've said it many times already.  If water temp. is expected to rise above the limit of acceptability at any point during the day the ethical thing to do is DON'T FISH.  PERIOD.  Hooking, playing, landing, removing the hook and releasing a trout earlier in the day takes it's toll and with water conditions as they are I'd say their recovery time is extended.  Too, that trout is now back into the same environment where it is susceptible to being caught again.  As the day goes on the stressful conditions only deteriorate.

Here in PA we don't have any of that.  None of our public trout waters have ever been closed to fishing during stressful conditions.  Only recently has our fish and boat commission advised against fishing for trout when they're gathered at the mouths of cold water tributaries or at other cold water refuges during these periods.  There's a reliance on anglers choosing to engage in ethical practices.  And if you're wondering, this is what happens on some of our most prized wild trout streams.  That's right, no legal restrictions.  Just hope anglers do the right thing.  Unfortunately, not all do.  In fact, I'm still amazed at the number of fly-fishers who don't know that there is an ethical cut-off.  And then there are those who don't seem to believe it - or just don't care.

Now, let's talk angling pressure   I could almost glean from what's said that there's a feeling that more anglers fishing more often could be a significant contributor to declining trout populations on some western waters..  I'm not saying it ain't so;  however, I've got to wonder if a segment of the angling public - especially that segment which focuses so strongly on this factor - has any real understanding of what we see here in PA.  Let's put in clear perspective.  Our most well-known trout waters are smaller in size than those more popular waters out west AND we have more anglers fishing for trout than most any other state in the nation.  We used to rank at the top of the list for numbers of trout anglers.  If we've slipped it sure isn't by much.  I guess you could say that we have far more angling pressure per surface acre - or any other measurement you'd like to apply - than anything out west.  I'd venture to say that we have a lot more angling for trout over a 12 month period than any trout water out west, too.  I know we have seen an obvious increase in anglers over the last two years as a result of COVID.  That's a given.  Fact is, PA just saw big numbers of anglers grow to a bit bigger.  I'll gladly listen to anyone who would like to prove me wrong here.  All of this begs the question:  is the angler pressure increase factor more significant per angler on smaller waters than on larger waters?  Hhmm, interesting.

What about an increase in angling pressure and a decline in a trout fishery:  is there a nexus here?  I'm not a fisheries biologist, for sure.  However, I've been around this stuff long enough to look for hard facts - data - to support allegations.  We should all acknowledge the fact that fisheries experience ups and downs.  It's the nature of the beast.  I don't know of one person (not saying they don't exist) who would disagree with the statement that there are many factors which may contribute to a population decline in any particular wild trout fishery.  To answer the question:  yes, there is a nexus.  If anglers are responsible for, say, a 5 percent mortality rate then each additional angler adds to the overall mortality which occurs as a result.  Here's where the waters get a little muddy.  While I'm not going to get deep into the hypothetical math it's all dependent on how effective the anglers are at catching trout.  Remember the old adage "10 percent of the fishermen catch 90 percent of the trout."  Well, studies reveal that's pretty accurate.  Based on my observations over a relatively long time I believe the skill level of those anglers entering the arena wouldn't fall within that 10 percent.  Therefore, I'm led to conclude that the resulting mortality increase may not reach a level that would be worthy of the label "significant."  

I'm going to use as an example one of our most popular wild trout fisheries.  Probably in the top 5 and may be in the top 3.  Without a doubt one of our most heavily fished streams.  There's a section of this stream that's managed under catch-and-release artificial lures only regulations and it's a few miles long.  Going back 15 to 20 years ago surveys determined the wild brown trout density was a little over 40 kilograms per hectare or roughly 40 pounds of trout per surface acre of stream.  Fast forward to today and that same stream section has seen an increase in trout density to 75 kg/ha.  Not too shabby.  

Now, wait a minute.  There's been a significant increase in angler pressure over the last 15 or so years and we've seen what could be described as a substantial increase in trout density.  And let's not forget that there's been a few floods and droughts thrown in the mix.  Oh, and we don't need a watercraft to access the best holding water.  All we need to do is wade out a bit from the bank and fish.  

