Now that it's winter again I've been swithering - again - over whether it's worth gaining a casting accreditation. While having a look around the schedules of the organisations this one stood out as the ultimate. Some of it looks exceedingly tricky. By the way this is a second level course, just in case you are tempted to pop over to Holland for accreditation!
http://www.effa.info/master-instructor.html
30 m cast with double hauling
22 m cast without line hand
25 m cast - backhanded
Deliver a backcast 25 m
18 m roll cast - forehanded
15 m roll cast - backhanded
switch cast 22 m - forehanded
switch cast 18 m - backhanded
Carry 24 m of line (leader included, measured from the base line to the fly) in the air with a proper loop, with double hauling
Pick up 18 m of line (leader included) off water, smoothly with a minimum of water disturbance and drop back straight on water.
Cast all planes and angles with 18 m of line (leader included) - horizontally and vertically
Presentation casts (12 m). Accurately throw straight, angled (45?) and curved line on command, long (15 m) and short (10 m) line.
False cast and place the fly on target at 6 m, 12 m und 18 m with great accuracy.
Pick line up (14 m, leader included), no false cast. Change direction of cast 45 degrees and cast forward 18 m.
False cast at least 18 m (leader included). Still false casting strip line in and place fly 6 m away.
Hold fly in hand (12 m of line stripped out), drop fly and make one false cast and shoot line forward 18 m.
Starting with 10 m of fly line plus leader, using double haul, cast 25 m (straight) by making no more than 2 back and 2 forward casts.
Demonstrate well controlled curve casts at 9 m, 12 m und 15 m.
12 m cast with bow next to leader.
12 m cast with bow in the middle of line.
12 m cast with bow in end of line nearest the rod tip
cast 15 m of line (leader included) with your bad hand (tight loop, double haul)
If you have a search on sexyloops you'll find the rather bitter arguments over this....
One thing came out of it, making it harder and harder doesn't take account of teaching performance. The FFF seem to analyse that the best. The effa test is quite frankly ******* difficult! That would take me years of practice to get to the level required to attempt to pass that, I would never actually put myself through it to be honest! I remember reading about how brutal the testing procedure is, there's just no lee way with anything. A 30m presented cast is a monster too!
What is the point of this? It's not fishing anyway. Nor is it teaching if what Scott says is correct. For me spending time on stuff like this has everything to do with what fishing isn't. To each his own though. :D
You could always go for an SQA certificate in Game Angling Fred.
http://www.sqa.org.uk/sqa/36040.html
Or an SVQ in Coaching, Teaching and Instructing (Angling) Level 2
http://www.sqa.org.uk/files/svq/G7GV_22.pdf
Both of which will be recognised by the Sporting Council of Scotland which means you are open to teach whatever you have learned.
Aye Sandy, alternatively I could just go out and enjoy a bit of fishing. :lol:
It seems that there is a certain amount of one-upmanship here. "Our test is harder than your test". It strikes me that this difference in syllabus/exam is used to justify the existence of each rival organisation. I heard that AAPGAI for example were insistent that anyone holding their qualification could not be a member of another similar organisation. Whether they backtracked on this unreasonable stance or not, I don't know.
I met a Hungarian FFF Master at the Glasgow Casting Club recently and he was talikng about this EFFA exam.
He was not complimetary about the EFFA assessors' attitude during his assessment at all. Reckoned they did not put him at ease and it was not at all an enjoyable experience.
I can understand the relevance of formal qualifications at in a teaching context. They are irrelevant when it comes to just going fishing.
Alex
Think of the grants you could apply for though to allow you to fish and teach all over Scotland for nothing. And if you are fishing somewhere and told you can't you just tell them you are qualified and have the certificates to prove it :roll:
I think Alex hit the nail on the head. But there is nothing at all wrong with fishing related qualifications as long as they don't end up becoming compulsory before you are allowed to go fishing. I'm not entirely convinced that some would not like to see things go down that road.
They already do it in Germany :shock:
http://berlin.angloinfo.com/information/32/fishing.asp
Quote from: fishtales on November 02, 2010, 03:02:09 PM
They already do it in Germany :shock:
Exactly and a year or so ago, on another forum, I saw support for a similar approach here from an instructor on the strength of some bad fish handling he once witnessed.
As far as routes into angling go I'm very much of the Wullie, Fat Boab, Soapy and Wee Eck up the Stoorie Burn with a can of worms school.
I like the idea of a master instructor. Obviously I don't know about the attitudes of examiners of the European FFF so I won't comment.
Here's my take on it. There's a lot of very experienced fishermen on this forum and one way or another they usually get the fly where they want it. So if we were to hire an instructor it's likely to be for quite a challenging task. So for example if I were fishing a big beat of the Tay in spring I may want to cast 120ft of sunk line to get over a particular lie. So what would be the point of hiring someone who can't show me how?
