Fly Fishing Equipment

[rob]

I've been wanting to get in to fly fishing and I am wondering what
brand of equipment would you recoment for a beginer.

Rob

[Tim J.]

"rob" wrote...
> I've been wanting to get in to fly fishing and I am wondering what
> brand of equipment would you recoment for a beginer.

Olympus makes very nice binoculars.
--
TL,
Tim
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

[Ernie]

"rob" > wrote in message
om...
> I've been wanting to get in to fly fishing and I am wondering what
> brand of equipment would you recoment for a beginer.
>
> Rob

Beginner kit for trout,and panfish (this is what I would get)
You can add items as you need them.
Ernie Harrison

Vise -Thompson pro. and a midge head
Hackle Pliers
Bobbin, (ceramic tube)
Surgical scissors, with large thumbhole for palming
Bodkin
Bobbin threader
Hooks, Mustad (box of 100)
94840 in sizes 10 and 12 and 14 (dry fly)
3906 in sizes 10 and 12 and 14 (wet fly/nymph)
Thread 6/0, (black, brown, yellow and red)
Head cement.
Dubbing wax.
Gold wire, (fine)
Tinsel, (medium) silver on one side, gold on the other
Floss, (red, yellow, and green)
Chenille, small (black, yellow, olive and brown)
Bead heads, medium (gold)
Calf tail, (white)
Squirrel tail, (gray)
Hares mask,
Deer hair, (natural)
Rooster hackle, (brown, and grizzly)
Mallard wing, (pair)
Ringneck pheasant tail
Peacock herl

Hook & Hackle on line catalog at http://www.hookhack.com/
Has most of these items and their prices are reasonable.

[Jeff Miller]

look for good quality entry-level rod and reel. all of the major
mail-order catalogues (orvis, ll bean, cabela's) have good selections.
g-loomis, st. croix, cortland, orvis, ll bean offer low-mid price rods -
less than $200. if you aren't sure and you're just testing the waters,
try out a friend's rig first. while the things i enjoy about
fly-fishing aren't diminished or enhanced by the quality of the
equipment, stuff poorly suited to your methods of fishing can make it
more difficult.

here's what i'd do if i wanted a good start on beginning to solve the
great mystery...

1. orvis or ll bean entry level outfit du jour. generally reliable
offerings and good folks to deal with at a distance. excellent
guarantees and return policies. or, go to your closest fly shop and get
personal service - recommendations, etc. you don't mention the kind of
fishing you'll be doing. i've fished a 3 weight rig in montana, maine,
pensylvania and nc. it'll do fine and is comfortable. for all round
use, 4 or 5 weight is probably better. i'd go with the 4 weight. unless
you're fishing tiny water, get an 8.5 foot rod. get the best line you
can - stay away from cabela's entry-level tomato staking line. cortland
and orvis are my choices for mid-price lines.

2. breathable stocking-foot waders. hodgman, dan baily, orvis, simms -
simms are the best for heavy-duty use, imo, but expensive. i've heard
they are coming out with a new mid-price wader. my expensive pair is
still going strong...so on a cost per year basis, i got better value
than the much less expensive hodgmans that lasted a little over a year.
i wouldn't take chances on the waders. get the best you can justify for
the kind of fishing you do.

3. chota felt-bottom wading boots for comfort. buy a size bigger than
your shoe size to accommodate socks and stocking foot waders.

4. leaders and tippet. look at catalogues. maxima and rio and climax
are good. buy the 9 foot leaders. 4x leader, 4x, 5x, 6x, 7x tippet
material.

5. flies - elk hair caddis, parachute adams, stimulator, royal wulf,
prince nymph, pheasant tail, gold-ribbed hares ear...

6. learn the nail or needle knot, surgeons knot, improved clinch knot.

7. buy a book on fly-fishing.

8. understand that all of the preceding is just words in the ether.
others will say i'm fulla **** and give you different recommendations.
in the end, it's your call based on what suits you, and something you
won't know or decide until after you've busted your ass in a stream
during a season of chasin wily mr. trout.

jeff
> I've been wanting to get in to fly fishing and I am wondering what
> brand of equipment would you recoment for a beginer.
>
> Rob

[George Adams]

>From: Jeff Miller

>look for good quality entry-level rod and reel. all of the major
>mail-order catalogues (orvis, ll bean, cabela's) have good selections.
>g-loomis, st. croix, cortland, orvis, ll bean offer low-mid price rods -
>less than $200. if you aren't sure and you're just testing the waters,
>try out a friend's rig first.

<Balance of generally good advice snipped>

I agree with most of Jeff's advice with two exceptions:

1. I think a 4 weight outfit is a bit on the light side for a beginner's
all-around outfit. I'd recommend a 5 wt in 8" or 8-1/2", even a 6 wt if you
fish big water in windy conditions....you'll want to add lighter tackle later.
Go with a medium or medium/fast action to begin with. Since you are a true
beginner, you will have no real preferences here. Learn to cast with that
outfit, and make adjustments in tackle as you progress.

2. There are a number of breathable waders from major manufacturers in the $150
range that will give you good service.
No need to bust the budget at the outset. Good advice on the wading shoes,
though. Get something comfortable that offers good traction and ankle support.

Just my $0.02


George Adams

"All good fishermen stay young until they die, for fishing is the only dream of
youth that doth not grow stale with age."
---- J.W Muller

[Sierra fisher]

My $.02
I don't know why anyone buys a rod less than 9' long. There is no savings
when you buy it, It doesn't cast any better, it is not appreciably easier to
negotiate through brush, it doesn't mend as well, and it weighs less than
1/2 oz less. If there is an reason, it favors the rod builder. There are a
lot of times when I would like a little extra distance and wish my rod was
10' long


