Rod length in small creek fishing [Archive]

Jarmo Hurri

February 16th, 2004, 09:23 AM

The discussion about small-stream rods in a thread above brought to my
mind a closely related question I've been thinking about recently.

I have no first-hand experience on fishing bushy creeks, but a couple
of months ago I heard that there are some really interesting ones
nearby where I live. So I will most certainly be checking out some of
these places later this year. However, since I'm a novice in fishing
places like this, I was wondering what sort of a rod one should use. I
have a 2wt 8' rod myself, and I will naturally find out next summer if
that is of any use in these creeks. But since it will take a couple of
months before I am able to wet my line in these streams, and since I
am an impatient man, I thought it might be interesting to hear your
opinions about this type of fishing.

In my area the best weight of the rod is probably 2 or 3, but the
length of the rod is much more of a mystery to me. I often hear
fishermen talk about 6'-7' rods, but some suggest longer rods for
dapping flies over small bushes or long grass. I've noticed that Sage,
for example, does not even produce rods shorter than 8' in their
premium SLT series in weights 0-2. I could also imagine that a shorter
rod might be useful because it would not get tangled in bushes while
fishing or moving around (I think that the shortest ones I've noticed
in my catalogues so far is a 5'6" T&T rod).

It's impossible to determine an optimal small creek rod for all types
of terrain, vegetation etc., but I'd still like to hear your
experiences. What type of rods do you use in small creeks? In
particular, how long are the rods? How does the length of the rod
limit / affect the techniques you use?

--
Jarmo Hurri

Commercial email countermeasures included in header email
address. Remove all garbage from header email address when replying,
or just use .

Roger Ohlund

February 16th, 2004, 10:23 AM

"Jarmo Hurri" > wrote in message
...
>
> The discussion about small-stream rods in a thread above brought to my
> mind a closely related question I've been thinking about recently.
<snip>
> It's impossible to determine an optimal small creek rod for all types
> of terrain, vegetation etc., but I'd still like to hear your
> experiences. What type of rods do you use in small creeks? In
> particular, how long are the rods? How does the length of the rod
> limit / affect the techniques you use?
>
> --
> Jarmo Hurri

Jarmo,

I use a 7' 3wt for small streams. As the fish normally are smaller in such a
stream a 3wt has proven enough.
On the length issue: I like the rod to be short, this due to the
maneuverability and the fact that you don't need as much length to be able
to control the line in a small stream as in a big one.
Now then, a small stream for me is one no wider than 5 meters so my
perception of a small stream might differ from yours.
As this rod of mine is a cane rod it throws a roll cast without difficulty
even with much less line out than would make it possible to do the same
thing with a graphite rod.
I'd say (personal point of view) that the length which gives you control in
a big stream will get you into a whole lot of trouble in a smaller stream,
whether you are casting your line or fighting a fish.

/Roger
Off for a couple of days to do some more hunting, this time ptarmigan. Stay
warm.

Jarmo Hurri

February 16th, 2004, 10:35 AM

Hi Roger,

Roger> Now then, a small stream for me is one no wider than 5 meters
Roger> so my perception of a small stream might differ from yours.

In my book a creek with a width of 5 meters is already quite a river.

Roger> I'd say (personal point of view) that the length which gives
Roger> you control in a big stream will get you into a whole lot of
Roger> trouble in a smaller stream, whether you are casting your line
Roger> or fighting a fish.

Another reason to buy a new rod.

Do you often bump into situations where your 7' rod is too long?

Roger> Off for a couple of days to do some more hunting, this time
Roger> ptarmigan.

What's the equivalent of "tight lines" in hunting? Bloody bullets?

--
Jarmo Hurri

Commercial email countermeasures included in header email
address. Remove all garbage from header email address when replying,
or just use .

Mike Connor

February 16th, 2004, 10:57 AM

"Jarmo Hurri" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
>
> The discussion about small-stream rods in a thread above brought to my
> mind a closely related question I've been thinking about recently.

Generally speaking, I prefer the longest rod I can comfortably use. This is
also because I like to use longish leaders. However, on small overgrown
streams, especially if wading is either difficult or restricted, or one
simply does not want to wade, I prefer to use a very short rod. I have a six
foot #3 wt for this. Much longer, and the rod is a liability.

For slightly larger streams, I have a 7´6" #4 wt.

These two are basically my small stream rods. There are occasions, when a
small stream is "open", and with very little undergrowth on the banks etc,
and then I go back to my nine foot #4 wt.

If you dont have a short rod, and find yourself in such a situation, then
just use the top section ( or sections), of a longer rod. For a while I
carried a special butt around with me for the top two sections of my nine
footer. This worked very well, but it was a nuisance carrying the bottom
section around when I was using it.

Some techniques are very difficult with a short rod and short leaders.
Upstream nymphing, and also upstream wet fly fishing generally, are hard to
do with a short rod, as one simply has much less reach and control. Also,
when using short leaders, some things become almost impossible.

TL
MC

Roger Ohlund

February 16th, 2004, 11:05 AM

"Jarmo Hurri" > wrote in message
...
>
> Hi Roger,
>
> Roger> Now then, a small stream for me is one no wider than 5 meters
> Roger> so my perception of a small stream might differ from yours.
>
> In my book a creek with a width of 5 meters is already quite a river.

If that is true, then you're in for a surprise when attending the clave ;-)
(Even the micro clave in June might broaden your horizon)

> Roger> I'd say (personal point of view) that the length which gives
> Roger> you control in a big stream will get you into a whole lot of
> Roger> trouble in a smaller stream, whether you are casting your line
> Roger> or fighting a fish.
>
> Another reason to buy a new rod.

You might fool yourself, but the rest of us knows that you don't really need
a reason and that justifing a new rod can always be done ;-)

> Do you often bump into situations where your 7' rod is too long?

It has happened but in situations like that the creek is really small, less
than 2 meters wide. And in my book that is just a trickle =)

> Roger> Off for a couple of days to do some more hunting, this time
> Roger> ptarmigan.
>
> What's the equivalent of "tight lines" in hunting? Bloody bullets?

Straight aiming?

/Roger

just al

February 16th, 2004, 11:23 AM

I bought my 2wt when living and fishing in Whitefish, MT. Fishing the
Flathead for 9 inch cutthroats (very greedy fish) and also some creeks in
the northern FLathead Valley. Up until then I fished my 6 wt SciAng, 5wt
Sage DS2, and finally my third purchase the Winston 4wt LT. Because I
worked in a shop I was able to cast and a lot of rods and get good deals on
the Winstons and Sages. Sage still had their SPL's and people were breaking
them like crazy, so I went for the 2wt Winston WT. If I could so it all
over again, I'd've waited one more year and bought the 3wt SLT. That rod is
a dream...

Now that I'm back home in upstate NY, I only use my 4wt on windy days or
when "chucking" big streamers (#6) for landlocks and heavy nymphs on the
Ausable. Otherwise it's the 2wt. The 2wt saved me on the Delaware, where
for the first time I fished #22 flies and the 4wt was jsut too much power.
After switching rods I spent less time retying fine tippet and more time
missing strikes. Now that was fishing!

Thanks for letting me toot my horn...

barooooogaaaaa

"Jarmo Hurri" > wrote in message
...
>
> The discussion about small-stream rods in a thread above brought to my
> mind a closely related question I've been thinking about recently.
>
> I have no first-hand experience on fishing bushy creeks, but a couple
> of months ago I heard that there are some really interesting ones
> nearby where I live. So I will most certainly be checking out some of
> these places later this year. However, since I'm a novice in fishing
> places like this, I was wondering what sort of a rod one should use. I
> have a 2wt 8' rod myself, and I will naturally find out next summer if
> that is of any use in these creeks. But since it will take a couple of
> months before I am able to wet my line in these streams, and since I
> am an impatient man, I thought it might be interesting to hear your
> opinions about this type of fishing.
>
> In my area the best weight of the rod is probably 2 or 3, but the
> length of the rod is much more of a mystery to me. I often hear
> fishermen talk about 6'-7' rods, but some suggest longer rods for
> dapping flies over small bushes or long grass. I've noticed that Sage,
> for example, does not even produce rods shorter than 8' in their
> premium SLT series in weights 0-2. I could also imagine that a shorter
> rod might be useful because it would not get tangled in bushes while
> fishing or moving around (I think that the shortest ones I've noticed
> in my catalogues so far is a 5'6" T&T rod).
>
> It's impossible to determine an optimal small creek rod for all types
> of terrain, vegetation etc., but I'd still like to hear your
> experiences. What type of rods do you use in small creeks? In
> particular, how long are the rods? How does the length of the rod
> limit / affect the techniques you use?
>
> --
> Jarmo Hurri
>
> Commercial email countermeasures included in header email
> address. Remove all garbage from header email address when replying,
> or just use .

Jarmo Hurri

February 16th, 2004, 11:25 AM

>> Do you often bump into situations where your 7' rod is too long?

Roger> It has happened but in situations like that the creek is really
Roger> small, less than 2 meters wide.

Ok, that's a good piece of information. I will find out this year what
kind of a rule of thumb applies to an 8' rod in our northern
environment.

--
Jarmo Hurri

Commercial email countermeasures included in header email
address. Remove all garbage from header email address when replying,
or just use .

Big Dale

February 16th, 2004, 02:23 PM

Jarmo wrote:snip>What type of rods do you use in small creeks? In
>particular, how long are the rods?

I am one of those guys who has bought far too many short rods for this
situation, but for me, I have never been able to enjoy using a rod shorter than
7.5 feet in length. I have several between 6 feet and 7.5 feet long and I
prefer the 7.5 foot 3 weight rods over all the others. I also prefer the rods
with a slower action than those that many prefer. My favorite 7.5 foot rod is
an old Fisher rod 3 weight rod. Another rod that I love to use is a Leo Eck
built bamboo rod that is a 2 piece in a 5 weight. I use it with a double taper
peach colored Cortland line and is by far my favorite rod with which to swing
soft hackle flies. It is impossible for me to use that rod without getting a
grin from ear to ear. I know that others do not agree, but I do not like using
bamboo rods that are less than a 4 weight. Each year when I go to the Southern
Conclave in Mountain Home, Harry Boyd will demonstrate the strength of his
impregnated bamboo by taking some of it which is scraps from building 2 weight
bamboo and driving it thru a board with a hammer. I still prefer a 5 weight
bamboo for the size bluegill and trout that I catch.