Or if I have taken up pike fishing and struggling to put a 9 inch bunny on a size 12 line 85ft why would I hire someone who couldn't do that?
Please understand I am not in any way denigrating instruction.
What I am saying is that there is a need for the top grades of instructor who are more than capable of doing casts like that.
I'm with Malcolm on this one.
If I need to learn how to do it, I need to be taught by someone who can do it.
So how do I know who can teach me? - Check their qualifications and professional body to inform my choice.
As for the "qualified to fish" in the example of Germany quoted above, I am with Admin- dead against.
BUT, Soapy et al lived in a different time when PC Murdoch patrolled his beat and footed the arse or clipped the ear of miscreants.
As I watch a depressingly increasing minority of those who wish the "outdoor experience" (walking, camping, birding, climbing, cycling, canoeing, photography, and, yes fishing) despoil the very basis of the experience they seek, I move closer to agreeing with legislation.
The first steps have already been taken here- you will not get to hire a boat until you convince the hotel that you are capable of handling it. A shortcut would (of course) be that the potential hirer produced his certificate of competence.
Quote from: Malcolm on November 02, 2010, 05:17:31 PM
So for example if I were fishing a big beat of the Tay in spring I may want to cast 120ft of sunk line to get over a particular lie. So what would be the point of hiring someone who can't show me how?
Or if I have taken up pike fishing and struggling to put a 9 inch bunny on a size 12 line 85ft why would I hire someone who couldn't do that?
Hmmmmm Tiger woods will go to a professional to help him iron out problems with his swing or putting. Could you honestly say the instructor is better than the tiger?
Being able to cast a helluva long way does
not mean you can teach someone else to do it. An instructor
must be able to pass on his/her knowledge, analyse and advise on a casters faults. If they can't cast 120' lying on their belly between two bushes with an upstream reach mend around a twig half way to the target, but can instruct someone else to do it would that not mean they were an instructor worth visiting?
Ramble over
Peter
Mind you Peter, as you have pointed out yourself, vigorously and forthrightly, :lol:, a few times in the past at least the qualification provides some indication of a standard. I agree though it is absolutely no guarantee the holder can teach any more than it is for mathematics or woodwork. Some, like Malcolm, with no paper casting qualification but who can in fact cast well do have the skill to explain what is required and have in fact taught casting in an amateur capacity. I gained from just watching for 15 minutes on the grass outsiude The Crask a few weeks back. Sometimes an informal and relaxed approach works well.
It's a can of worms. :worms
I know what you are saying Peter and indeed if there was a persistent problem with a leaded fly smacking the rod tip or a prevalence of wind knots then fine - go to a guy who can help!
However, take the 120ft salmon cast - all the instructors at Glasgow casting club can do that with ease. None are massively powerful they cast using technique. I watched Andrew cast 180ft or so a couple of Sundays ago with a rod he was using for the first time.
They've walked the walk. What I am asking of them is easily within their comfort zone. They can advise on tackle set up as well as cast set up. We all learn differently - I learn from watching then doing so I can watch what they do then try to copy.
Without naming names I know a qualified salmon instructor who cannot even cast 110 feet. Fine instructor as he may be for short, effective and technically excellent casts I would not go to him and ask him to teach me to cast 120 feet.
Quote from: rabbitangler on November 02, 2010, 06:39:08 PM
Hmmmmm Tiger woods will go to a professional to help him iron out problems with his swing or putting. Could you honestly say the instructor is better than the tiger?
Being able to cast a helluva long way does not mean you can teach someone else to do it. An instructor must be able to pass on his/her knowledge, analyse and advise on a casters faults. If they can't cast 120' lying on their belly between two bushes with an upstream reach mend around a twig half way to the target, but can instruct someone else to do it would that not mean they were an instructor worth visiting?
Ramble over
Peter
The thing with PGA teaching is that it is based on a rudementry ability to perform the various types of shots to a reasonable standard and ( I love this inclusion) 'confidence', but then learn a huge background of problem analysis, sports phsycology, and even club repairs and adjustments. Its a heck of a long and vigorous procedure.
So you can be sure the guy watching you... even the assistant pro, may not be the greatest hitter of the ball, but he has a damn good idea about the mechanics of the golf swing in its various areas of the course, can recognise problems and knows the best exercises and mind games to put you through to rectify them.
Which seems to me the sensible way to do this. Take a leaf out of the PGA's book and qualify the teachers on they're ablities to analise and teach. Not to perfectly present a 30m cast ( when is that ever going to be usefull as a casting teacher... unless its to belittle a pupils ability) That just puts you into an elite set, it's meaningless.