"George Adams" > wrote in message
...
> >From: Jeff Miller
>
> >look for good quality entry-level rod and reel. all of the major
> >mail-order catalogues (orvis, ll bean, cabela's) have good selections.
> >g-loomis, st. croix, cortland, orvis, ll bean offer low-mid price rods -
> >less than $200. if you aren't sure and you're just testing the waters,
> >try out a friend's rig first.
>
> <Balance of generally good advice snipped>
>
> I agree with most of Jeff's advice with two exceptions:
>
> 1. I think a 4 weight outfit is a bit on the light side for a beginner's
> all-around outfit. I'd recommend a 5 wt in 8" or 8-1/2", even a 6 wt if
you
> fish big water in windy conditions....you'll want to add lighter tackle
later.
> Go with a medium or medium/fast action to begin with. Since you are a true
> beginner, you will have no real preferences here. Learn to cast with that
> outfit, and make adjustments in tackle as you progress.
>
> 2. There are a number of breathable waders from major manufacturers in the
$150
> range that will give you good service.
> No need to bust the budget at the outset. Good advice on the wading shoes,
> though. Get something comfortable that offers good traction and ankle
support.
>
> Just my $0.02
>
>
> George Adams
>
> "All good fishermen stay young until they die, for fishing is the only
dream of
> youth that doth not grow stale with age."
> ---- J.W Muller
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.521 / Virus Database: 319 - Release Date: 9/24/2003

[Joshua Rosenblatt]

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 09:29:11 -0700, "Sierra fisher"
> wrote:

>My $.02
>I don't know why anyone buys a rod less than 9' long. There is no savings
>when you buy it, It doesn't cast any better, it is not appreciably easier to
>negotiate through brush, it doesn't mend as well, and it weighs less than
>1/2 oz less. If there is an reason, it favors the rod builder. There are a
>lot of times when I would like a little extra distance and wish my rod was
>10' long
>

Why don't you ask Ed Shenk. ;)

Personally, I have rods ranging from 6' to 10'

Joshua

[Stan Gula]

"Sierra fisher" > wrote in message
...
> My $.02
> I don't know why anyone buys a rod less than 9' long. There is no savings
> when you buy it, It doesn't cast any better, it is not appreciably easier
to
> negotiate through brush, it doesn't mend as well, and it weighs less than
> 1/2 oz less. If there is an reason, it favors the rod builder. There are
a
> lot of times when I would like a little extra distance and wish my rod was
> 10' long

Do you ever fish streams that you can jump across that are covered by
tangled masses of rhodendra?

[Ernie]

"Sierra fisher" > wrote in message
...
> My $.02
> I don't know why anyone buys a rod less than 9' long. There is no savings
> when you buy it, It doesn't cast any better, it is not appreciably easier
to
> negotiate through brush, it doesn't mend as well, and it weighs less than
> 1/2 oz less. If there is an reason, it favors the rod builder. There are
a
> lot of times when I would like a little extra distance and wish my rod was
> 10' long

Interesting, my $.02 is it depends on the material the rod is constructed
from. Bamboo is tiresome over 7 1/2 feet and fiberglass is tiresome over 8
1/2 feet. You can go to longer rods with graphite. For me the length
depends on the use. Short rods for small or bushy streams and longer rods
for large rivers or lakes where you are casting longer distances. Of course
if you like to dap a longer rod is beneficial.
Ernie

[rb608]

Sierra fisher's perfectly valid $.02:
> I don't know why anyone buys a rod less than 9' long. There is no savings
> when you buy it, It doesn't cast any better, it is not appreciably easier
to
> negotiate through brush, it doesn't mend as well, and it weighs less than
> 1/2 oz less.

On the other side of the coin, although I have rods from 7.5' to 9.75', most
of my "primary" rods are 8.5' or less. They didn't cost any more, they
don't cast any worse, they are slightly easier to handle in close brush,
mend perfectly well on the waters I fish most, and weigh slightly less.

Joe F.

[rw]

Sierra fisher wrote:
> My $.02
> I don't know why anyone buys a rod less than 9' long.

It fits inside the back of my camper shell, rigged up, without bending
too much. :-)

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[Ken Fortenberry]

Sierra fisher wrote:

> My $.02
> I don't know why anyone buys a rod less than 9' long.
> ...

I have fly rods from 1wt to 7wt and 6'3" to 10' in graphite, fiberglas
and bamboo. Every single one of them performs a specific task better
than any of the others. It's great to be a gear whore. ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry

[Wolfgang]

"Sierra fisher" > wrote in message
...
> My $.02
> I don't know why anyone buys a rod less than 9' long....

I've never owned or used one over 8.5 ft..........or under 4 for that
matter. Given the nature of the fishing that I do....panfish, trout,
a bit of salmon and steelhead, smallmouth bass, etc., on small streams
to large rivers and open water on tiny ponds to big (as in Michigan &
Superior) lakes....I can't see any reason to....let alone a GOOD
reason.

Wolfgang
YMEV

[Sierra fisher]

I've got an Expediton!

"rw" > wrote in message
. ..
> Sierra fisher wrote:
> > My $.02
> > I don't know why anyone buys a rod less than 9' long.
>
> It fits inside the back of my camper shell, rigged up, without bending
> too much. :-)
>
> --
> Cut "to the chase" for my email address.
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.521 / Virus Database: 319 - Release Date: 9/24/2003

[Sierra fisher]

(First liar doesn't have a chance)

I agree! I have singlehanded rods from 0 wt to 14 wt, and spey rods from 6
to 11 wt. Only two are less than 9' and only because that is the way Sage
builds their 0 wt and 2 wt rods.

I believe that the best reason listed above, is that is what fits in a
camper rigged


"Ken Fortenberry" > wrote in message
y.com...
> Sierra fisher wrote:
>
> > My $.02
> > I don't know why anyone buys a rod less than 9' long.
> > ...
>
> I have fly rods from 1wt to 7wt and 6'3" to 10' in graphite, fiberglas
> and bamboo. Every single one of them performs a specific task better
> than any of the others. It's great to be a gear whore. ;-)
>
> --
> Ken Fortenberry
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.521 / Virus Database: 319 - Release Date: 9/24/2003

[Jeff Miller]

Sierra fisher wrote:

> I've got an Expediton!

10 foot rods, expedition?? hmmm... just too damn freudian! <g>

depends on the water, i guess, but a 9 footer seems tougher for me to
manage in tight nc streams with little fish. i haven't noticed much
difference in mending or casting my 8.5 and 9' five weights, but i'm
sure i've not paid as much attention to the fine details of that 6
inches (yeah, i know, also too damn freudian...). more info from the
newbie would allow for better advice from people who fish the same
areas. ...and i still think a 4 weight is the best all purpose single
rod and line weight for normal troutin in the places i've fished.

jeff
>
> "rw" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>>Sierra fisher wrote:
>>
>>>My $.02
>>>I don't know why anyone buys a rod less than 9' long.
>>
>>It fits inside the back of my camper shell, rigged up, without bending
>>too much. :-)
>>
>>--
>>Cut "to the chase" for my email address.
>>
>
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.521 / Virus Database: 319 - Release Date: 9/24/2003
>
>

[Wolfgang]

"Jeff Miller" > wrote in message
news:Fq0eb.5985$k74.5834@lakeread05...
>
>
> .....i still think a 4 weight is the best all purpose single
> rod and line weight for normal troutin in the places i've fished.