I absolutely agree that one example doesn't make for a rock solid argument.  I do believe, though, that this example is not an exception and, therefore, is a valid one.  And it's certainly enough to really get me thinking that there might be a fair bit more to this.                  

I don't remember all of this talk about these issues last year when PA was hit by one of the most severe droughts in recent history.  Flow levels on some of our popular streams hit all-time record lows.  Personally, I was sweating bullets when I gave thought to trout surviving in many of our wild trout streams.  It wasn't only low flows.  It was this in combination with excessive hot weather over a prolonged period of time.  Yes, there was a lot of talk among guides and concerned anglers but there was no loud voice proclaiming conjecture like I'm seeing now.  Of course, this year is dramatically different than last year.  More normal if there's really such a thing as normal.  

Why would one part of the country draw so much more attention than another part?  Unfortunately, I've seen this more than once over the years.  It's something that needs to change.  No one can convince me that fisheries in one region - and the folks who revere them so highly - are more important or valuable than those in another.  We must, however, accept that there are differences.  What's unsettling to me is that some of what I'm seeing come out of all this appears to be driven by emotion - at least the issue of angling pressure and it's potential to negatively impact our fisheries.  If there's science in the backstory I'd like to see it.  If not then that's when I see it as a problem.  Could we be heading toward a position that we should fish less or even not at all?  Wow, wouldn't that be the extreme...or, to some, perhaps not.  I fear I'm already seeing the beginnings of division among anglers.  Those who hold a particular view are becoming bold to the point of accosting others whom they see as acting contrary to their views even if their activities are ethical and innocent.  None of this is a good thing.

Oh, and there's more for me to rant about;  however, I'll save that for another time since the keys on my keyboard are heating up.......  

There's been a fair bit of attention drawn to this subject lately by a number of folks.  It's pretty easy to find links on social media to articles as well as access them directly.  Seems like some folks feel so strongly about this that they're even willing to take people to task themselves.  Yup, it actually happened to me.

Check out my posts and you'll see that I photograph a trout in my net in the water.  That has the trout aT least partially in the water, as well.  And, yes, setting up for a photo takes time.  EVERYTHING we do takes time.  It's a fact of life.  Main thing is I'm as careful as I can be and I take as little time as possible out of respect for the trout and to ensure it's survival.  Well, based on what I'm reading on this subject and what my accuser said that ain't "in the water" and I guess that makes it disrespectful to the trout.  All or nothing?   

The photo in question was of a hatchery rainbow I caught in a freestone mountain stream managed for wild trout and this stream is a tributary to a larger stocked stream.  The water temperature of the stocked stream had already reached lethal levels and I'd assumed the rainbow's survival instinct kicked in and ran (for it's life) up the colder trib.  My motive for the photo was to get anglers to thinking about finding a hatchery trout in a wild trout stream.  (NOTE:  sometimes assumptions are o.k. and sometimes they're not.)

My accuser took me to task for what he saw as my promoting a product and then he hit on what I believe was his main gripe as he questioned why I even had to take the photo in the first place   He stated for all to read that he had recently returned from a fishing trip out west and he had not taken even one photo of a fish he caught and released and he felt great about it.  He iterated his belief that we should extend to the trout the courtesy they deserve:  "immediate release out of hand or net without delay."   His comments included #keepfishwet which he obviously wanted to use as support for his position.  I suspect his major beef was that I took a photo, period.

Since my accuser referenced #keepfishwet I decided to check it out on the same social media platform and, lo and behold, I was greeted with exactly what I expected:  a multitude of photos of anglers holding up their catch for a photo.  My accuser used something to support his position that flew in the face of the point he was trying to make.  Not too smart!

I have my suspicions as to what's driving this issue.  Some are obvious and some are not.  Most of us are aware of the drought conditions combined with abnormally hot weather plaguing the west.  We're seeing fishing restrictions being placed on them as a result.  Another factor appears to be increased fishing pressure as associated with the wide ranging effects of Covid-19. Again, this is primarily focused on the west.  Seems like the west thinks and approaches things differently.  Sometimes this is good...