Yeah Paul Arden failed it first time around. As far as I have read, emphasis on that as I have no direct experience obviously, is that it is definitely a "one up" approach with the effa, they just want to be the top etc.
If you want to learn certain specialised aspects I think it goes beyond casting qualifications, you have to pick the guy with fishing excellence too. The salmon cast and the pike bunny cast are totally different, your 120' cast may be in the realms to standard double hand fishing for a double handed instructor. However a single handed instructor who never pike fishes.... I mean i'm not going to show you how to setup a pike outfit, I could probably get to grips with casting it but it would be far easier for me to say, go and speak to X, he's a massively experienced pike dude who'll see you right.
Just like if I want to learn how to present a dry at 100' (for example only!), I could go to an instructor who specialises in fishing burns for small trout. It's not all about the qualification and whilst it does serve to have people with a decent set of all round skills, you still need to do a bit of digging if you are looking for a specialised piece of knowledge!
Pom - i agree an awful lot. You need an all-round skill set at an appropriate level (whatever that may be). And that links well with the rest of my post.
Quote from: Alan on November 02, 2010, 09:30:57 PM
i admire Malcolms openness for these things, they are personal goals where you learn more in doing it than you ever get of it, and qualifications are more valuable for the stuff you learn than the badge,
Alan,
Thankfully I'm not interested in that qualification. I just posted the the link as it's eye-wateringly tough and thought it may be of interest in a jaw dropping sort of way!
Similarly the casts were just dragged up as an example to justify my belief that a higher level of expertise may be helpful where an instructor is helping an already experienced fisherman. As an aside as I now do my pike fishing with a double hander 85 ft casts with a big fly are the equivalent of dropping a wet fly 12 yards away!
If a casting instructor fails the stiff test does that make him droopy?
Quote from: admin on November 03, 2010, 10:33:29 AM
If a casting instructor fails the stiff test does that make him droopy?
Probably, if the instructor fails the stiff test he likely didn't quite make it up to the appropriate level.
Quote from: Alan on November 06, 2010, 02:21:14 PM
expertise comes at a cost though, Micheal Mauri, FFF dude charges 600 quid for a day out! ironic for us that the highest qualified here, Andrew Toft, who also commands a hefty cheque from paying clients, is right there at the casting club.
That's so true Alan. The uniqueness of the Glasgow Casting Club.
Nothing at all like it in our neck of the woods sadly. You guys do sterling work.
In many ways it's a bit like the WFF and Fish Wild - an ethos of helping others with no alterior / commercial motives.
Yep, I'd go along with that Fred!
I think many people may think that people helping and not charging money get nothing out of it - very wrong. They are doing what they enjoy, improving themselves and meeting new friends in the process, just like this place indeed!
I know exactly what you mean Scott. Running these sites costs me a lot of money and time. It?s completely non commercial save my fly line site which has been in operation for a few months, while the other sites have been going for up to 7 years. Fish Wild is particularly time consuming.
However, I do get a lot out of it, knowing I?m helping people to help others, helping to bring people together, to forge friendships, getting better at fishing and casting myself, supporting the fish related conservation work of The Don Trust and just meeting some damned good folks as well as the complete and utter f**kwits that turn up from time to time.
Now all that said I?m a totally ruthless bastard. I edit and delete posts (I?ve already edited and deleted this one three times), ban members on a whim, starve my dog, and pull the legs off spiders. Most of the accounts here are mine; although you don?t realise it you are in fact me.
I?m pretty bad at a lot of other stuff too, but there is just too much for me to remember all at once, so bear with me for a moment ?till I nip over to Fly Forums to check that list.
Oh yes, and I wind folk up from time to time too. :lol:
For those that can't pass the stiff test I'll be bringing along a couple of boxes of home baking tomorrow to help drive away the dementors.
Quote from: Alan on November 06, 2010, 11:02:53 PM
specifically on casting, the fastest way to learn is to mess around with loads of rods and lines and try to tune in to each, after a while you can drive any car as it were, its a surprisingly fun thing to do in the right company.
:8)
I have to disagree with that Alan, I think that to learn most quickly you have to tune into the rhythms of your own equipment learning it's capabilities in a variety of conditions.
One of the things about fly fishing that is so difficult to pick up is that it is incredibly sensitive to what I'll call micro timing. This doesn't seem apparent to the experienced fisherman - a wind catches on the back cast or the current tugs unexpectedly water tugs and the experienced fisherman makes a slight adjustment and everything is hunky dory. It's a different matter when you are learning something new.
It seems to me to add in more variables into an already complex mix is to slow down the process. In fact I would go so far as to say that as long as the tackle is approximately right that a new fisherman is much better sticking to one rod and one line.
Just my opinion...