Hm.......never used a 4 weight myself, but I've fished both 5 weights
(for 18 years) and 3 weights (for the last 2) in many of those same
waters as well as numerous others. Both work flawlessly.......even
brilliantly. I guess there's no good reason to suppose that a 4
wouldn't be adequate. :)

Wolfgang
well, in the right length, anyway.

[Larry L]

"Sierra fisher" > wrote in message
...
> My $.02
> I don't know why anyone buys a rod less than 9' long. There is no savings


A number of years ago a friend in Calif F&G told me about a "secret" spot
that they were using to try and help protect the gene pool of Lohantans It
is a very small stream, protected by a small waterfall from upstream
migration and they stocked it with the Cutthroats. I was told, at that
time, to expect up to 14 inch fish and to be sneaky and try not to be seen
( not to catch fish to avoid advertising their existence ).

I went off, 9 foot rod in hand and got little more than very frustrated.
The next time I went it was with a 6'6" 3 wt and the difference = lots of
fish caught as I could now ( barely) cast in the tangle of cover

the being sneaky was easy, as you can't even see the stream for all the
overhanging vegatation in most places ... <G>

I also know of a irrigation canal on a wildlife area in Calif that has BIG
Bass in it that will eat a big popper, it is shallow enough to wade but is
completely overgrown with willows and brush in many places ..... I'm still
looking for a 6' 8 wt but did try a stiff short old spinning rod with a fly
line one time to some success if not great casting <G>

I like to hop over Tioga to fish ExtraCrowdedCreek near YuppieSkiTown in the
Eastern Sierra. I fish it very early in the morning before the rest of the
crowd has picked exactly the right flavor of StarBucky coffee to start their
days. The creek has a lot of small black caddis and in the very early one
can find browns hugging the bank looking for caddis that fall off the grass.
I take a 7'6" 5wt because I can cast just the leader and a foot of line with
it, very accurately. I can get closer than 9 feet to these fish, if I move
like a hunter, and by throwing a curve can take fish only 5 or 6 feet from
me, closer than I can accurately cast with any of the 9 foot rods I happen
to own ( even dapping is hard that close with the 9 footers ). About the
time the crowd shows up I leave and grab my 10' rod to fish local lakes ....
honest there are reasons besides gearwhoreitis to have rods of various
length <G>

[Sierra fisher]

I do 95% of my dry fly fishing with a 3 wt or 4 wt. However they are both 9
feet. When you are fishing even small streams you should try to stay as far
from the fish as possible. I think that the longer the rod, the better the
distance and accuracy. Actually, I don't think that many can tell the
difference of 6". However I think that using 7' carbon rods are just
handicapping yourself. If you are going to have to cast 30' while
surrounded by willows, you can do it easier with a 9' rod. If you are
using a 7' cane rod, you like hanicaps.


"Jeff Miller" > wrote in message
news:Fq0eb.5985$k74.5834@lakeread05...
>
>
> Sierra fisher wrote:
>
> > I've got an Expediton!
>
> 10 foot rods, expedition?? hmmm... just too damn freudian! <g>
>
> depends on the water, i guess, but a 9 footer seems tougher for me to
> manage in tight nc streams with little fish. i haven't noticed much
> difference in mending or casting my 8.5 and 9' five weights, but i'm
> sure i've not paid as much attention to the fine details of that 6
> inches (yeah, i know, also too damn freudian...). more info from the
> newbie would allow for better advice from people who fish the same
> areas. ...and i still think a 4 weight is the best all purpose single
> rod and line weight for normal troutin in the places i've fished.
>
> jeff
> >
> > "rw" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> >
> >>Sierra fisher wrote:
> >>
> >>>My $.02
> >>>I don't know why anyone buys a rod less than 9' long.
> >>
> >>It fits inside the back of my camper shell, rigged up, without bending
> >>too much. :-)
> >>
> >>--
> >>Cut "to the chase" for my email address.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ---
> > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > Version: 6.0.521 / Virus Database: 319 - Release Date: 9/24/2003
> >
> >
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.521 / Virus Database: 319 - Release Date: 9/24/2003

[Wolfgang]

"Sierra fisher" > wrote in message
...
> I do 95% of my dry fly fishing with a 3 wt or 4 wt. However they
are both 9
> feet. When you are fishing even small streams you should try to
stay as far
> from the fish as possible.

"As far as possible" is often under ten feet. As Larry pointed out,
it is often less than the length of one's rod. On the mountain
streams I've fished in North Carolina (as well as other places) a
likely pocket may be less than two feet in diameter and less than that
distance from your nose as you climb up over the boulder at the head
of the last one. On the other hand, on many a stream I've
fished.......um......in fact, on ALL of them..... "as far as possible"
is about twelve thousand miles. Even a ten foot rod wouldn't help
much......line control and all that, wot?

> I think that the longer the rod, the better the
> distance and accuracy.

It is entirely reasonable to suppose that, on average, longer rods
will allow longer casts. But other factors come into play. Other
characteristics of a given pair of rods may be more important. As for
accuracy, I can think of reason to believe that greater length
contributes. If distance casting is critical......and in trout
streams it is nearly always a mistake....then a heavier line weight
rod is the answer.

> Actually, I don't think that many can tell the
> difference of 6".

That doesn't really bolster your argument all that well, does it?

> However I think that using 7' carbon rods are just
> handicapping yourself. If you are going to have to cast 30' while
> surrounded by willows, you can do it easier with a 9' rod. If you
are
> using a 7' cane rod, you like hanicaps.

If you have trouble hitting 30 feet with any decent fly rod, or even a
cheap piece of ****, for that matter, you've GOT a handicap.

Wolfgang

[Willi]

Sierra fisher wrote:
> I do 95% of my dry fly fishing with a 3 wt or 4 wt. However they are both 9
> feet. When you are fishing even small streams you should try to stay as far
> from the fish as possible. I think that the longer the rod, the better the
> distance and accuracy. Actually, I don't think that many can tell the
> difference of 6". However I think that using 7' carbon rods are just
> handicapping yourself. If you are going to have to cast 30' while
> surrounded by willows, you can do it easier with a 9' rod. If you are
> using a 7' cane rod, you like hanicaps.