Here in the east, and particularly in Pennsylvania, we've not had the severe conditions of drought and heat this summer like we experienced last year.  Last year I focused on educating anglers about the relationship between water temperature and trout.  Actually, I do this year in and year out.    

I respect those who hold to their view on this issue;  however, my concern is that they could be alienating some anglers as a result of how they are presenting it.  I see references to "hero shots" and "grip-and-grins" and when I read them in context even I could interpret their use as derogatory.  It's as though those who advocate for not photographing a fish out of water - even partially - believe that there is only one motive behind these photos:  to show off or brag about a catch.  I believe there's a difference between showing off and sharing.  I get the feeling they don't;  however, I hope I'm wrong.  Now, don't get me wrong.  When an angler feels the need to take a photo of each of the 30 or so trout brought to hand in an outing and post every one on social media that may go beyond just sharing one's success.  Of course, that's the exception rather than the rule.

The more thought I give to this issue the more I realize how important my photos of trout are to me and it goes beyond just me.  I've had a number of other folks thank me for sharing my on-stream success.  Photos of trout and the process that an angler follows to capture that photo can still be respectful of the value that trout represents.  And that can provide satisfaction to not only the angler who practiced CPR but others, as well. 

Then there are the posts of fish which are meant to bring a specific issue to the attention of others.  Case in point:  my photo of a hatchery trout taken in a stream where we may not want to find any hatchery trout.

I believe that rather than placing such a strong emphasis on taking photos of fish out of water we would do better to focus our efforts on educating anglers on best practices for fighting fish as well as handling them once they're brought to net or hand.  These pose at least as much risk to a trout's survivability, and possibly more, than the process of photographing them out of water.  When I'm guiding I find that many folks don't know the limits of their equipment and without my guidance would extend their battle with a trout much longer than necessary.  I emphasize the importance of getting a trout to the net as quickly as possible.  Then I walk them through the best practice of handling the trout in a safe manner to get that memory shot.  It's not a hero shot.  It's not a grip-and-grin.  It's building memories!  And, NO, posting photos of scenery just doesn't cut it.  It may add to it but it's no substitute.  Let's be brutally honest here.  If conditions are such that we shouldn't put a trout through the time and effort of photographing them out of water then perhaps we shouldn't be fishing for them at all.  And I make this statement after having read a number of peices on this subject and not seeing any conditions in which photographing trout out of water would be appropriate and acceptable.  They are meant to convey that it's not good everywhere and all the time.  

An equally important issue to educate anglers about is, as I mentioned earlier, the relationship of water temperature to trout.  I'm absolutely stunned at the number of anglers who don't know they are likely killing trout when water temperature rises above 69 to 70 degrees.  In fact, I educate anglers to cease trout fishing if water temperature is expected to reach this level at any time during the day.  Even if water temp. is 66 degrees in the a.m. the stress of rising water temp. throughout the day may reduce their potential to survive.  Too, the belief that conditions improve in the evening is an erroneous one.  The highest water temp. of the day is usually late afternoon and early evening.        

I feel very strongly that we, as members of the fly-fishing fraternity, must be very careful regarding our approach to some of the issues we see rising to the surface at this point in time.  Yes, it's true that this isn't the only issue being addressed right now.  In fact, I believe that some of this could approach the level that I would label as dangerous.  Let's not lose sight of the fact that not only are our fellow anglers watching.  The universe of those who watch us is larger than we might think.  And I already have to defend the fly-fishing fraternity against accusations of elitism and more.  Are we adding more fuel to the fire?  I know how I'd answer.  How 'bout you?

Stay tuned for my old musty opinions and observations concerning some of these other issues surfacing today.  They're right around the corner...

Footnote:  The photo of the brown at the top of the article represents the third time I performed CPR on this fish over a 2 year period with one of the worst droughts in recent history in between.