Big Dale

@(Peter A. Collin)rochester.rr.com

February 16th, 2004, 03:23 PM

Roger Ohlund wrote:
> "Jarmo Hurri" > wrote in message
> ...
>

>>
>>What's the equivalent of "tight lines" in hunting? Bloody bullets?
>
>
> Straight aiming?
>
Tight Groups

February 16th, 2004, 03:40 PM

Peter A. Collin wrote:
> Roger Ohlund wrote:
>
>> "Jarmo Hurri" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>
>>>
>>> What's the equivalent of "tight lines" in hunting? Bloody bullets?
>>
>>
>>
>> Straight aiming?
>>
> Tight Groups
>

Clean kills.

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

George Adams

February 16th, 2004, 04:00 PM

>From: rw

>Peter A. Collin wrote:
>> Roger Ohlund wrote:
>>
>>> "Jarmo Hurri" > wrote in message
>>> ...

>>>> What's the equivalent of "tight lines" in hunting? Bloody bullets?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Straight aiming?
>>>
>> Tight Groups
>>
>
>Clean kills.

For bowhunters it's "Pick a spot"

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

Jarmo Hurri

February 16th, 2004, 04:28 PM

>> What's the equivalent of "tight lines" in hunting? Bloody bullets?

Peter> Tight Groups

This one is my personal favorite. :-)

--
Jarmo Hurri

Commercial email countermeasures included in header email
address. Remove all garbage from header email address when replying,
or just use .

Jarmo Hurri

February 16th, 2004, 04:47 PM

Hi Mike,

Mike> Generally speaking, I prefer the longest rod I can comfortably
Mike> use. This is also because I like to use longish leaders.

(I've never owned a short rod, so) what's exactly the connection
between leader and rod length? Do you mean that if you have a 9'
leader with a 6' rod and you're fishing closeby occasionally, then
it's a nuisance because you have no fly line outside the rod tip? Or
are there some other aspects to this?

Mike> However, on small overgrown streams, especially if wading is
Mike> either difficult or restricted, or one simply does not want to
Mike> wade, I prefer to use a very short rod. I have a six foot #3 wt
Mike> for this. Much longer, and the rod is a liability.

Mike> For slightly larger streams, I have a 7'6" #4 wt.

So, weights aside, one reasonable strategy for us economically
challenged would be to have three trout/grayling/charr rods: 6', 7'6"
and 9'. The 9' is the general-purpose rod, the 7'6" the all-around
lightweight rod, and the 6' the tight spot rod.

Mike> If you dont have a short rod, and find yourself in such a
Mike> situation, then just use the top section ( or sections), of a
Mike> longer rod. For a while I carried a special butt around with me
Mike> for the top two sections of my nine footer.

This approach makes a lot of sense in your case since I know that
building rods is very easy for you. I've seen pictures of such rod
butts in an article about creek fishing. There were even some
specialized reel seats that you could attach to your vest.

--
Jarmo Hurri

Commercial email countermeasures included in header email
address. Remove all garbage from header email address when replying,
or just use .

Jarmo Hurri

February 16th, 2004, 04:55 PM

On 16 Feb 2004 14:23:50 GMT, (Big Dale) said:

BigDale> I am one of those guys who has bought far too many short rods
BigDale> for this situation, but for me, I have never been able to
BigDale> enjoy using a rod shorter than 7.5 feet in length. I have
BigDale> several between 6 feet and 7.5 feet long and I prefer the 7.5
BigDale> foot 3 weight rods over all the others.

If you have several rods between 6' and 7'6" you must have had
considerable motivation for buying all of those rods. I guess the
motivation was small-stream fishing, but why did you eventually notice
that you could not "enjoy" the shorter rods? Too little control over
the line? Casting too difficult?

--
Jarmo Hurri

Commercial email countermeasures included in header email
address. Remove all garbage from header email address when replying,
or just use .

Ernie

February 16th, 2004, 05:33 PM

"Jarmo Hurri" > wrote in
message ...
> The discussion about small-stream rods in a thread above
brought to my
> mind a closely related question I've been thinking about
recently.
> Jarmo Hurri

I have mixed emotions about this one. A long rod is hard to go
through the brush with, but great for dapping. A short rod is
easier to go through the brush with, but not as good for dapping.
Ernie

Peter Charles

February 16th, 2004, 07:54 PM

Jarmo Hurri > wrote in message >...
> Hi Roger,
>
> Roger> Now then, a small stream for me is one no wider than 5 meters
> Roger> so my perception of a small stream might differ from yours.
>
> In my book a creek with a width of 5 meters is already quite a river.
>
> Roger> I'd say (personal point of view) that the length which gives
> Roger> you control in a big stream will get you into a whole lot of
> Roger> trouble in a smaller stream, whether you are casting your line
> Roger> or fighting a fish.
>
> Another reason to buy a new rod.
>
> Do you often bump into situations where your 7' rod is too long?
>
> Roger> Off for a couple of days to do some more hunting, this time
> Roger> ptarmigan.
>
> What's the equivalent of "tight lines" in hunting? Bloody bullets?

My two small creek rods are a Winston 7'6" 5 wt. and a Hardy
Perfection E 6'6" - 3 wt. The Winston is perfect for big flies and
windy days while I like the Hardy for the really itty-bitty streams.
The Hardy can virtually cast just the leader so it's the ultimate for
small stream work.

Peter

Osmo Jauhiainen

February 16th, 2004, 08:01 PM

> Jarmo Hurri > wrote in message
>...
> > What's the equivalent of "tight lines" in hunting? Bloody bullets?

Stones into your backpack!

These sayings are puposed to mislead the game or fish to think
thet these guys are not going to catch them.

In Russia hunters say: "I wish you no feather no fur".

OsmoJ

Jarmo Hurri

February 16th, 2004, 08:20 PM

Peter> My two small creek rods are a Winston 7'6" 5 wt. and a Hardy
Peter> Perfection E 6'6" - 3 wt. The Winston is perfect for big flies
Peter> and windy days while I like the Hardy for the really itty-bitty
Peter> streams. The Hardy can virtually cast just the leader so it's
Peter> the ultimate for small stream work.

Peter,

While thinking of the subject this evening I actually remembered how
you praised this rod in another thread last year, and I even took a
look at Uncle Wally's pages for the price. :-)

BTW, while doing a search on groups.google.com to see past discussions
about this, I also bumped into this specialty rod series:

http://www.flyrods.com/enso_info.html

Has anyone tried any of these? (I am quite sure you all know I can
have no relationship whatsover with this company. :-))

--
Jarmo Hurri

Commercial email countermeasures included in header email
address. Remove all garbage from header email address when replying,
or just use .

Charlie Choc

February 16th, 2004, 08:26 PM

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 11:23:46 +0200, Jarmo Hurri
> wrote:

> What type of rods do you use in small creeks? In
>particular, how long are the rods? How does the length of the rod
>limit / affect the techniques you use?

I have a 5'6" Scott 2wt that is a lot of fun on small creeks, but I
probably use an 8' 4wt the most. I find I can cover more 'situations',
like dapping, mending, etc., with the longer rod.
--
Charlie...

Stephen Welsh

February 16th, 2004, 08:38 PM

Jarmo Hurri > wrote in
:

> It's impossible to determine an optimal small creek rod for all types
> of terrain, vegetation etc., but I'd still like to hear your
> experiences.

First of all, Jarmo this is very different fishing: if you haven't done
it before you will be frustrated by the snaggy trees and shrubs no
matter how long your rod is. Go with someone experienced in this style
of fishing on your first outings if you can: it will shorten the learning
curve (and two pairs of eyes are always better than one 8-). As you
'adjust' to the confines, the fish and their habits you will become aware
of what you need in the way of a rod. It may take a trip or two.

I fished with 3 or 4 different rods before settling on a favourite
for the scrubby streams I get into. One 7'6" 4wt was too sloppy - a
bow and arrow cast bent the thing double and threw a wide arc
not good when trying to put a fly in and under some distance,
a second 7'6" rod was just horrible as a normal casting rod but was
great at the bow and arrow, terrible on the roll ...
8'6" 6wt ...too long and too sloppy for bow and arrow - big arc, 8' 5wt
....is just about right.

5wt is too heavy? Not for the biggest fish encountered.
8' is too long? occasionally yes, about as often as my mates 6'6"
fibreglass is too short. We do swap on occasion not a bad option.

The streams are freestone, 2-3 metres wide and largely overgrown: depth
can be anything up to 4 and 5 feet. Movement is upstream wading through
the overgrown bushes, fallen trees etc. Walking through the scrub is
left for getting around insurmountable instream obstacles. Casting is
roll, flick, and bow and arrow. Sidearm and overhead casts, when on
offer, require a degree of control - I like the length then.

Steve

Stephen Welsh

February 16th, 2004, 08:48 PM

"Osmo Jauhiainen" > wrote in news:403121a6_1
@news.dnainternet.net:

> Stones into your backpack!
>

Reminds me of the time we secreted a diving weight into someone
else's backpack. Hard to walk laughing like that ...

"Christ, this heavy" - lug, lug, ...

Difficult to walk laughing like that ...

;-)

Steve

Jarmo Hurri

February 16th, 2004, 09:16 PM

Stephen> First of all, Jarmo this is very different fishing: if you
Stephen> haven't done it before you will be frustrated by the snaggy
Stephen> trees and shrubs no matter how long your rod is. Go with
Stephen> someone experienced in this style of fishing on your first
Stephen> outings if you can: it will shorten the learning curve (and
Stephen> two pairs of eyes are always better than one 8-). As you
Stephen> 'adjust' to the confines, the fish and their habits you will
Stephen> become aware of what you need in the way of a rod. It may
Stephen> take a trip or two.