I think there's a big difference between a small stream out West and
ones back East. Because of the type of vegetation we have and the runoff
we get out West, our small streams are very different from those back
East. Out West we just deal with willows, which at times can be bad
enough, but you don't know overgrown until you've fished a little stream
back East. Very different ballgame. I do fine on small streams in the
Rockies with my 9 foot rod but on the little streams I fished in
Pennsylvania, a shorter rod would be a big advantage. Many of those
small over grown streams don't allow over head casts especially 30 foot
ones. It's one situation where I think a 7 foot bamboo would be superior
to a 9 foot graphite.

Willi

[Willi]

Wolfgang wrote:
> "Jeff Miller" > wrote in message
> news:Fq0eb.5985$k74.5834@lakeread05...
>
>>
>>.....i still think a 4 weight is the best all purpose single
>>rod and line weight for normal troutin in the places i've fished.
>
>
> Hm.......never used a 4 weight myself, but I've fished both 5 weights
> (for 18 years) and 3 weights (for the last 2) in many of those same
> waters as well as numerous others. Both work flawlessly.......even
> brilliantly. I guess there's no good reason to suppose that a 4
> wouldn't be adequate. :)


Although my favorite rod and first choice is a 9' four weight, for
larger waters or for throwing large dries or for nymphs with weight or
in windy conditions or for lake fishing or for throwing streamers or
......... a 5 or even 6 or 7 weight is a better tool. There are just
too many situations in the Rockies where you're going to be undergunned
with a four weight. For trout fishing in the Rockies, I think a 5 weight
rod would be the most versatile but if you're out when the wind is
howling you're going to wish for something heavier.

Willi

[slenon]

For that need to throw further or to use a heavier line with shorter rod,
I've got an old Eagle Claw Pack Fly/Spin combo. It is, at best, a
compromise but it is only 7'6'' and can be moved through brush and
undergrowth with more ease than anything else I've used. And because it
requires a heavy line, 7 wt to perform, it can handle bass if need be. I've
fished it in three time zones with some sucess.

---
Stev Lenon 91B20 '68-'69
Drowning flies to Darkstar
Save a cow, eat a PETA

http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/index.html/slhomepage92kword.htm

[Guyz-N-Flyz]

"Sierra fisher" > wrote in message
...
> My $.02
> I don't know why anyone buys a rod less than 9' long. There is no savings
> when you buy it, It doesn't cast any better, it is not appreciably easier
to
> negotiate through brush, it doesn't mend as well, and it weighs less than
> 1/2 oz less. If there is an reason, it favors the rod builder. There are
a
> lot of times when I would like a little extra distance and wish my rod was
> 10' long

Obviously, you have never fished in NC. Not that you'd want to, mind ya, as
our streams are extremely polluted and over-fished by marauding rabid black
bears.

Op --who owns a six foot rod and has the guts to use it, properly!--

[Larry L]

"Willi" > wrote

> Although my favorite rod and first choice is a 9' four weight, for
> larger waters or for throwing large dries or for nymphs with weight or


Is that the SLi blank ?

Like most of us I own too many rods, but "mainly" I use these 3 ... a
2wt Sage Light Line ... love it, but it doesn't have the backbone to land
big fish fast enough ( given my skill ) I think you could break the rod
before it would break 6X. And, of course, it's useless in a breeze

4wt 9' something, St Croix, maybe. My most used rod, but it too lacks real
backbone ( 20"+ fish ) AND I don't think it handles a real short line well
either .... thus, I'm thinking of replacing it. I have no experience with
the current generation of "progressive" actions but was impressed by the
discription you gave of a 4 wt recently ... "loads well with short line, but
lots of butt strength section available" or some such.

My third "always in the truck trout rod" is a 6wt 9' older, softer rod that
works well for nymphing, being slow enough that tangles tend to not happen
..... but as you point out, it still feels undergunned on those Western days
when you open the truck door using both arms to keep it from being blown off
( and they aren't that uncommon )

Anyway, just wanted to confirm that you liked that Cabela's blank and felt
it combined good backbone with the ability to throw a very short line (
most of my fishing is very short, but sometimes even I manage to find a
bigger fish :-) or need longish casts )

[Guyz-N-Flyz]

"Sierra fisher" > wrote in message
...
> (First liar doesn't have a chance)
>
> I agree! I have singlehanded rods from 0 wt to 14 wt, and spey rods from
6
> to 11 wt. Only two are less than 9' and only because that is the way Sage
> builds their 0 wt and 2 wt rods.
>
> I believe that the best reason listed above, is that is what fits in a
> camper rigged

If I'm too lazy to rig up each time I fish, then, I figure, I'm too lazy to
fish.

Op --who could get a 13', fully rigged rod in his Suburban, if he wanted
to, but really sees no need. Really, I just measured my vehicles interior
(no bend necessary either), in case I ever change my mind and decide that no
one should own a rod shorter than 13' long.--

[Wayne Harrison]

"Willi" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Sierra fisher wrote:
> > I do 95% of my dry fly fishing with a 3 wt or 4 wt. However they are
both 9
> > feet. When you are fishing even small streams you should try to stay as
far
> > from the fish as possible. I think that the longer the rod, the better
the
> > distance and accuracy. Actually, I don't think that many can tell the
> > difference of 6". However I think that using 7' carbon rods are just
> > handicapping yourself. If you are going to have to cast 30' while
> > surrounded by willows, you can do it easier with a 9' rod. If you are
> > using a 7' cane rod, you like hanicaps.
>
> I think there's a big difference between a small stream out West and
> ones back East.

you betcha. tell you what, sierra. you fish a little piece of water in
western n.c. with me by the name of dick's creek with a nine foot rod, and i
will fish it with my seven foot winston. i will bet you don't even survive
the fishing, let alone catch as many fish.

of course, i exaggerate. but just ask someone who has been there. as
willi points out, if you are fishing in a tunnel with a 9' rod, the tunnel
had better be at least 10' tall.

wayno

[Guyz-N-Flyz]

"rw" > wrote in message
. ..
> Guyz-N-Flyz wrote:
> >
> > If I'm too lazy to rig up each time I fish, then, I figure, I'm too lazy
to
> > fish.
>
> I often find myself driving from spot to spot, so leaving the rod rigged
> up is important. Also, if you ever fish with Willi and Bruiser you'd
> better rig up your rod the night before, or you'll be the object of
> ridicule the next morning. I half expect those two to sleep in their
> waders. :-)

Actually, if I kept a rod rigged to go, in my Suburban, it would be in
splinters with in a few days. I keep a ****-pot full of stuff in my truck
and it gets thrown about a good deal. Presently, I have a plow, a disc, a
cultivator, a tow hitch set-up ( its for the Tahoe, if I ever get around to
puttin' it on), several 50# bags of deer corn (they're for feedin' the bears
on the property, as the deer don't seem to stand a chance of gettin' any),
100#,. or better tool box, and GOSH knows what else. So I don't dare leave
a fully rigged rod loose in the truck. Hell, I'm afraid that even in the
tubes they may end up crushed!