INTRODUCTION

As I view current material, whether written or in videos, the vast majority of what's out there today is related to Euro nymphing.  You'd think that most fly fishers no longer engage in fishing surface flies.  Fortunately, when I'm out on the water I see evidence that this isn't reality and to that I say, "Hallelujah!"  After all, there's so much more to fly fishing than dredging the depths with nymphs.  Now, don't get me wrong.  I am known to engage in this activity a fair bit, too.  I just don't believe in limiting my opportunities to the point that I wouldn't be able to enjoy fooling trout on dry flies.  A well-rounded fly fisher is a most happy fly fisher!

OPTIONS

When it comes to choosing a leader we can take the path most simple or we can take the path more complex.  The most simple path is to purchase a knotless tapered leader and go fishing;  however, even with these stock (versus custom/customized, modified, etc.) leaders we have to make some choices.  There just isn't anything like "one size fits all."   The alternative is a DIY leader which offers a wide variety of options.  There has to be a method to the madness of constructing our own leaders since there is a certain goal for performance expected from the finished product. 

COMPOSITION

Any leader worthy of being attached to a fly line on one end and a dry fly on the other is going to be tapered.  And, yes, the thick end attaches to the fly line.  While most fly lines - excluding lines specifically for Euro nymphing - start out at about .031" at the tip and get larger as the line size goes up the general guide has the butt of the leader some 2/3 the diameter of the tip of the line.  My experience seems to be that when the leader butt diameter drops to around 1/2 the line diameter or less we're going to run into problems with the leader turning over acceptably to deliver the fly accurately.  

There is something in leader construction called the 60-20-20 rule;  however, I'm telling you there is no rule.  It is a guide and it's a great one.  60-20-20 pertains to the taper formula:  60% butt section, 20% mid-section and 20% tippet.  With a knotless tapered leader someone has already figured that out for us.  It's when we choose to build our own that we can have some fun messing around with this.  And, it's what I like to do! 

KNOTLESS

When it comes to a knotless tapered leader there are three primary decisions we have to make.  First is the X factor.  Since leaders are made with a variety of tippet diameters which are indicated by an X number - 0X is .011 inch diameter and the higher number is subtracted from .011 to give the tippet diameter - this is then related to the fly size or sizes to be used.  The general guide is to take the size of the fly and divide by 3.  A #16 fly would call for a 5X to 6X tippet.  Not too difficult to figure this one out.  

The next decision required is leader length.  The majority of leaders are available in 7 1/2', 9', 12' and 15' lengths.  I'll venture to say that the most common leader length used is 9'.  When someone asks me what leader length to buy this is what I recommend.  Most of the streams I fish and guide on can be fished effectively with a 9' leader.  Personally, if someone would tell me I could only use one of the other lengths I'd choose the 12' leader.  I normally use longer leaders anyway so this wouldn't inconvenience me at all.

For the average fly fisher I'd say that while a 9' leader would be an all-purpose length the others are a bit more specialized.  The 7 1/2' leader I would recommend for small streams (bluelining, anyone?).  When working with short casts in tight spaces a short leader is easer to control and it also provides for having more fly line beyond the rod tip when casting.  Since it's the weight of the fly line that makes casting a bit easier that's a good thing - even if it's only about a foot and a half more line.

The 12'and 15' leaders are to provide a bit more delicacy in presentation particularly when fishing small flies.  This can be particularly beneficial when casting to rising fish in slow water.  Leader alights on the water with less disturbance than fly line so the thought is that there's less risk of spooking already wary trout since the line drops to the water further away from the fly  

