It had been a tough summer.
A bad hip interfered with my fishing in a big way, so much so that I often decided not to go out at all if it meant struggling into my waders. And I really struggled.
One day, I just said heck with it and decided to wade wet, wearing my felt-soled boots.
That helped, although I still had a lot of trouble getting around. It only got worse until I pretty much gave up trout fishing altogether by the middle of August.
Still, that experience made me appreciate the benefits of wading wet, something we did all the time as kids. In fact, until I began fly fishing more than 50 years ago, I don’t think I ever saw anyone in a pair of waders.
I must have, though. I remember a guy casting poppers for panfish at the mouth of our favorite creek on Grand Island, circa 1962. He was the first person I’d ever seen using a fly rod, and he caught fish after fish. I can’t imagine he wasn’t wearing waders.
Anyway, last year's experience reintroduced me to the positive aspects of wet wading … and the negative consequences, as well.
Long ago, we would wade wet with a bathing suit or pair of shorts and sneakers. That worked well where we fished on the Niagara River and some of its tributaries, but it wasn’t ideal.
For one, bare legs expose you to leeches in the water and several noxious plants – poison ivy and other weeds that could result in painful rashes – that you might contact getting to where you were going.
I don’t remember attracting too many leeches, although some guys would get covered with them, but rashes? Yes. Sometimes bothersome ones.
That was on top of the sand flies, or what we called sand flies, and deer flies that bedeviled us. The sand flies would get into your nose and ears, and those deer flies would leave dime-size welts on your hands and arms that itched for days.
Sneakers? Well, we weren’t going to wear the Converse All-Stars we got for playing on the school basketball team. Usually, we would use an old pair of Red Ball Jets, if we had an old pair. If not, we sometimes went barefoot, which was not a great idea. Sneakers were okay for rivers, lakes and ponds that had bottoms of sand, mud, or pea-gravel, but they were ridiculously unstable in rocky areas or in cobbled-up creeks.
Those sneakers could end up stinking to high heaven forever after.
We often did some stupid things. There was a huge barge sunk up against a drop off in the river. On the inland side of it the water was about three feet deep, but once you got within a few yards of it, the bottom dropped off into blackness. My buddy and I were fishing there one time, and he suddenly slipped down and almost out of sight.
I reached down and grabbed him – I like to think it was by the hair, but it probably was by his shirt – and pulled him back up and we just kept fishing.
There was another sunken barge further downstream, and maybe 50 yards out in the river. We’d wade out there up to our chests. You could stand knee deep on the barge and catch a lot of fish – mostly panfish – but if you ever slipped off the thing, you were in deep, fast water and headed to the falls and the big fishing hole in the sky.
Dumb stuff.
Wet wading has improved since those days. I think wading pants are a good idea. They’ll keep unwanted critters and vegetation off your legs. You don’t have to buy the fancy ones from the fly fishing houses necessarily, but you want fabric that dries quickly. I have a pair of Kuhl jeans that fill the bill well. And I believe felt soled wading shoes are a must unless you plan only to wade on smooth or pebbly bottoms.
You can buy fancy shoes, but, again, I wear my wading boots with the gravel guards. They look clunky, but they work well.
Whatever is on my feet, I generally use a wading staff. I have had the same one – and old ski pole – for nearly 50 years. It’s helped me out of a bunch of jams.
I do not wet wade in cold water. Not in the West Canada when it is under 60 degrees, and certainly not the Delaware or similar water when it is in the 40 and 50s. Your idea of cold might be different. I’d say anything under 60 degrees is too cold.
And, of course, you must prepare for the ride home, unless you want damp car seats for a few days. Otherwise, it isn’t a bad thing.
NOTEBOOK
State fishing records tumble
I just wrote in my last column that New York’s largemouth bass record was unlikely to be broken.
Just a week later, Jim Brittenbaugh of Pennsylvania broke it. Of course!
Pre-fishing a tournament on July 10, Brittenbaugh landed a hog that weighed 12.35 pounds. It has been certified by the Department of Environmental Conservation as a record. It topped the old mark by a pound. He used a wacky-rigged Senko – bass anglers will know what that means – to fool the big fish.
Cayuga also is where Thomas Russell caught the state record smallmouth bass – 8 pounds, 6 ounces – last year, and caught a heavier one, possibly the same fish, recently. He did not enter it for a record. Obviously, something special is going on deep below Cayuga’s waters.
Another state record fell June 21 when Chucker Zimmerman of Hilton landed a 15-pound, 14-ounce longnose gar at Butterfield Lake in Jefferson County.
The fish was 53 inches long and weighed 15 pounds, 14 ounces, surpassing the previous mark by more than a pound.
I’ve only seen one gar, more than 60 years ago, dead on the ice on Cayuga Creek in Niagara Falls. They are primitive fish, and primitive looking, with that long, toothy snout and their ganoid scales, much different from those on most familiar fish. The scales are very rough to the touch and remind me of chain mail.
In any case, here we wrote a column that contended that fish records are hard to break, and then two state records are broken in quick order. You never know.
Write to John Pitarresi at 60 Pearl Street, New Hartford, N.Y. 13413 orjcpitarresi41@gmail.com or call him at 315-724-5266.
Most Popular
Comments / 0