Op --If ya wanna attract deer to your property, don't put out deer corn!
It only seems to attract black bear.--

[rw]

Guyz-N-Flyz wrote:
>
> If I'm too lazy to rig up each time I fish, then, I figure, I'm too lazy to
> fish.

I often find myself driving from spot to spot, so leaving the rod rigged
up is important. Also, if you ever fish with Willi and Bruiser you'd
better rig up your rod the night before, or you'll be the object of
ridicule the next morning. I half expect those two to sleep in their
waders. :-)

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[Jeff Miller]

perfectly appropriate point...if you're in the rockies all the time.
but, as i was considering the best all purpose single rod for the places
i've fished (i.e., you can have one rod only), if you've got to choose a
single stick for nc, pennsylvania, maine, montana, idaho, virginia,
tennessee... well, i figure an 8 to 8.5 foot 4 weight to be just about
right. what would you have preferred in that little gulch we fished off
of rock creek? i think a 9 foot 7 weight would have been tough for me.
....and if you tell me you fished a 9 foot 7 weight...well, you just
ain't human is all i got to say. <g>

jeff

Willi wrote:

>
>

>
>
>
> Although my favorite rod and first choice is a 9' four weight, for
> larger waters or for throwing large dries or for nymphs with weight or
> in windy conditions or for lake fishing or for throwing streamers or
> ........ a 5 or even 6 or 7 weight is a better tool. There are just
> too many situations in the Rockies where you're going to be undergunned
> with a four weight. For trout fishing in the Rockies, I think a 5 weight
> rod would be the most versatile but if you're out when the wind is
> howling you're going to wish for something heavier.
>
> Willi
>
>

[Tom Littleton]

rw notes:
>Also, if you ever fish with Willi and Bruiser you'd
>better rig up your rod the night before, or you'll be the object of
>ridicule the next morning. I half expect those two to sleep in their
>waders. :-)

I believe Willi did up at Penn's....if only for safety while camping near
Reid's run.
Tom

[Joe McIntosh]

"Willi" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>
> I think there's a big difference between a small stream out West and
> ones back East. Because of the type of vegetation we have and the runoff
> Indian Joe says-- As a beginner I suggest a 8and 1/2 ft 4 weight for south
eastern streams. A 7 ft rod will make the necessary 15 to 20 ft casts
required but a longer rod will do a better job of dipping behind the big
rocks you are climbing around. But be sure to break it down before
climbing out of the stream and fighting the rondos and vines to get back
up to the trail. The most important equipment is a big cooler full of beer
to reward your new friends while standing beside the truck and reviewing
your joyais day.

[Tom Littleton]

wayno points out:
>if you are fishing in a tunnel with a 9' rod, the tunnel
>had better be at least 10' tall.

either that, or learn how to flick roll casts and such poking the rod tip
through the openings. As long as the tunnel is over 10 feet WIDE, you can cast
in there....just takes a bit of practice, but, it can be done.
Tom,
who has caught a few Connecticut brook
trout from many such places with rods of
8 1/2 to 9 feet.

[Sierra fisher]

I have an Expedition, and have outfitted it with a interior rod holder that
holds 4 rods very near the roof. This works for jumping from place to
place, but I still break the rods down every night. I much prefer dry fly
fishing and so clean my lines every night. I also break them down when the
road really gets rough.



"Guyz-N-Flyz" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Sierra fisher" > wrote in message
> ...
> > (First liar doesn't have a chance)
> >
> > I agree! I have singlehanded rods from 0 wt to 14 wt, and spey rods
from
> 6
> > to 11 wt. Only two are less than 9' and only because that is the way
Sage
> > builds their 0 wt and 2 wt rods.
> >
> > I believe that the best reason listed above, is that is what fits in a
> > camper rigged
>
> If I'm too lazy to rig up each time I fish, then, I figure, I'm too lazy
to
> fish.
>
> Op --who could get a 13', fully rigged rod in his Suburban, if he wanted
> to, but really sees no need. Really, I just measured my vehicles interior
> (no bend necessary either), in case I ever change my mind and decide that
no
> one should own a rod shorter than 13' long.--
>
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.521 / Virus Database: 319 - Release Date: 9/23/2003

[JR]

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
>
> I have fly rods from 1wt to 7wt and 6'3" to 10' in graphite, fiberglas
> and bamboo. Every single one of them performs a specific task better
> than any of the others. It's great to be a gear whore. ;-)

Which performs the specific task of being the best all-round rod? ;)

JR

[Brimbum]

Larry wrote:snip>My third "always in the truck trout rod" is a 6wt 9' older,
softer rod that
>works well for nymphing, being slow enough that tangles tend to not happen
>.... but as you point out, it still feels undergunned on those Western days
>when you open the truck door using both arms to keep it from

On days like that I find that my 8.5 foot Loomis Mega-taper 10 weight rod is a
little lite as well...plus it is no damn fun on an 8 inch bluegill

Brimbum

[Brimbum]

wayno wrote:> i
>will fish it with my seven foot winston. i will bet you don't even survive
>the fishing, let alone catch as many fish.

Note to self...don't forget to put the little 6 foot 9 inch Fisher 3 weight rod
behind the seat of the truck tomorrow.

This is gonna be a hell of a lot of fun.

Big Dale

[Brimbum]

Opie wrote:snip> I don't dare leave
>a fully rigged rod loose in the truck. Hell, I'm afraid that even in the
>tubes they may end up crushed!