The third decision to be made is whether to purchase a leader with or without a perfection loop at the butt end.  Since most fly lines come with a welded loop at the end of the front taper it may beneficial to get the leader with a welded loop and go with a loop-to-loop connection.  Besides, I believe it's harder to find these leaders without a perfection loop.There are, however, fly fishers who don't like the loop in the fly line.  Used to be they couldn't be trusted.  There were times I'd mount a fly line on a reel and take it out in the yard to cast.  In no time the welded loop came apart.  No way I'd want that to happen while I was playing a fish or even the fish of a lifetime.  I believe the manufacturers have improved the process of welding the loop but I'll admit I still don't trust them 100%.  Some folks don't like the extra weight of the welded loop at the end of the fly line (after all, it's the fly line doubled over itself) and prefer to attach a leader via a nail knot or some other connection.  They can either buy a leader without the perfection loop or get the leader with the loop and remove it.  Either option is acceptable.  There is one caveat:  it may be hard to find leaders without a perfection loop.  For those who don't like the welded loop on the end of the fly line but favor a loop-to-loop connection cut off the welded loop, tie on a short piece of leader material at least as large in diameter as the butt end of the leader, tie a perfection loop and go to it.  When it comes down to it it's a matter of what tickles your fancy.

REPAIR

I've encountered fly fishers who continue to use the same leader not realizing that with each fly change it gets shorter...and shorter...and shorter.  While the manufacturers of these leaders indicate right on the package what size tippet we have there's no indication what is the length of the tippet and I believe this is equally important.  Since the vast majority of my experience is with the 7 1/2' and 9' leaders I've measured the tippet sections and found they are somewhere around 2' in length.  Since it's always good to have friends in the right places I contacted Marlin Roush, formerly of Rio Products, to get the lowdown on the longer leaders.  He informed me that the tippet lengths on the 12' and 15' leaders is around 3'.

The average fly fisher uses about 3 to 4 inches of tippet every time a fly is changed.  When I've been guiding a client and pointed out that their leader wasn't what it used to be when they first started fishing with it I've been told that's no problem .  We can just put on another leader.  No, no.  We don't want to change leaders if it's not absolutely necessary.  What we want to do is add tippet or, if it's really short but salvageable, rebuild it to what will perform.  There's a reason they sell spools of tippet material.  A leader costs about as much as a spool of tippet material.  By replacing tippet we prolong the life of a leader- and save money!!   Oh, and when you add new tippet material go about 6 inches longer.  Now you can go with a couple more fly changes before you have to do it again.  I do my best to carry extra tippet spools from 2X on down.  Anything less and I feel like I forgot my pants!

MODIFICATIONS 

For the fun of it let's take a look at customizing a knotless tapered leader.  Why would I even consider something like this?  After all, I just spent good money for something that was designed to work already.  True, but I just may want it to work better - for me.       

Remember, with a knotless leader we already have a butt section we know will work.  We also have the ability to add some enhanced performance and versatility to a leader.  Here's an example of what I may do at times.

 Starting out with a 7 1/2' 3X leader I'll cut back from the tippet about 12 to 14 inches.  I'll add a piece of 4X about 8 inches long and then a section of 5X about 3 or 4 feet in length.  The result is a leader in excess of 10' and a longer tippet which can provide a bit better drift since it should land with some slack rather than straight.  If I want to go a 6X tippet I add this to the 4X instead.  Of course, if I want to fish a long 4X tippet that's easy, too.  Instead of 8 inches of 4X I add whatever length - usually longer than 3 feet - of 4X I want and then I go fish.  I can do the same starting out with a 9' leader if I want a longer leader.

BUILDING FROM SCRATCH AND CHOOSING LEADER MATERIAL

Oh, goody.  Here's where it gets fun!  Many materials to choose from and options to consider.  First, let's remember that 60-20-20 business.  It's a guide and I use it as a basis for all of the leaders I construct no matter how long or how short or any length in between.  What we end up with is longer lengths in the butt section, the shortest lengths in the mid-section and longer tippet.  

First, we can choose to use either stiff or soft mono for the butt sections.  Stiff material would include Maxima or Mason.  Maxima material is well-known among fly fishers primarily because it is used in constructing leaders for Euro nymphing;  however, it's really good for constructing leaders for fishing dry flies, as well.  A leader built with a stiff butt is supposed to turn over a bit better than one tied with soft material.  I can't vouch for this even though I've tied leaders with both.

