04-03-2017, 01:28 AM
[quote TubeDude][#0000FF]...In those (olden) days my float tubes were of the truck tire inner tube persuasion. Bulky and heavy...especially after adding the waders and fins. So I reserved going afloat for short day trips where I could pack the inflated tube on my back and carry the other gear wrapped and stowed inside.
I cannot remember many high lakes on which I would have likely done much better in a tube than fishing from shore. Some, but not many. I usually did best at the inlets or outlets...or sometimes around narrow points or points extending into the lake. And, as you pointed out, it was usually easy to see the fish and observe what they were doing.
Here are a couple of pics from the past...distant past. Been a long time since I have been able to run around in them thar hills. One is a few golden trout kept for dinner. The other is a rogue brown that was hanging out in a tiny lake full of brookies. Kept him for the taxidermist. Pretty fish.
[/#0000FF][/quote]Sweet Pics!! Thanks for sharing. I can relate to the truck tire tube era of float tubes. My 1st generation U-Boat was a beast to pack in. I'm still in pretty fair shape for an old retired guy, but a bit more discerning.
I am primarily a fly angler. In the Washington Cascades trees and brush even at lakes over 5000 ft combine with steep talus banks restricting room for a backcast and limits where I can make a presentation to fish just cruising the shore. That's where humping in a tube is valuable. Google Maps/Earth helps with that intel. If I decide not to pack a tube, I may use the weight and space savings to pack an UL spinning rod in case I decide to go to the "dark side" [
] .
Thanks again for your all your thoughts. If anyone else wants to chime in with an opinion on the level of bottom detail they like or need to be effective, I'm all ears-eyes.
[signature]
I cannot remember many high lakes on which I would have likely done much better in a tube than fishing from shore. Some, but not many. I usually did best at the inlets or outlets...or sometimes around narrow points or points extending into the lake. And, as you pointed out, it was usually easy to see the fish and observe what they were doing.
Here are a couple of pics from the past...distant past. Been a long time since I have been able to run around in them thar hills. One is a few golden trout kept for dinner. The other is a rogue brown that was hanging out in a tiny lake full of brookies. Kept him for the taxidermist. Pretty fish.
[/#0000FF][/quote]Sweet Pics!! Thanks for sharing. I can relate to the truck tire tube era of float tubes. My 1st generation U-Boat was a beast to pack in. I'm still in pretty fair shape for an old retired guy, but a bit more discerning.
I am primarily a fly angler. In the Washington Cascades trees and brush even at lakes over 5000 ft combine with steep talus banks restricting room for a backcast and limits where I can make a presentation to fish just cruising the shore. That's where humping in a tube is valuable. Google Maps/Earth helps with that intel. If I decide not to pack a tube, I may use the weight and space savings to pack an UL spinning rod in case I decide to go to the "dark side" [
] . Thanks again for your all your thoughts. If anyone else wants to chime in with an opinion on the level of bottom detail they like or need to be effective, I'm all ears-eyes.
[signature]