I think that is a sound piece of advice. I also just took a look at
Gierach's and Meck's books on small-stream fishing - might be a good
way to prepare during the winter.

Stephen> 8' 5wt ...is just about right. 5wt is too heavy? Not for the
Stephen> biggest fish encountered. 8' is too long? occasionally yes,
Stephen> about as often as my mates 6'6" fibreglass is too short.

I just read through a number of threads at groups.google.com on this
same issue (I often forget to do a search there myself, although I
often advice other people to do so). There seemed to be no agreement
on neither the length or weight rating of the rod. Not a surprise,
really, but still...

What did surprise me was that a number of people considered weights
0-3 to be too light for this type of fishing. They said that there is
not enough punch in these weights to handle the large variety of
situations you end up in. Also, some people thought that the lightest
lines do not roll cast very well.

--
Jarmo Hurri

Commercial email countermeasures included in header email
address. Remove all garbage from header email address when replying,
or just use .

BJ Conner

February 16th, 2004, 09:22 PM

I use a 7' 5 wt. for crawling around in the brush. The streams may
be small but not necessarly the fish. The fish may be used to eating
larger insects as they get to see more bugs that fall from the
overhanging brush. I use a strike indicator to keep the leader from
sliding all the way down to the tip of the rod. Sometimes it's hard to
reach the end of the rod to pull the line out.
Another thing I've found handy in the brush is an automatic reel. The
Mitchell 710 by ABU works great.

Jarmo Hurri > wrote in message >...
> The discussion about small-stream rods in a thread above brought to my
> mind a closely related question I've been thinking about recently.
>
> I have no first-hand experience on fishing bushy creeks, but a couple
> of months ago I heard that there are some really interesting ones
> nearby where I live. So I will most certainly be checking out some of
> these places later this year. However, since I'm a novice in fishing
> places like this, I was wondering what sort of a rod one should use. I
> have a 2wt 8' rod myself, and I will naturally find out next summer if
> that is of any use in these creeks. But since it will take a couple of
> months before I am able to wet my line in these streams, and since I
> am an impatient man, I thought it might be interesting to hear your
> opinions about this type of fishing.
>
> In my area the best weight of the rod is probably 2 or 3, but the
> length of the rod is much more of a mystery to me. I often hear
> fishermen talk about 6'-7' rods, but some suggest longer rods for
> dapping flies over small bushes or long grass. I've noticed that Sage,
> for example, does not even produce rods shorter than 8' in their
> premium SLT series in weights 0-2. I could also imagine that a shorter
> rod might be useful because it would not get tangled in bushes while
> fishing or moving around (I think that the shortest ones I've noticed
> in my catalogues so far is a 5'6" T&T rod).
>
> It's impossible to determine an optimal small creek rod for all types
> of terrain, vegetation etc., but I'd still like to hear your
> experiences. What type of rods do you use in small creeks? In
> particular, how long are the rods? How does the length of the rod
> limit / affect the techniques you use?

Stephen Welsh

February 16th, 2004, 09:45 PM

Jarmo Hurri > wrote in
:

> I think that is a sound piece of advice. I also just took a look at
> Gierach's and Meck's books on small-stream fishing - might be a good
> way to prepare during the winter.

It's a good idea to practice the casts if you can.

Steve

Stephen Welsh

February 16th, 2004, 10:01 PM

Stephen Welsh > wrote in
. 1.4:

> t's a good idea to practice the casts if you can

BTW - be careful with the bow and arrow ...

- don't hit things with the unloading rod - keep the cast up.
(like a coffee table or the floor - assuming cabin bound Jarmo)

- You can stabilise your fly hand on your head (use a dummy fly
- no pointy bits - to start out)

- You should not load the rod by pulling directly down the rod especially
with graphite rods (like high sticking). Using your head as a
stabliliser helps with this unless you have your rod hand up there
too ;-)

Steve (no I haven't done that ... ;-)

Steve_sullivan

February 16th, 2004, 10:26 PM

In article >,
Jarmo Hurri > wrote:

> In my book a creek with a width of 5 meters is already quite a river.

A 15 foot wide stream is a very small creek for the US. A creek can be
considered small and be 50 feet wide.

--
"He that would exchange liberty for temporary safety
deserves neither liberty nor safety. Ben Franklin
"Those who are ready to sacrifice freedom for security
ultimately will lose both" - Abraham Lincoln

Wayne Harrison

February 16th, 2004, 10:32 PM

"Steve_sullivan" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Jarmo Hurri > wrote:
>
> > In my book a creek with a width of 5 meters is already quite a river.
>
> A 15 foot wide stream is a very small creek for the US. A creek can be
> considered small and be 50 feet wide.

well, now, that depends, don't it. i can think of only one piece of
wild trout water in my home state (north carolina) that is wider than about
fifty or sixty feet. most of the streams i learned to fish on were about
thirty feet wide.

when i fish the catskills, or penns, or out west (in the well-known
water of montana or colorado), i feel as if i am laying out line on the
amazon.

yfitons
wayno

Wolfgang

February 17th, 2004, 12:53 AM

"Stephen Welsh" > wrote in message
.4...
> "Osmo Jauhiainen" > wrote in news:403121a6_1
> @news.dnainternet.net:
>
> > Stones into your backpack!
> >
>
> Reminds me of the time we secreted a diving weight into someone
> else's backpack. Hard to walk laughing like that ...
>
> "Christ, this heavy" - lug, lug, ...
>
> Difficult to walk laughing like that ...
>
> ;-)

Yeah, that's good. But a ham is better. :)

Wolfgang

Peter Charles

February 17th, 2004, 01:46 AM

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 18:53:09 -0600, "Wolfgang" >
wrote:

>
>"Stephen Welsh" > wrote in message
.4...
>> "Osmo Jauhiainen" > wrote in news:403121a6_1
>> @news.dnainternet.net:
>>
>> > Stones into your backpack!
>> >
>>
>> Reminds me of the time we secreted a diving weight into someone
>> else's backpack. Hard to walk laughing like that ...
>>
>> "Christ, this heavy" - lug, lug, ...
>>
>> Difficult to walk laughing like that ...
>>
>> ;-)
>
>Yeah, that's good. But a ham is better. :)
>
>Wolfgang
>

shades of asadi . . .

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

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

Wolfgang

February 17th, 2004, 03:13 AM

"Steve_sullivan" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Jarmo Hurri > wrote:
>
> > In my book a creek with a width of 5 meters is already quite a river.
>
> A 15 foot wide stream is a very small creek for the US.

Purest horse****. Many many thousands of miles of trout stream in the U.S.
are less than fifteen feet across. We've got a couple thousand miles of
such water here in Wisconsin alone.

>A creek can be
> considered small and be 50 feet wide.

Well, one can consider anything any way one wishes, I suppose.

Wolfgang
who has fished a lot of productive water less than five feet across.

Mike Connor

February 17th, 2004, 03:27 AM

"Jarmo Hurri" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> Mike> Generally speaking, I prefer the longest rod I can comfortably
> Mike> use. This is also because I like to use longish leaders.
>
> (I've never owned a short rod, so) what's exactly the connection
> between leader and rod length? Do you mean that if you have a 9'
> leader with a 6' rod and you're fishing closeby occasionally, then
> it's a nuisance because you have no fly line outside the rod tip? Or
> are there some other aspects to this?
>

At close quarters, on small bushy streams, it is well nigh impossible to use
long leaders. Not on a normal carbon fibre rod anyway. Some bamboo rods will
allow you to do this, as they load themselves, a result of their own
intrinsic weight. This means that a good quality slow bamboo rod will cast
just the leader if required. But most people nowadays don´t want to learn
how to do it, They want instant success, and would probably not fish a small
overgrown stream anyway. They prefer to fish a "trophy" water, for very
large "finless wonders", or "educated" trout, that give up immediately, as
they know that this is the best policy, considering that they are going to
be released anyway. No politically correct angler will even admit that he
might like to eat a fish now and again. This would be akin to, or possibly
even worse than cannibalism.

With a "normal" shortl carbon fibre rod, you simply can not get enough
fly-line out to turn the leader over, if you are using a long leader.

Say the fish is ten feet away. You have a seven foot ( carbon fibre) rod,
and a nine foot leader. You need at least a couple of feet of fly-line out
as well, in order to turn the leader over. Total, about 16 feet of line out,
before you can even cast. Result? You can not even cast normally to that
fish. Even if you are a very good caster, it still won´t work. Tricks like
"bow and arrow" casting and similar have to be used, but this is not always
possible, and often causes too much disturbance anyway. Such wary difficult
fish bring however the absolute maximum of satisfaction., basically
irrespective of size. It is nice to catch a big fish now and again, but it
is eminently more satisfactory to catch a nine inch trout under difficult
circumstances, than an easy ten pounder. This is of course entirely
subjective, and depends not a little on where you are in your flyfishing
career, and on what you think such a career should consist of.

I very rarely go above five foot leaders for small stream fishing, but this
also complicates matters somewhat, as such small stream fish can be
extremely wary, and a very stealthy approach and presentation is called for.
Also, some leader techniques, and casts, are not possible, because the
leader is simply too short.

> Mike> However, on small overgrown streams, especially if wading is
> Mike> either difficult or restricted, or one simply does not want to
> Mike> wade, I prefer to use a very short rod. I have a six foot #3 wt
> Mike> for this. Much longer, and the rod is a liability.
>
> Mike> For slightly larger streams, I have a 7'6" #4 wt.
>
> So, weights aside, one reasonable strategy for us economically
> challenged would be to have three trout/grayling/charr rods: 6', 7'6"
> and 9'. The 9' is the general-purpose rod, the 7'6" the all-around
> lightweight rod, and the 6' the tight spot rod.
>

Well, you could just get a butt made up for the upper sections of your nine
foot rod, or do it yourself, it is not difficult. I used such a compromise
for quite a long time, to very good effect.