You are gonna have to start making those rod tubes out of schedule 40 pvc pipe
so that if you happen to bounce one out of the suburban and run over it, you
won't hurt the rod. If you keep messing with those bears, you might consider
adding a proper 44 cal. bear pistol... I have been using the Super Blackhawks
since around 1960 There is sumpthin about pulling the hammer back on an old
single action..

Big Dale

[Ken Fortenberry]

JR wrote:

> Ken Fortenberry wrote:
>
>>I have fly rods from 1wt to 7wt and 6'3" to 10' in graphite, fiberglas
>>and bamboo. Every single one of them performs a specific task better
>>than any of the others. It's great to be a gear whore. ;-)
>
> Which performs the specific task of being the best all-round rod? ;)

That depends. ;-)

Out west a Sage 590 RPL when it's windy, and a Sage 490 LL when it's not.
In the Smokies a 7.5' Winston 3wt.

If I could only have one fly rod, ....

I'd give up fly fishing and take up bird watching. ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry

[Tim J.]

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote...
<snip>
> If I could only have one fly rod, ....
>
> I'd give up fly fishing and take up bird watching. ;-)

That would probably just open up new avenues of gearwhoredom.
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

[Larry L]

"Guyz-N-Flyz" > wrote

>
> Op --If ya wanna attract deer to your property, don't put out deer corn!
> It only seems to attract black bear.--
>


DISCLAIMER: I don't know jack about either deer or bear

...................

I have been involved in several efforts to improve the attractiveness of
various properties to waterfowl and upland game birds.

In the first few of these the "feed em" approach was the first one that
came to mind and the first tried. It never had the DEGREE of desired
result that later attention to other habitat issues did.

It seems that usually there is a "weak link" in the system that limits the
numbers using certain areas and very often the weak link is NOT "food"

Given the above disclaimer, I'd guess that something besides food is
limiting the deer use, but food is a limiter in bear use of your property.
Contact your F&G ... in California ( before Arnold :-) they were very
interested in individuals working to improve private habitat ( they were
very interested in baiters, too, but for different reasons :-) and eager to
provide information, and often personalized help, habitat survey and
suggestions. There very well may be simple, cheap, things you can do to
your land to increase it's deer use besides the feeding that attracts the
bears. In the case of waterfowl, it's amazing how "species specific"
improvements / changes can be made, as each species has certain basic
requirements that the others don't always share.

[Ernie]

"Larry L" > wrote in message
...
> DISCLAIMER: I don't know jack about either deer or bear

If you want to attract deer to your property plant some apple trees.
Ernie

[Guyz-N-Flyz]

"Larry L" > wrote in message
...
> DISCLAIMER: I don't know jack about either deer or bear

Hell Larry that makes two of us! I don't really care which critters eat
what I put out. I just like throwin' money away. I have been huntin' for
the last 5 or 6 years and ain't killed a thing yet, and likely never will.
Each year I put out feed, and the squirrels, turkey, bear, raccoons, and a
few deer eat it, so it's a win, win situation for the critters and me. I
planted oats, wheat, rye grass and clover this year--first time, and set out
two 50# trace mineral salt blocks. I reckon I'll have about five hundred
bucks in it this year, but I benefit so long as critters hang out o the
property.

Op --as I have said before, "I hunt as well as I fish."--

[Guyz-N-Flyz]

"Brimbum" > wrote in message
...
> You are gonna have to start making those rod tubes out of schedule 40 pvc
pipe
> so that if you happen to bounce one out of the suburban and run over it,
you
> won't hurt the rod. If you keep messing with those bears, you might
consider
> adding a proper 44 cal. bear pistol... I have been using the Super
Blackhawks
> since around 1960 There is sumpthin about pulling the hammer back on an
old
> single action..
>
> Big Dale

As you are probably aware BD, I was exaggeratin' just a bit. I make sure my
rods are well stowed, generally, I place them in the third seat and close it
up, so that nothin' will damage them.

Thankfully, I have only seen one bear on the property and I was safely in my
truck headin' down the forestry road. He was a Kodiak lookin' fella, about
20 feet tall. If I was to run up on one in the woods while piddlin' around,
I likely soil myself so badly that the bear would run off in disgust. I
have thought about a gettin a 50 cal. Desert Eagle though, just for ****s
and giggle of course.

See ya in a few days!

Op

[daytripper]

On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 11:50:34 -0400, "Tim J."
> wrote:

>
>"Ken Fortenberry" wrote...
><snip>
>> If I could only have one fly rod, ....
>>
>> I'd give up fly fishing and take up bird watching. ;-)
>
>That would probably just open up new avenues of gearwhoredom.

Having poured a princely sum into 'scopes and gawdawfullyhuge lenses, I can
attest there's no refuge from gearwhoring to be found in birding...

/daytripper ("And that's the truth. Phhhbbbbtt!" ;-)

[Larry L]

"Guyz-N-Flyz" > wrote

I reckon I'll have about five hundred
> bucks in it this year, but I benefit so long as critters hang out o the
> property.
>


Cool, there is a very special pleasure in improving one's home by sharing it
more obviously with Nature .... enjoy

[George Adams]

>From: daytripper

>Having poured a princely sum into 'scopes and gawdawfullyhuge lenses, I can
>attest there's no refuge from gearwhoring to be found in birding...

IMO, there isn't a worthwhile hobby that doesn't require a number of expensive
toys....er...tools. Lessee, there was hunting, then bowhunting, target
shooting, fly fishing, fly tying....don't have enough room in the house for
another.....oops, almost forgot computers.


George Adams

"All good fishermen stay young until they die, for fishing is the only dream of
youth that doth not grow stale with age."
---- J.W Muller

[Peter Charles]

On 30 Sep 2003 01:12:53 GMT, (Tom Littleton) wrote:

>rw notes:
>>Also, if you ever fish with Willi and Bruiser you'd
>>better rig up your rod the night before, or you'll be the object of
>>ridicule the next morning. I half expect those two to sleep in their
>>waders. :-)
>
>I believe Willi did up at Penn's....if only for safety while camping near
>Reid's run.
> Tom

na, that was just so he wouldn't miss any fishing time if Reid's Run
ran

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply
Eastern Spey Clave, October 4th and 5th, 2003
http://www.easternclave.ca

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

[David Triglianos]

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 09:29:11 -0700, "Sierra fisher"
> wrote:

>My $.02
>I don't know why anyone buys a rod less than 9' long.