Most other material I'd consider as soft material.  That includes Rio, Orvis, Cortland and Scientific Anglers.  You can add Froghair to this list, too.  All but Scientific Anglers offers tippet material in the larger sizes used for constructing the butt section of a leader.  Orvis, however, does not provide the diameter of their heavier matrial above 0X.  Orvis lists the heavier material by pound test instead.  I think I have it figured out but I won't say without having validation.   We can expand this list by including materials that would otherwise be categorized as spinning line:  Stren, Berkley and some others.  Like I said, there are a lot of choices here.  Even with Stren and Berkley lines we can see the diameter of each one.  Here is one area where I'm always skeptical and I make sure that my micrometer or dial caliper is real handy.  Don't always trust the manufacturer's label.  Example:  Maxima is consistently .002" larger than labeled.  

To be honest, I don't have a really good reason for my choosing to construct my leaders using soft material for the butt section.  It probably stems from the fact that I use Stren spinning line for my butt section on my leaders that I use for fishing dries.  Yup, they include sighters, too.  It's just what I do.  And, yes, I tie them so they turn over well when fishing dries.

Interestingly, George Harvey, considered by many to be the dean of fly-fishing, used stiff mono in his leaders for many years;  however, in later years he switched to all soft mono.  There were a lot of gasps within the fly-fishing community when he revealed this.  As much as Mr. Harvey experimented we have the same opportunity available to us and this is one of the great benefits of making our own.  We can try both and decide which we prefer.  

To me, the real business end of the leader is the tippet.  I'd have to say that a standard tippet length is 2'.  It'll get the job done.  I definitely go with longer tippets.  I don't want my tippet to lay out straight when it lands on the surface;  rather, I want that slack that's easier to get with a longer tippet.  That's why I go with a minimum tippet length of 3' and I'm not averse to going with 4'.  There are exceptions here.  When I'm fishing small streams with a short leader my tippet may even be less than 2'.  

There are some fly fishers who believe that instead of reducing the size of the tippet they can get a better drift just by increasing the tippet length.  I've seen this in action.  I was fishing with a friend several (actually many, many) years ago and he was fishing a #28 dry fly on a very long 5X tippet.  And he was catching fish.  I was right beside him fishing a slightly larger fly on a 7X tippet.  I've known for more years than I'd like to admit that trout are NOT leader (diameter) shy:  they are drag shy.  Even after having seen it with my own eyes I still could not get myself to go the other way.  I still go with fine tippets to try to beat drag.  Finer diameter means more suppleness and that's the route I go.  There is one caution flag I'll raise here.  With very fine tippet I can go too long.  I know it when I see my fly drifting in a pile of 7X tippet material. That ain't good. 

As of today I'm using Orvis or Rio tippet material with some Cortland thrown in the mix.  I've just begun using Trouthunter.  It's not so much that I'm behind the eightball.  The hang-up here is cost.  Trouthunter is a heck of a lot more expensive than the others.  It's going to take a lot of fishing with this stuff to determine if it's worth it and I don't know if I'm willing to part with the extra dollars to do so.  Hrumph!

Another consideration is the supple tippet material that's offered by one or more manufacturers.  Supple should be softer.  Supple material would be more difficult to turn over a fly.  My advise is to keep tippet length shorter if you choose to use the more supple material.

And while I'm at it here's another caution flag.  Beware the "new, improved, stronger" material some companies have rolled out.  I have found they are up to .002" larger diameter than what they're labeled.  Think you're fishing 4X?  It could be the equivalent of 2X!

WRAP-UP

So, there you have it.  You want simple and you don't want the hassle or challenge or satisfaction of going the DIY route the knotless option is for you.  If you get off on the challenge of experimentation and being able to modify a leader profile to present a fly the way you want it then the DIY option is for you.  Oh, and for those who want to construct their own but don't necessarily have the time nor want to get involved messing around with all the variables there are a lot of recipes on the internet.  And that's the long and short of it...and most everything in between. 

Here's to wishing you some really great dry fly fishing opportunities!!