> Mike> If you dont have a short rod, and find yourself in such a
> Mike> situation, then just use the top section ( or sections), of a
> Mike> longer rod. For a while I carried a special butt around with me
> Mike> for the top two sections of my nine footer.
>
> This approach makes a lot of sense in your case since I know that
> building rods is very easy for you. I've seen pictures of such rod
> butts in an article about creek fishing. There were even some
> specialized reel seats that you could attach to your vest.
>

I also did this for a while. Indeed, for quite a while I used no reel at
all. On small streams, not only the angler is confined, the fish also does
not have many opportunities for extended travel. In many circumstances, it
has no option but to circle around its small pool until it is exhausted. In
such cases, a hazel twig, and a short length of line and leader are more
than sufficient. Of course, you will not land a massive tailwater trout on
such a rig, ( at least not normally), but it might be a lot of fun trying!
:)

After a relatively short time, most ( sensible ) people come to the
inevitable conclusion that one can catch fish on the most primitive and
apparently unsuitable gear. Equipment is really quite unimportant. What
counts, is the singer, not the song.

Of course, there are quite a few people who can not sing, and even if they
could, they can not be bothered learning the song! :)

About thirty years ago now, a guy named Lee Wulff wrote about a "midge"
rod. I was immediately enthusiastic, and built one from the top two
sections of an old English match rod. I had a wonderful time with that rod.
Even nine inch brown trout were a revelation. It was challenging, and it
was fun. Many wonderful days were spent with such gear, and I learned a
great deal, quite irrespective of the fact that everybody else thought I was
completely nuts.

I had two visitors this evening, both very intelligent people, and we spent
a number of hours in the most erudite discussion, and practical application,
of fly construction. I enjoyed it, ( the single malt as well), but after
all these years, I know that it does not really matter. You could tie on a
twist of wool from your old socks, and you would catch just as many fish.

By the same token,. you can cut an alder branch, tie on a bit of line and a
leader, busk a fly from any old feathers you find lying about, and catch
plenty of fish on a small overgrown stream.

I put it to you quite seriously. Next time you go fishing on such a stream,
forget all the "hi-tech" bull****. Concentrate on the priorities. Cut
yourself a twig, tie a bit of line to it, and leader, choose a fly, be
stealthy and quiet.

I venture to suggest that you will enjoy the best flyfishing of your life.

Don´t believe me. Just go and do it. I guarantee that you will be
pleasantly surprised ! I always am. It brings me back to earth, fills me
with joy, and prevents me from falling foul of veritable mountains of
bull****. Not even my own!!!

Of course, as ever, mileage varies!!!! :)

TL
MC

> --
> Jarmo Hurri
>
> Commercial email countermeasures included in header email
> address. Remove all garbage from header email address when replying,
> or just use .

Wolfgang

February 17th, 2004, 03:39 AM

"Jarmo Hurri" > wrote in message
...
>

> I just read through a number of threads at groups.google.com on this
> same issue (I often forget to do a search there myself, although I
> often advice other people to do so). There seemed to be no agreement
> on neither the length or weight rating of the rod. Not a surprise,
> really, but still...

As far as casting is concerned, small streams are inherently more
challenging than big ones. You won't find much agreement on a single best
rod length or line rating, largely because of the diverse nature of the
problems such streams present and the predilections of those who fish them.
There will be situations where a twelve foot rod is too short to dap
effectively and others where a four foot rod is too long to cast
effectively. There is NO single length that is best for all situations or
even a good compromise. As I've mentioned here before, a former fishing
partner of mine made something of a specialty of fishing places that could
only be reached by literally lying down on his stomach in the stream bed and
snaking a line under the alders overhanging the stream. Would anyone here
care to hold forth on what rod length and line weight are best suited to
such tactics? Even for someone willing to go to such extremes, there are
places that are quite simply unfishable, regardless of rod and line
selections and that, of course, is as it should be.

> What did surprise me was that a number of people considered weights
> 0-3 to be too light for this type of fishing. They said that there is
> not enough punch in these weights to handle the large variety of
> situations you end up in.

Absolute nonsense. A three weight is obviously not the best choice for
horseing in large fish quickly, but the odds of connecting with a behemoth
in very small streams are generally pretty low.....and the job CAN be done
(and HAS been done, eh, Wally....Jeffie?) on those surprising occasions when
the unlikely happens. Meanwhile, gear selection should be driven by the
conditions that one can reasonably expect. On very small waters, 0-3
weights are typically excellent choices.

> Also, some people thought that the lightest
> lines do not roll cast very well.

It ain't the fiddlestick that makes the music; it's the fiddler. Lines do
not roll cast....people do. Some do it better than others.

Wolfgang

Wolfgang

February 17th, 2004, 03:53 AM

"Peter Charles" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 18:53:09 -0600, "Wolfgang" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Stephen Welsh" > wrote in message
> .4...
> >> "Osmo Jauhiainen" > wrote in news:403121a6_1
> >> @news.dnainternet.net:
> >>
> >> > Stones into your backpack!
> >> >
> >>
> >> Reminds me of the time we secreted a diving weight into someone
> >> else's backpack. Hard to walk laughing like that ...
> >>
> >> "Christ, this heavy" - lug, lug, ...
> >>
> >> Difficult to walk laughing like that ...
> >>
> >> ;-)
> >
> >Yeah, that's good. But a ham is better. :)
> >
> >Wolfgang
> >
>
> shades of asadi . . .
>
> Peter

Ya gotta love a newbie with a big pack and a strong back. :)

Wolfgang

Stephen Welsh

February 17th, 2004, 03:58 AM

"Wolfgang" > wrote in news:c0rong$1akj1e$1@ID-
205717.news.uni-berlin.de:

>
> Yeah, that's good. But a ham is better. :)
>
> Wolfgang
>

Normally, I'd agree.
However, If this fellow got a sniff of it he'd inhale it.

8=)

Steve

Wolfgang

February 17th, 2004, 04:05 AM

"Stephen Welsh" > wrote in message
. 1.4...
> "Wolfgang" > wrote in news:c0rong$1akj1e$1@ID-
> 205717.news.uni-berlin.de:
>
>
> >
> > Yeah, that's good. But a ham is better. :)
> >
> > Wolfgang
> >
>
> Normally, I'd agree.
> However, If this fellow got a sniff of it he'd inhale it.
>
> 8=)
>
>
> Steve

Time to take a tip from drug dealers. You gotta wrap it up good enough that
he can't smell it. Then, when he's thoroughly exhausted from carrying it,
you beat him and take it from him. :)

Wolfgang
who is certain that anyone who has carried a forty pound pack for eight or
ten days while subsisting on standard backpacking fare will understand.

Wayne Harrison

February 17th, 2004, 04:33 AM

"Mike Connor" > wrote

(snipped exposition of many miles of north carolina trout fishing)

are you *sure* you didn't grow up in avery county?

yfitons
wayno

Mike Connor

February 17th, 2004, 04:45 AM

Mike Connor

February 17th, 2004, 05:14 AM

"Wayne Harrison" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
. com...
>
> "Mike Connor" > wrote
>
> (snipped exposition of many miles of north carolina trout fishing)
>
> are you *sure* you didn't grow up in avery county?
>
> yfitons
> wayno
>
>
>

I am not even sure I am grown up.

TL
MC

Steve_sullivan

February 17th, 2004, 08:13 AM

In article >,
"Mike Connor" > wrote:

> They prefer to fish a "trophy" water, for very
> large "finless wonders", or "educated" trout, that give up immediately, as
> they know that this is the best policy, considering that they are going to
> be released anyway.

Is this sarcasm?

--
"He that would exchange liberty for temporary safety
deserves neither liberty nor safety. Ben Franklin
"Those who are ready to sacrifice freedom for security
ultimately will lose both" - Abraham Lincoln

Steve_sullivan

February 17th, 2004, 08:15 AM

In article >,
"Wolfgang" > wrote:

>
> "Steve_sullivan" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > Jarmo Hurri > wrote:
> >
> > > In my book a creek with a width of 5 meters is already quite a river.
> >
> > A 15 foot wide stream is a very small creek for the US.
>
> Purest horse****. Many many thousands of miles of trout stream in the U.S.
> are less than fifteen feet across. We've got a couple thousand miles of
> such water here in Wisconsin alone.

You are right, I meant in california.

> >A creek can be
> > considered small and be 50 feet wide.
>
> Well, one can consider anything any way one wishes, I suppose.

--
"He that would exchange liberty for temporary safety
deserves neither liberty nor safety. Ben Franklin
"Those who are ready to sacrifice freedom for security
ultimately will lose both" - Abraham Lincoln

Vaughan Hurry

February 17th, 2004, 08:18 AM

<snip>
BTW, while doing a search on groups.google.com to see past discussions
> about this, I also bumped into this specialty rod series:
>
> http://www.flyrods.com/enso_info.html
>
> Has anyone tried any of these? (I am quite sure you all know I can
> have no relationship whatsover with this company. :-))
>
> --
> Jarmo Hurri
>
Hi Jarmo,

This is one of the Green River rods, isn't it? They had a pretty good
reputation for bamboo rods built by Robert Gorman (I think) but I have no
personal experience with either their cane or carbon rods.

Vaughan

Mike Connor

February 17th, 2004, 11:42 AM

"Steve_sullivan" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
> In article >,
> "Mike Connor" > wrote:
>
> > They prefer to fish a "trophy" water, for very
> > large "finless wonders", or "educated" trout, that give up immediately,
as
> > they know that this is the best policy, considering that they are going
to
> > be released anyway.
>
> Is this sarcasm?
>

No.