If someone gave $.02 for that, they'd have change coming. Ever fish a
15 foot wide stream with a 9 foot rod? If you had, you'd know why
people get smaller rods too.

[Brimbum]

Opie wrote:snip>See ya in a few days!

It won't be long before I leave. The space behind the seat in the pickup has
been loaded with 3 rods and 3 reels, wading boots, tennis shoes, leather coat,
long pants, flies and other stuff. Will finish loading after I wake up in a few
hours, and I hope to make the Arkansas line after hearing the Hendrix in
Concert cd before sunrise on my way to Mountain Home for the Southern Conclave.
I will leave there for North Carolina, Sunday Morning Coming Down and should be
at Clave Central before dark on Monday.

Big Dale

[Willi]

Guyz-N-Flyz wrote:

>
> Actually, if I kept a rod rigged to go, in my Suburban, it would be in
> splinters with in a few days. I keep a ****-pot full of stuff in my truck
> and it gets thrown about a good deal. Presently, I have a plow, a disc, a
> cultivator, a tow hitch set-up ( its for the Tahoe, if I ever get around to
> puttin' it on), several 50# bags of deer corn (they're for feedin' the bears
> on the property, as the deer don't seem to stand a chance of gettin' any),
> 100#,. or better tool box, and GOSH knows what else. So I don't dare leave
> a fully rigged rod loose in the truck. Hell, I'm afraid that even in the
> tubes they may end up crushed!

I made severals cases out of heavy PVC with a foam insert made from pipe
insulation. I cut a knotch in the end to hold the reel. I leave the rod
strung up, disconnect the two pieces and slide it into the case. Works
well.

http://crystalglen.net/Fishing/rodcase.htm

Willi

[Willi]

Jeff Miller wrote:
> perfectly appropriate point...if you're in the rockies all the time.
> but, as i was considering the best all purpose single rod for the places
> i've fished (i.e., you can have one rod only), if you've got to choose a
> single stick for nc, pennsylvania, maine, montana, idaho, virginia,
> tennessee... well, i figure an 8 to 8.5 foot 4 weight to be just about
> right. what would you have preferred in that little gulch we fished off
> of rock creek? i think a 9 foot 7 weight would have been tough for me.
> ...and if you tell me you fished a 9 foot 7 weight...well, you just
> ain't human is all i got to say. <g>

It was a 9 foot, but it was a four weight.

Willi

[Willi]

Larry L wrote:
> "Willi" > wrote
>
>
>>Although my favorite rod and first choice is a 9' four weight, for
>>larger waters or for throwing large dries or for nymphs with weight or
>
>
>
> Is that the SLi blank ?

> Anyway, just wanted to confirm that you liked that Cabela's blank and felt
> it combined good backbone with the ability to throw a very short line (
> most of my fishing is very short, but sometimes even I manage to find a
> bigger fish :-) or need longish casts )


I broke one of the early Powell graphite 9' 4 weight rod that I made and
fished for close to 20 years. LOTS of hours on that rod. Could do just
about anything with that rod except throw a long line. I could think a
fly where and how I wanted. They no longer make that model, so I checked
with some knowledgeable ROFF folks and Charlie, gearwhore, Wilson
recommended the SLi to me. It is a better, more versital rod than my old
Powell but even after over a year, I'm still not as comfortable with it
as with the old Powell. However, I can do more with it. It sounds to me
that it is what you're looking for. Mine is a two piece. I don't know if
the four piece is the same.

Willi

[daytripper]

On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 17:07:38 -0600, Willi > wrote:

>
>
>Larry L wrote:
>> "Willi" > wrote
>>
>>
>>>Although my favorite rod and first choice is a 9' four weight, for
>>>larger waters or for throwing large dries or for nymphs with weight or
>>
>>
>>
>> Is that the SLi blank ?
>
>> Anyway, just wanted to confirm that you liked that Cabela's blank and felt
>> it combined good backbone with the ability to throw a very short line (
>> most of my fishing is very short, but sometimes even I manage to find a
>> bigger fish :-) or need longish casts )
>
>
>I broke one of the early Powell graphite 9' 4 weight rod that I made and
>fished for close to 20 years. LOTS of hours on that rod. Could do just
>about anything with that rod except throw a long line. I could think a
>fly where and how I wanted. They no longer make that model, so I checked
>with some knowledgeable ROFF folks and Charlie, gearwhore, Wilson
>recommended the SLi to me. It is a better, more versital rod than my old
>Powell but even after over a year, I'm still not as comfortable with it
>as with the old Powell. However, I can do more with it. It sounds to me
>that it is what you're looking for. Mine is a two piece. I don't know if
>the four piece is the same.
>
>Willi


I have a few rods my dad built for me plus a few of his that were built using
Powell blanks. Mine were 9/5-2, 9/7-2, and 9/9-2. They're a little heavier and
their action isn't as precise as my factory Winstons, but they're close, and
from a price/performance view they're far superior to Winstons...

/daytripper (As backup rods they're also top-notch ;-)

[eric paul zamora]

rob wrote to me that he's interested in trout. streams and rivers. i think
he said he was located in ontario (not the california version). with that
info, what would people suggest (hope rob doesn't mind my sharing)?

i told him i had just started myself, fishing streams and rivers near my
hometown of fresno, ca. (kings river, upper and lower, san joaquin, merced,
tuolumne meadows, and sometime soon, or maybe next season, the eastern
sierras). that i had just purchased a temple forks outfitter 4 piece 9 foot
5 weight IM6 "western series" rod and an okuma integrity 5/6 reel, loaded
with cabelas DT5F line (only 85 feet i think) and a spare spool with a
redington WF5F line (only 80 feet).

seems to be working fine for me (i was on a budget).

eric zamora
fresno, ca.