TL
MC

Wolfgang

February 17th, 2004, 12:11 PM

"Steve_sullivan" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Wolfgang" > wrote:
>
> >
> > "Steve_sullivan" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article >,
> > > Jarmo Hurri > wrote:
> > >
> > > > In my book a creek with a width of 5 meters is already quite a
river.
> > >
> > > A 15 foot wide stream is a very small creek for the US.
> >
> > Purest horse****. Many many thousands of miles of trout stream in the
U.S.
> > are less than fifteen feet across. We've got a couple thousand miles of
> > such water here in Wisconsin alone.
>
> You are right, I meant in california.

Missouri is a very strange place. Rivers there start from a hole in the
ground and immediately flow thirty feet wide. Aside from disconcerting (and
presumably rare) oddities like that, I should think that streams
everywhere....even in Texas....start small. Not so in California?

I think one could make a good case for the assertion that fifteen feet is
smaller than most fly fishers prefer. After all, the vast majority of
nationally or internationally famous trout waters in the U.S., the ones that
attract large numbers of people from far away, are considerably bigger....at
least in their most popular stretches. And, of course, many fly fishers
never discover (or, perhaps, learn to appreciate) the unique pleasures of
small stream fishing. But, given that virtually all of those popular large
waters start much smaller, that many other productive streams never get any
bigger and, especially, that there are tens (and perhaps hundreds) of
thousands of miles of fishable water considerably LESS than fifteen feet
wide, calling something fifteen feet across "very small" is not only highly
subjective but also highly misleading.

Wolfgang

Mike Connor

February 17th, 2004, 01:06 PM

"Wolfgang" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
<SNIP>
> bigger and, especially, that there are tens (and perhaps hundreds) of
> thousands of miles of fishable water considerably LESS than fifteen feet
> wide, calling something fifteen feet across "very small" is not only
highly
> subjective but also highly misleading.
>
> Wolfgang
>
Indeed. Some of the streams I used to fish were less than three feet across!
Most people are amazed to discover that such a stream can hold such
excellent fish. Which is one reason why they rarely even try to fish them,
and also why the places have so many good fish! :)

This can be very challenging and exciting fishing. As a matter of fact, I
would prefer to take such fishing, as opposed to fishing a big open river,
any day!

TL
MC

Willi

February 17th, 2004, 02:03 PM

Steve_sullivan wrote:

> In article >,
> Jarmo Hurri > wrote:
>
>
>>In my book a creek with a width of 5 meters is already quite a river.
>
>
> A 15 foot wide stream is a very small creek for the US. A creek can be
> considered small and be 50 feet wide.
>

I haven't fished any place where a 50 foot wide creek would be
considered "very small." Many of Colorado's RIVERS are less than 50 feet
across in most places.

Then there's our screwy nomenclature. Waters named creeks and streams
can be bigger than those named rivers.

Willi

rb608

February 17th, 2004, 02:15 PM

"Mike Connor" > wrote in message
> This can be very challenging and exciting fishing. As a matter of fact, I
> would prefer to take such fishing, as opposed to fishing a big open river,
> any day!

I'm in agreement here. In remembering the trips that brought me the most
enjoyment, the top of the list is always a few little creeks, small fish,
and short casts. In no particular order, Matt McCray's local creek near
Scranton was a blast, Tom Littleton's local trickle is a nifty little
stream, a creek or two down in the Smokies, Big Hunting Creek here in MD,
and another small creek around Coburn PA have been loads of fun. Heck, even
the major trout stream in this area, the Gunpowder probably isn't 15 feet
wide in most places. Big fish & big rivers have their place, I suppose,
but I do like the small waters.

Joe F.

Jarmo Hurri

February 17th, 2004, 04:51 PM

>> It's a good idea to practice the casts if you can

Stephen> BTW - be careful with the bow and arrow ...

I'm not sure if I understood all of your tips, but I will surely find
out soon if a need new furniture or stiches. :-)

--
Jarmo Hurri

Commercial email countermeasures included in header email
address. Remove all garbage from header email address when replying,
or just use .

Jarmo Hurri

February 17th, 2004, 04:59 PM

Wolfgang> As far as casting is concerned, small streams are inherently
Wolfgang> more challenging than big ones. You won't find much
Wolfgang> agreement on a single best rod length or line rating,
Wolfgang> largely because of the diverse nature of the problems such
Wolfgang> streams present and the predilections of those who fish
Wolfgang> them.

Agreed. But that does not reduce the motivation to find the best
possible rod, given the fisherman, the environment, fish etc. The
fisherman still has to select some rod. When trying to do that,
opinions and experiences of others may be of help.

>> Also, some people thought that the lightest lines do not roll cast
>> very well.

Wolfgang> It ain't the fiddlestick that makes the music; it's the
Wolfgang> fiddler. Lines do not roll cast....people do. Some do it
Wolfgang> better than others.

I don't agree - or disagree - with the limitations of the lighter
weights, but in theory there might be a relationship there. At the one
extreme is roll casting with just the backing.

--
Jarmo Hurri

Commercial email countermeasures included in header email
address. Remove all garbage from header email address when replying,
or just use .

Craig Gullixson

February 17th, 2004, 08:06 PM

In the last 5 years or so, I've been fishing a lot of smaller, overgrown
waters. By smaller waters, I mean from something where you have a foot
on each bank to something on the order of a few meters. By overgrown,
I mean stuff so thick that if you have to leave the water to go around
a deep pool, the amount of travel until you make it back to the water
may be several hundred meters, to fairly open stuff where open sky can
be seen from the middle of the stream.

For the really nasty overgrowth, I have a 4 wt. 6'6" St. Croix Avid that
I built about 4 years ago (and rebuilt last year after falling while it
was wrapped up in a tree) that works pretty well. It loads well for
roll casting and is short enough to get away with regular casts in a
lot of cases. There were some streams that I was getting into on the
less overgrown variety that had pools that were beyond the casting range
of this rod so I built a 4 wt. 7'6" Sage XP series rod last year for
these streams. This rod has rapidly taken its place as my favorite rod
and is used for everything except for big water and really brushy streams
where I still use the 6'6". The amount of undergrowth determines the
length of leaders. On the brushiest stuff, I tend to use 4' leaders
in 4x or 5x. If longer leaders and be used, I use 7.5' leaders from
4x to 8x, normally defaulting to 6x.

This type of fishing can be really challenging and a lot of fun (except
when one's fishing buddy leads one into the overgrown of the first type
where the amount of time where one has a fly on the water approaches
zero ...).

__________________________________________________ ______________________
Craig A. Gullixson
Instrument Engineer INTERNET:
National Solar Observatory/Sac. Peak PHONE: (505) 434-7065
Sunspot, NM 88349 USA FAX: (505) 434-7029

Wolfgang

February 18th, 2004, 03:42 AM

"Jarmo Hurri" > wrote in message
...
>
> Wolfgang> As far as casting is concerned, small streams are inherently
> Wolfgang> more challenging than big ones. You won't find much
> Wolfgang> agreement on a single best rod length or line rating,
> Wolfgang> largely because of the diverse nature of the problems such
> Wolfgang> streams present and the predilections of those who fish
> Wolfgang> them.
>
> Agreed. But that does not reduce the motivation to find the best
> possible rod, given the fisherman, the environment, fish etc. The
> fisherman still has to select some rod. When trying to do that,
> opinions and experiences of others may be of help.
>
> >> Also, some people thought that the lightest lines do not roll cast
> >> very well.
>
> Wolfgang> It ain't the fiddlestick that makes the music; it's the
> Wolfgang> fiddler. Lines do not roll cast....people do. Some do it
> Wolfgang> better than others.
>
> I don't agree - or disagree - with the limitations of the lighter
> weights, but in theory there might be a relationship there. At the one
> extreme is roll casting with just the backing.

The motivation is common enough to be easily understandable. It is also,
ultimately, futile. The musical metaphor I used is also common, and it is
instructive. Will an Amati or a Guarnari or a Stadivarius produce finer
music than a Yamaha? Yes, of course, but only in the right hands. Most of
us will make no more or less horrible a noise on one than on the other.
More importantly, none of the great masters began by asking which instrument
was best suited to making great music or even the greatest example of a
particular piece of music. And, it will come as no surprise that the
masters make great music on any adequate instrument. If you are a Perlman,
I apologize.....I didn't know to whom I was speaking. If not, I suggest
that playing will serve you better than soliciting the opinions of the
orchestra, any member of which will express a preference, to be sure, but
none of them will ever make great music.

I've fished with many people who were well versed in the fine points of all
the technical aspects of fly fishing. Some of them are very good at it.
But, in no case have I ever had reason to believe their expertise was
grounded in their equipment. The rest are pretty good at blowing smoke up
each others' asses because they have a willing audience.

It's your music. I would suggest you listen to the muse.....not the
metronome.

Wolfgang

Ken Fortenberry

February 18th, 2004, 03:55 AM

Wolfgang wrote:
> ...
> I've fished with many people who were well versed in the fine points of all
> the technical aspects of fly fishing. Some of them are very good at it.
> But, in no case have I ever had reason to believe their expertise was
> grounded in their equipment. ...

Well yeah, but that's not to say that their choice of equipment was
not grounded in their expertise.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Wolfgang

February 18th, 2004, 04:10 AM

"Ken Fortenberry" > wrote in message
...
> Wolfgang wrote:
> > ...
> > I've fished with many people who were well versed in the fine points of
all
> > the technical aspects of fly fishing. Some of them are very good at it.
> > But, in no case have I ever had reason to believe their expertise was
> > grounded in their equipment. ...
>
> Well yeah, but that's not to say that their choice of equipment was
> not grounded in their expertise.

Well, of course it was......that was the point. Can you imagine Itzhak
picking a fiddle based on someone else's experience.....say, mine, for
example?

Wolfgang
who's got a shiny new nickel says mother perlman never raised such a foolish
child.

Jarmo Hurri

February 18th, 2004, 08:26 AM

Wolfgang> More importantly, none of the great masters began by asking
Wolfgang> which instrument was best suited to making great music or
Wolfgang> even the greatest example of a particular piece of music.
Wolfgang> And, it will come as no surprise that the masters make great
Wolfgang> music on any adequate instrument.

Agreed (again). If we would have an open small river over here I would
be much better off practicing stalking trout or the bow-and-arrow cast
- regardless of the length of the rod - than sitting in front of the
computer.

However, since we're deep-frozen right now, I still think it's better
to think about these issues and exchange experiences with others
than... not.

--
Jarmo Hurri

Commercial email countermeasures included in header email
address. Remove all garbage from header email address when replying,
or just use .

Jarmo Hurri

February 18th, 2004, 03:01 PM

Craig> ... so I built a 4 wt. 7'6" Sage XP series rod last year for
Craig> these streams. This rod has rapidly taken its place as my
Craig> favorite rod and is used for everything except for big water
Craig> and really brushy streams where I still use the 6'6".

Hi Craig,

I think that many people would consider your XP to be, well, not one
of the best choices for such circumstances. It is, after all, a pretty
fast and powerful rod, so one might think that it does not load very
well in short casts or roll casts. However, I have a 9' 4wt XP, and
I've noticed that the tip of the rod is extremely lightweight, and
that the rod is quite responsive with even small amounts of line
outside the tip. Have you noticed anything similar? What kind of a
line do you use with your rod?

BTW, when I bought the XP, I would have wanted to buy a 3wt 4-piece
model. I contacted Sage and asked them whether they would be
introducing such a model in the near future. They explicitly said no,
so I bought the 4wt rod. Next year, Sage added a 4-piece 8'6" 3wt into
the XP series.

--
Jarmo Hurri

Commercial email countermeasures included in header email
address. Remove all garbage from header email address when replying,
or just use .

Craig Gullixson

February 18th, 2004, 04:47 PM

In article >, Jarmo Hurri > writes:
>
>Craig> ... so I built a 4 wt. 7'6" Sage XP series rod last year for
>Craig> these streams. This rod has rapidly taken its place as my
>Craig> favorite rod and is used for everything except for big water
>Craig> and really brushy streams where I still use the 6'6".
>
>Hi Craig,
>
>I think that many people would consider your XP to be, well, not one
>of the best choices for such circumstances. It is, after all, a pretty
>fast and powerful rod, so one might think that it does not load very
>well in short casts or roll casts. However, I have a 9' 4wt XP, and
>I've noticed that the tip of the rod is extremely lightweight, and
>that the rod is quite responsive with even small amounts of line
>outside the tip. Have you noticed anything similar? What kind of a
>line do you use with your rod?

I use a weight forward Airflo line.

I have found the XP to work well for me with small amounts of line
outside the tip and it seems to roll cast pretty well. In general, I
have found I prefer fast rods (I have a 9'6" 7wt XP for really big
water that is just a dream to cast), perhaps because I started with
fast rods. I refurbished my first rod (found it while dad was cleaning
out some old equipment) a few years ago and it turned out to be a
pretty fast fiberglass 7wt (didn't much pay attention to the details of
the rod when I started fly fishing some 40 years ago). The St. Croix
is a medium action rod and it loads better with small amounts of line
and roll casts very well. However, it runs out of gas much beyond
25-30 feet. As far as pure roll casting goes, my favorite rod is my
granddad's bamboo.

---Craig

>
>BTW, when I bought the XP, I would have wanted to buy a 3wt 4-piece
>model. I contacted Sage and asked them whether they would be
>introducing such a model in the near future. They explicitly said no,
>so I bought the 4wt rod. Next year, Sage added a 4-piece 8'6" 3wt into
>the XP series.
>
>--
>Jarmo Hurri
>
>Commercial email countermeasures included in header email
>address. Remove all garbage from header email address when replying,
>or just use .

--
__________________________________________________ ______________________
Craig A. Gullixson
Instrument Engineer INTERNET:
National Solar Observatory/Sac. Peak PHONE: (505) 434-7065
Sunspot, NM 88349 USA FAX: (505) 434-7029

Jarmo Hurri

February 18th, 2004, 07:29 PM

>> I've noticed that the tip of the rod is extremely lightweight, and
>> that the rod is quite responsive with even small amounts of line
>> outside the tip.

Greg> I've had people at several fly shops say that this was a
Greg> conscious part of the design.

Makes sense, and seems to work very well. I didn't know this when I
bought the rod, so it was a very pleasant surprise.

--
Jarmo Hurri

Commercial email countermeasures included in header email
address. Remove all garbage from header email address when replying,
or just use .

Stephen Welsh

February 18th, 2004, 08:41 PM

Jarmo Hurri > wrote in
:

> 'm not sure if I understood all of your tips, but I will surely find
> out soon if a need new furniture or stiches. :-)
>
>

If you need new furniture the rod might be a tad on the heavy side!
:-)

Using your head ...wear a hat/cap.

With about a rod length of line plus leader out (total = rod length)

Grab the "fly" between index finger and thumb of line hand,
place said hand behind head resting wrist on back of head with the
fly holding fingers extending above.

.... load the rod by moving the rod arm ... execute bow and arrow.

When you need to hold a cast set for some time this technique can be
useful. I also find casting accuracy is improved as well when I use it.

Hope that made sense...
Good luck with your project,

Steve

Wolfgang

February 18th, 2004, 09:08 PM

"Jarmo Hurri" > wrote in message
...
>
> Wolfgang> More importantly, none of the great masters began by
asking
> Wolfgang> which instrument was best suited to making great music or
> Wolfgang> even the greatest example of a particular piece of music.
> Wolfgang> And, it will come as no surprise that the masters make
great
> Wolfgang> music on any adequate instrument.
>
> Agreed (again). If we would have an open small river over here I
would
> be much better off practicing stalking trout or the bow-and-arrow
cast
> - regardless of the length of the rod - than sitting in front of the
> computer.
>
> However, since we're deep-frozen right now, I still think it's
better
> to think about these issues and exchange experiences with others
> than... not.

Good point.

Good luck. :)

Wolfgang

Stephen Welsh

February 18th, 2004, 10:01 PM

Jarmo Hurri > wrote in
:

> What did surprise me was that a number of people considered weights
> 0-3 to be too light for this type of fishing.
> They said that there is not enough punch in these weights to handle
> the large variety of situations you end up in.

Can't comment on that ... 4wt has been my lower limit and the ones I
have
been able to get my hands on are not for me in tight.

> Also, some people thought that the lightest
> lines do not roll cast very well.
>
Lines do have varying degrees of roll-castability ... DT better than WF
.... but these differences are usually at the other end, 30+ feet not
problems you'd be looking for at short distances.

These anglers may simply be fishing so short it is not possible to have
enough line out of the tip to load the rod during a roll cast (or
overhead cast for that matter).

Weigh around it ... increase line wt for rod wt. going a size or two
higher.

Steve

Lazarus Cooke

February 18th, 2004, 10:57 PM

In article >, Jarmo Hurri
> wrote:

> The discussion about small-stream rods in a thread above brought to my
> mind a closely related question I've been thinking about recently.
>
> I have no first-hand experience on fishing bushy creeks, but a couple
> of months ago I heard that there are some really interesting ones
> nearby where I live. So I will most certainly be checking out some of
> these places later this year. However, since I'm a novice in fishing
> places like this, I was wondering what sort of a rod one should use. I
> have a 2wt 8' rod myself, and I will naturally find out next summer if
> that is of any use in these creeks

Jesus. I see as I post this that ther have been 62 replies|! well
done., Any way, my view FWIW

Everything I've read over the past twenty years in fishing magazines
suggests that you need a very short rod for bushy small streams, but I
don't agree, and I believe it is part of the (perfectly fair) attempt
of the industry to sell us more kit that we don't need.

In very small overgrown streams, my experience is that you may well
want a fairly big fly - the sort of thing that appeals to fish that
feed off caterpillers.

It's likely that you're going to make a very short cast.

Most important of all, your fly is going to be caught up, constantly,
on branches. On this I'm amazed that people have suggested fishing very
low weight rods. Being able to get your fly off a branch without
breaking the leader is /far/ more important than everything else put
together. Reading these posts has been an interesting example
(excessively common, I'm afraid, on ROFF) of who doesn't know what
they're talking about. They're great on who's going to meet up where,
and particularly keen on malt scotch whisky ( a marketing ploy amost as
transparant as the wide variety of similar rods available for
purchase), but a surprising number don't know much about fishing. And
talk about bitter and twisted!

So you want a rod that will respond well to virtually no line - maybe
five feet of line, with a nine foot leader and a bushy fly, maybe size
twelve or fourteen. Not less than eight foot rod, even tucked through
the bushes. Around five weight sounds good.

The key to it all is not all this "short rod"%$£@, but being able to
handle that fly on the end of a very short line. In fact, you need
something quite robust for that. You also need something quite robust
to tug when your fly is caught up on a branch and still get it off.

m Htp

Lazarus

--
Remover the rock from the email address

February 18th, 2004, 11:22 PM

Lazarus Cooke wrote:
>
> In fact, you need
> something quite robust for that. You also need something quite robust
> to tug when your fly is caught up on a branch and still get it off.

Do you mean to say that when your fly is caught in an unreachable
branch, you pull on it with your rod (a very sturdy rod, evidently) and
hope for the best? I never do that. I point the rod at the fly and pull
on the line. But then, I'm just a Yankee who doesn't know ****.

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

Stephen Welsh

February 18th, 2004, 11:42 PM

Lazarus Cooke > wrote in
om:

> but a surprising number don't know much about fishing. And
> talk about bitter and twisted!
>

That's a bit rough Lazarus. Without (hell even *with*) a
precise definition of bushy small stream there will be a
range of experiences and opinions on the topic, something
that Jarmo noted in his original post.

Steve

Peter Charles

February 18th, 2004, 11:52 PM

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 16:22:09 -0700, rw
> wrote:

>Lazarus Cooke wrote:
>>
>> In fact, you need
>> something quite robust for that. You also need something quite robust
>> to tug when your fly is caught up on a branch and still get it off.
>
>Do you mean to say that when your fly is caught in an unreachable
>branch, you pull on it with your rod (a very sturdy rod, evidently) and
>hope for the best? I never do that. I point the rod at the fly and pull
>on the line. But then, I'm just a Yankee who doesn't know ****.