> From: (rob)
> Organization: http://groups.google.com/
> Newsgroups: rec.outdoors.fishing.fly
> Date: 28 Sep 2003 17:06:13 -0700
> Subject: Fly Fishing Equipment
>
> I've been wanting to get in to fly fishing and I am wondering what
> brand of equipment would you recoment for a beginer.
>
> Rob

[Jeff Miller]

sounds like an ok start (and the start is usually the most critical
point)... all except the cabela's line. i've not experienced the
redington, but based on my experience with the cabela's line, i'd say
get two of the redington...or cortland or orvis. i don't know the
difference in dollars, but orvis is offering a new low-priced large
arbor reel that might be worth a look as well.

truth be told, getting rob on the river or stream with someone who will
patiently help will probably be more important to his ultimate
enjoyment, skill, and appreciation than the quality of his entry-level
gear.

jeff

eric paul zamora wrote:
> rob wrote to me that he's interested in trout. streams and rivers. i think
> he said he was located in ontario (not the california version). with that
> info, what would people suggest (hope rob doesn't mind my sharing)?
>
> i told him i had just started myself, fishing streams and rivers near my
> hometown of fresno, ca. (kings river, upper and lower, san joaquin, merced,
> tuolumne meadows, and sometime soon, or maybe next season, the eastern
> sierras). that i had just purchased a temple forks outfitter 4 piece 9 foot
> 5 weight IM6 "western series" rod and an okuma integrity 5/6 reel, loaded
> with cabelas DT5F line (only 85 feet i think) and a spare spool with a
> redington WF5F line (only 80 feet).
>
> seems to be working fine for me (i was on a budget).
>
> eric zamora
> fresno, ca.
>
>
>
>
>>From: (rob)
>>Organization: http://groups.google.com/
>>Newsgroups: rec.outdoors.fishing.fly
>>Date: 28 Sep 2003 17:06:13 -0700
>>Subject: Fly Fishing Equipment
>>
>>I've been wanting to get in to fly fishing and I am wondering what
>>brand of equipment would you recoment for a beginer.
>>
>>Rob
>
>

[Mu Young Lee]

On Thu, 2 Oct 2003, eric paul zamora wrote:
>
> i told him i had just started myself, fishing streams and rivers near my
> hometown of fresno, ca

How does the Kings around Garnet Dike fish at this time of the year?

Mu,
Thousand Oaks, CA

[brians]

Mu Young Lee wrote:

> On Thu, 2 Oct 2003, eric paul zamora wrote:
>
>>i told him i had just started myself, fishing streams and rivers near my
>>hometown of fresno, ca
>
>
> How does the Kings around Garnet Dike fish at this time of the year?
>
> Mu,
> Thousand Oaks, CA

Mu,

Normally it starts to pick up this time of year, BUT....

Water levels are abnormally low, and temps are still too high. We are
hitting a cooling trend. Hopefully things will pick up in a few weeks.

brians

[eric paul zamora]

brians

what kind of hatches can one expect along the kings within the next month or
two? any news on the kaweah's tributaries like the marble fork, or even the
tule river? i used to work in visalia, just downstream from the kaweah for
three years and i'm kicking myself for not having taken up fly fishing while
i was stationed down there. still, the upper kings, kaweah and tule are
close enough to visit for me and i'm wracking my brains on deciding where to
go on my days off.

cooling trend=low to mid 80s for the upcoming week, for those interested.


eric zamora
fresno, ca.






> From: brians >
> Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
> Newsgroups: rec.outdoors.fishing.fly
> Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 10:34:59 -0700
> Subject: Re: Kings River Re: Fly Fishing Equipment
>
> Mu Young Lee wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2 Oct 2003, eric paul zamora wrote:
>>
>>> i told him i had just started myself, fishing streams and rivers near my
>>> hometown of fresno, ca
>>
>>
>> How does the Kings around Garnet Dike fish at this time of the year?
>>
>> Mu,
>> Thousand Oaks, CA
>
> Mu,
>
> Normally it starts to pick up this time of year, BUT....
>
> Water levels are abnormally low, and temps are still too high. We are
> hitting a cooling trend. Hopefully things will pick up in a few weeks.
>
> brians
>

[Willi]

daytripper wrote:

> I have a few rods my dad built for me plus a few of his that were built using
> Powell blanks. Mine were 9/5-2, 9/7-2, and 9/9-2. They're a little heavier and
> their action isn't as precise as my factory Winstons, but they're close, and
> from a price/performance view they're far superior to Winstons...

I got the blank on sale. I had never cast a Powell but the price was
right and I bought it as a pig in a poke. I thought the action was VERY
similar to a Winston. I think it was a Light Line series. It was a
pleasure to fish with but "broke down" when too much of a load was put
on it.

About ten years ago, I met a guy streamside that was bragging up his
beautiful new Winston and I bet him that he couldn't tell him Winston
from my butt ugly homemade rod casting blindfolded. We tried it. He'd
make a cast, I take the rod from him and give him either the other rod
or the same rod for another cast. He made about twenty five casts.
Didn't have a clue. I told him how wrong he had been. Even when casting
the same rod two or three times in a row, he identified it as a
different rod each time. When he took the blindfold off he was sure he
was right. He got ****ed because I had "cheated" by giving him the same
rod sometimes twice in a row and once three times.

I think most anglers would have a very hard time with such a test if the
rods were similar.

Willi

[daytripper]

On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 18:43:10 -0600, Willi > wrote:

>
>
>daytripper wrote:
>
>> I have a few rods my dad built for me plus a few of his that were built using
>> Powell blanks. Mine were 9/5-2, 9/7-2, and 9/9-2. They're a little heavier and
>> their action isn't as precise as my factory Winstons, but they're close, and
>> from a price/performance view they're far superior to Winstons...
>
>I got the blank on sale. I had never cast a Powell but the price was
>right and I bought it as a pig in a poke. I thought the action was VERY
>similar to a Winston. I think it was a Light Line series. It was a
>pleasure to fish with but "broke down" when too much of a load was put
>on it.
>
>About ten years ago, I met a guy streamside that was bragging up his
>beautiful new Winston and I bet him that he couldn't tell him Winston
>from my butt ugly homemade rod casting blindfolded. We tried it. He'd
>make a cast, I take the rod from him and give him either the other rod
>or the same rod for another cast. He made about twenty five casts.
>Didn't have a clue. I told him how wrong he had been. Even when casting
>the same rod two or three times in a row, he identified it as a
>different rod each time. When he took the blindfold off he was sure he
>was right. He got ****ed because I had "cheated" by giving him the same
>rod sometimes twice in a row and once three times.
>
>I think most anglers would have a very hard time with such a test if the
>rods were similar.


Not hard to figure - the guy was a tyro. The giveaway was anyone bragging up a
rod when they should be fishing. Definitely a poser ;-)

Anyway, I don't disagree with your take, but having owned and fished both for
a couple dozen years, I wouldn't be afraid of taking that test...

/daytripper