I didn't read anywhere that Lazarus was only tarring Yankees with this
broad brush so why this reaction?

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

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

Joe McIntosh

February 19th, 2004, 12:03 AM

"Lazarus Cooke" > wrote
Reading these posts has been an interesting example
(excessively common, I'm afraid, on ROFF) of who doesn't know what
they're talking about. They're great on who's going to meet up where,
and particularly keen on malt scotch whisky ( a marketing ploy amost as
transparant as the wide variety of similar rods available for
purchase), but a surprising number don't know much about fishing. And
talk about bitter and twisted!
Mr McIntosh mutters--you might be right about all that but as i struggle
upstream and have to leave water to climb over big rocks and thru heavy
brush , and crawl up a muddy bank,--I find a short rod my appropriate
accessory.
And yes, I truly enjoy fishing my small mountain streams.

February 19th, 2004, 12:38 AM

Peter Charles wrote:

> On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 16:22:09 -0700, rw
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Lazarus Cooke wrote:
>>
>>>In fact, you need
>>>something quite robust for that. You also need something quite robust
>>>to tug when your fly is caught up on a branch and still get it off.
>>
>>Do you mean to say that when your fly is caught in an unreachable
>>branch, you pull on it with your rod (a very sturdy rod, evidently) and
>>hope for the best? I never do that. I point the rod at the fly and pull
>>on the line. But then, I'm just a Yankee who doesn't know ****.
>
>
> I didn't read anywhere that Lazarus was only tarring Yankees with this
> broad brush so why this reaction?

The question is: What is the best way to free (or break off) a fly from
an unreachable branch?

As someone who is bitter and twisted, thinks single malt scotch is a
fine drink (although I won't spend my own money on it), and doesn't know
much about fishing, in my opinion his method is totally ****ed up.

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

Peter Charles

February 19th, 2004, 12:46 AM

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 17:38:54 -0700, rw
> wrote:

>Peter Charles wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 16:22:09 -0700, rw
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Lazarus Cooke wrote:
>>>
>>>>In fact, you need
>>>>something quite robust for that. You also need something quite robust
>>>>to tug when your fly is caught up on a branch and still get it off.
>>>
>>>Do you mean to say that when your fly is caught in an unreachable
>>>branch, you pull on it with your rod (a very sturdy rod, evidently) and
>>>hope for the best? I never do that. I point the rod at the fly and pull
>>>on the line. But then, I'm just a Yankee who doesn't know ****.
>>
>>
>> I didn't read anywhere that Lazarus was only tarring Yankees with this
>> broad brush so why this reaction?
>
>The question is: What is the best way to free (or break off) a fly from
>an unreachable branch?
>
>As someone who is bitter and twisted, thinks single malt scotch is a
>fine drink (although I won't spend my own money on it), and doesn't know
>much about fishing, in my opinion his method is totally ****ed up.

I wouldn't dream of using the rod to yank a fly free from a branch,
but that wasn't my question. Since this Canuckistanni ass got tarred
with that brush also, why your "Yankee" response?

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

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

Wolfgang

February 19th, 2004, 03:33 AM

"Lazarus Cooke" > wrote in message
om...

> Jesus. I see as I post this that ther have been 62 replies|! well
> done., Any way, my view FWIW
>
> Everything I've read over the past twenty years in fishing magazines
> suggests that you need a very short rod for bushy small streams, but I
> don't agree, and I believe it is part of the (perfectly fair) attempt
> of the industry to sell us more kit that we don't need.
>
> In very small overgrown streams, my experience is that you may well
> want a fairly big fly - the sort of thing that appeals to fish that
> feed off caterpillers.
>
> It's likely that you're going to make a very short cast.
>
> Most important of all, your fly is going to be caught up, constantly,
> on branches. On this I'm amazed that people have suggested fishing very
> low weight rods. Being able to get your fly off a branch without
> breaking the leader is /far/ more important than everything else put
> together. Reading these posts has been an interesting example
> (excessively common, I'm afraid, on ROFF) of who doesn't know what
> they're talking about. They're great on who's going to meet up where,
> and particularly keen on malt scotch whisky ( a marketing ploy amost as
> transparant as the wide variety of similar rods available for
> purchase), but a surprising number don't know much about fishing. And
> talk about bitter and twisted!
>
> So you want a rod that will respond well to virtually no line - maybe
> five feet of line, with a nine foot leader and a bushy fly, maybe size
> twelve or fourteen. Not less than eight foot rod, even tucked through
> the bushes. Around five weight sounds good.
>
> The key to it all is not all this "short rod"%$£@, but being able to
> handle that fly on the end of a very short line. In fact, you need
> something quite robust for that. You also need something quite robust
> to tug when your fly is caught up on a branch and still get it off.
>
> m Htp
>
> Lazarus

For the record:

I did not pay Mr. Cooke to write any of the above fatuous ****.

Wolfgang
who wishes he could afford to hire someone to make his point in such a
fashion but, evidently, doesn't need to worry about it. :)

February 19th, 2004, 03:56 AM

Peter Charles wrote:
>
> I wouldn't dream of using the rod to yank a fly free from a branch,
> but that wasn't my question. Since this Canuckistanni ass got tarred
> with that brush also, why your "Yankee" response?

I will NOT let you bait me into a ****ing contest with that pommie twit. :-)

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

Jonathan Cook

February 19th, 2004, 03:39 PM

Lazarus Cooke > wrote in message >...

> The key to it all is not all this "short rod"%$£@, but being able to
> handle that fly on the end of a very short line. In fact, you need

I'm gonna throw in my 0.0199 dollars for the short rod case...

I don't doubt that using a longer rod will enable you to reach
more fish, but I go fishing to have fun, and fishing a small
overgrown stream with a long rod, for me, is simply too much
work and not enough fun. Every accidental flick of my wrist,
or sending the line on the wrong trajectory, etc., is magnified
more with a long rod, and _every_ one of those mistakes ends
up in the trees on a small stream. Maybe y'all are much better
than I am, but I simply make too many mistakes to enjoy fishing
a 9' rod on a small stream. I know, I've tried it.

I like my 7.5' KPOS 3wt, and I'm sticking with it. Maybe I'll
miss a few fish that are just a little too far to dap with that
rod, but I'll enjoy the day more. I think too hard in my day
job, I don't want to have to think that hard while fishing.

And I completely agree with previous suggestions of 4-5' leaders.
A 9' leader is a waste of time, at least on the small waters I
fish. (sure, there are exceptions).

BTW, one of the reasons I bought the 7.5' KPOS is that I couldn't
find any other reasonably-priced 7.5' 3wt. Other alternatives
either were 7' or smaller, or 8'. I _really_ wanted 7.5'. I
would have been willing to pay a little more, but I simply couldn't
find any other rod at that time (haven't looked since).

Jon.

Tim J.

February 19th, 2004, 03:51 PM

"Jonathan Cook" wrote...
<snip>
> BTW, one of the reasons I bought the 7.5' KPOS is that I couldn't
> find any other reasonably-priced 7.5' 3wt. Other alternatives
> either were 7' or smaller, or 8'. I _really_ wanted 7.5'. I
> would have been willing to pay a little more, but I simply couldn't
> find any other rod at that time (haven't looked since).

You don't have to justify it, and why look for an alternative? There's nothing
wrong with the KPOS 3wt. It's a good rod; especially good for the price paid.
Only elitist assholes would think otherwise. ;-)
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

Ken Fortenberry

February 19th, 2004, 03:56 PM

Tim J. wrote:
>
> ... There's nothing
> wrong with the KPOS 3wt. It's a good rod; especially good for the price paid.
> ...

Nothing wrong except it casts like a dog, looks like **** and the goddamn
reel seats fall off. Other than that, yeah, it's a steal at twice the price.

;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry

Willi

February 19th, 2004, 04:18 PM

Ken Fortenberry wrote:

> Tim J. wrote:
>
>>
>> ... There's nothing
>> wrong with the KPOS 3wt. It's a good rod; especially good for the
>> price paid.
>> ...
>
>
> Nothing wrong except it casts like a dog, looks like **** and the goddamn
> reel seats fall off. Other than that, yeah, it's a steal at twice the
> price.

Don't think would ever fished it enough to comment on its function, and
if you did I find it hard to believe you gave it a fair test. I saw the
look on your face at the first Yellowstone Clave when Snoop offered the
rod to you to cast. It's not an action I especially like but it's a
decent casting rod. I also think it's a good rod for a beginner to start
with because of its action, the user can feel what he's doing. When Bill
came out to Colorado, he brought a friend with him who was VERY
inexperienced. He wasn't able to cast at all with the rod he had. I
tried to help him with no success. Then I gave him the KPOS and he was
immediately able to made some halfway decent casts.

I agree that it does lack in "quality" and "looks like ****" but IMO,
Sages "look like ****" especially when considering the price. Looks
don't equate with function.

Willi

Tim J.

February 19th, 2004, 04:32 PM

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote...
> Tim J. wrote:
> >
> > ... There's nothing
> > wrong with the KPOS 3wt. It's a good rod; especially good for the price
paid.
> > ...
>
> Nothing wrong except it casts like a dog, . . .

Since in this thread we're talking about casting in small, bushy streams where
the length of the leader is about all you're throwing, I wouldn't think casting
action would have much influence. In cases where I just need 10-30 feet of
casting, the KPOS works fine.

> . . . looks like **** . . .

Ahhhh, now we're at the heart of the matter. ;-)

> . . . and the goddamn reel seats fall off.

I haven't seen complaints about that for years, and I haven't experienced the
problem. Probably a bad batch.

> Other than that, yeah, it's a steal at twice the price.

I agree. It's also a great rod to keep in the back of the car / truck for those
unexpected fishing opportunities. If it gets damaged, lost, or stolen it's no
big $$ loss.
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

William Claspy

February 19th, 2004, 06:19 PM

On 2/19/04 10:56 AM, in article
, "Ken Fortenberry"
> wrote:

> Tim J. wrote:
>>
>> ... There's nothing
>> wrong with the KPOS 3wt. It's a good rod; especially good for the price paid.
>> ...
>
> Nothing wrong except it casts like a dog, looks like **** and the goddamn
> reel seats fall off. Other than that, yeah, it's a steal at twice the price.
>
> ;-)

Kinda like ROFF itsownself, if you think about it.

Bill

Peter Charles

February 20th, 2004, 01:21 AM

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 20:56:53 -0700, rw
> wrote:

>Peter Charles wrote:
>>
>> I wouldn't dream of using the rod to yank a fly free from a branch,
>> but that wasn't my question. Since this Canuckistanni ass got tarred
>> with that brush also, why your "Yankee" response?
>
>I will NOT let you bait me into a ****ing contest with that pommie twit. :-)

You've already into the ****ing contest, you didn't need me to help
you start it. I wa just curious why you felt compelled to turn a
****ing contest between two fishermen into a ****ing contest between
two nationalities.

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

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

February 20th, 2004, 02:00 AM

Peter Charles wrote:
>
> I wa just curious why you felt compelled to turn a
> ****ing contest between two fishermen into a ****ing contest between
> two nationalities.

History.

I knew I was doing the wrong thing when I wrote that "yankee" comment,
but I had no idea it would **** off a Canuckistani. :-)

Lazarus's post was provocative. I think he meant it to be so. I couldn't
resist puncturing his Pommie arrogance. :-)

This thread is, IMO, one of the best I've seen on ROFF in recent months,
despite Lazarus's opinion. The lesson I've learned from it is that
everyone has their own unique opinion about how to fish small streams,
and how to retrieve snagged flies. :-) For my part, I'll just use my
trusty workhorse Sage Sp 5wt 8.5' and pull on the line.

I don't much like really small, brushy streams. They can be an
entertaining pastime, and they can hold a few large fish, but they're a
lot of trouble. My ideal stream size is a "river" that is just large
enough that I can't wade across. Then, if I don't catch fish, I can
rationalize it by thinking they're all in those unreachable eddy pools
on the other side.

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

Jarmo Hurri

February 20th, 2004, 02:24 PM

This has been quite an interesting thread, yes indeed. I think am I
now better aware of the pros and cons of different rods. A short
recap:

_Pros of lighter line ratings_ (weights 0-3) Better suited for typical
(small) fish in these streams. Probably also greater enjoyment of the
feeling of lightness in casting etc.

_Pros of heavier line ratings_ (weights 4-5) The use of these rods
increases your chances when trying to land the occasional big one (you
wish). Facilitate the use of big flies. Of course also better
resistance to wind. Some consider that the heavier classes have better
casting properties: they think that these classes enable better roll
casts and maybe also help in reaching some difficult spots under tree
branches etc.

_Pros of short rods_ (max. 7'6", maybe?) Easier to handle in bushy
streams, easier to fight and land fish, easier to move around in bushy
environments. In general, less hassle.

_Pros of long rods_ Facilitate the use of techniques that require
reach, such as dapping and upstream nymphing. I think that long rods
also enable one to retrieve flies when they are stuck high - not by
using force but by giving one a chance to "lift" the fly off.

_Rod material_ This wasn't really discussed that much in this
thread. I know that many small-stream anglers consider slow rods to be
the best, since they load with small amounts of line - or, in the case
of bamboo, even with just the leader. Such slow rods are available at
least in fiberglass and bamboo. I don't know whether the very short
carbon fibre rods, say 6'-6'6", are too stiff for these purposes.

--
Jarmo Hurri

Commercial email countermeasures included in header email
address. Remove all garbage from header email address when replying,
or just use .

Wayne Harrison

February 20th, 2004, 06:51 PM

"rw" > wrote

> Americans by and large (aside from Red Sox fans and Southerners) don't
> consider "yankee" to be a slur, even when it comes from a Canadian. :-)

*now* i know why daytripper got so ****ed when i called him a yankee
upon our first meeting...

wayno

Tim J.

February 20th, 2004, 08:38 PM

"Peter Charles" wrote...
<snip>
> I remember going through a length thread years back on whether short
> or long rods were best for small streams -- a dapping vs. casting
> argument. Nothing was resolved then either.

If anyone was looking for resolution of *anything*, this sure as hell wouldn't
be the place to seek it. :)
--
TL,
Tim
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

Wolfgang

February 20th, 2004, 08:44 PM

"Tim J." > wrote in message
news:PeuZb.24666$Xp.104319@attbi_s54...
>
> "Peter Charles" wrote...
> <snip>
> > I remember going through a length thread years back on whether
short
> > or long rods were best for small streams -- a dapping vs. casting
> > argument. Nothing was resolved then either.
>
> If anyone was looking for resolution of *anything*, this sure as
hell wouldn't
> be the place to seek it. :)

I agree.

Um.....well, there, THAT'S settled. :)

Wolfgang

Peter Charles

February 20th, 2004, 11:26 PM

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 22:16:52 +0200, Jarmo Hurri
> wrote:

>
>Mike> If you want to use carbon fibre here, then get a fastish #3 wt,
>Mike> and overline it with a #4 line....
>
>Mike> If you can find a reasonable cane rod, and you envisage doing a
>Mike> lot of small stream fishing, then this is probably better for
>Mike> you.
>
>What about fiberglass, Mike, you didn't mention anything about that? I
>know you've certainly got *some* opinion on fiberglass rods. :-)

The Hardy Perfection E has that same, "cast itself" feel as bamboo.
just have to get it moving. Though nominally a 3 wt., it seems like
it'll cast anything from a 3 wt. down to mono.

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

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

Peter Charles

February 20th, 2004, 11:31 PM

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 14:44:33 -0600, "Wolfgang" >
wrote:

>
>"Tim J." > wrote in message
>news:PeuZb.24666$Xp.104319@attbi_s54...
>>
>> "Peter Charles" wrote...
>> <snip>
>> > I remember going through a length thread years back on whether
>short
>> > or long rods were best for small streams -- a dapping vs. casting
>> > argument. Nothing was resolved then either.
>>
>> If anyone was looking for resolution of *anything*, this sure as
>hell wouldn't
>> be the place to seek it. :)
>
>I agree.
>
>Um.....well, there, THAT'S settled. :)
>
>Wolfgang
>

But didn't we just resolve that we can't resolve . . . .?

I'm confused . . . .

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

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

Lazarus Cooke

February 20th, 2004, 11:57 PM

In article >, Mike Connor
> wrote:

> Some of the streams I used to fish were less than three feet across!
> Most people are amazed to discover that such a stream can hold such
> excellent fish.

I have found the same. There are acid rivers in the west of ireland
that hold wonderful migratory ("white") trout and chalk streams in
England with fat, upwing-fed creatures. Still, keep the rod at least 8
feet long, I say!

L

--
Remover the rock from the email address

Ken Fortenberry

February 21st, 2004, 12:10 AM

Lazarus Cooke wrote:
> ...
> Still, keep the rod at least 8
> feet long, I say!

You have never crawled through a quarter mile of rhodedendron and
scrambled over boulders the size of houses to plunk a fly into a
pool no bigger than a stew pot have you ? I know this because if
you had you would know the value of a small fly rod.

I have three fly rods that see most of my "small stream" fishing,
a 7'6" Orvis 1wt, a 7'6" Winston 3wt, and a little 6'3" Hamilton
bamboo 3wt. There are certain situations where each of them is
better suited than the other two, but in no "small stream" that
I fish, even out West, would an 8 foot rod be the best choice for me.

I really think we're talking at cross purposes here because I don't
believe we're talking about the same thing when we say "small stream".

--
Ken Fortenberry

Charlie Choc

February 21st, 2004, 12:24 AM

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 00:10:37 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
> wrote:

>You have never crawled through a quarter mile of rhodedendron and
>scrambled over boulders the size of houses to plunk a fly into a
>pool no bigger than a stew pot have you ? I know this because if
>you had you would know the value of a small fly rod.
>
>I have three fly rods that see most of my "small stream" fishing,
>a 7'6" Orvis 1wt, a 7'6" Winston 3wt, and a little 6'3" Hamilton
>bamboo 3wt. There are certain situations where each of them is
>better suited than the other two, but in no "small stream" that
>I fish, even out West, would an 8 foot rod be the best choice for me.
>
I don't see an 8' rod on your list, how do you know it wouldn't be the
best choice? I have a 5'6" 2wt, a 6' 4/5 wt, a 7'6" 3wt, an 8' 3 wt
and an 8' 4wt rod that I have tried on small streams. All have their
place, but overall I prefer the 8' 4wt, even in the rhodos.
--
Charlie...

Mike Connor

February 21st, 2004, 12:27 AM

"Peter Charles" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
om...

:)

TL
MC ( One of the objective half Irish)

Mike Connor

February 21st, 2004, 01:38 AM

"Jarmo Hurri" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
>
> Mike> If you want to use carbon fibre here, then get a fastish #3 wt,
> Mike> and overline it with a #4 line....
>
> Mike> If you can find a reasonable cane rod, and you envisage doing a
> Mike> lot of small stream fishing, then this is probably better for
> Mike> you.
>
> What about fiberglass, Mike, you didn't mention anything about that? I
> know you've certainly got *some* opinion on fiberglass rods. :-)
>
> --
> Jarmo Hurri
>
> Commercial email countermeasures included in header email
> address. Remove all garbage from header email address when replying,
> or just use .

I grew up with cane rods, and fibreglass. Most of the early fibreglass rods
were built to emulate cane, indeed many of the first carbon fibre rods were
also built to this end. I used a whole range of cane, solid glass , and
hollow glass rods. Some were quite reasonable, a few were good, and most
were miserable failures. The first carbon fibrte rods I used were also built
to emulate "fast" cane rods. Some were really excellent in this regard. Many
people still stuck to cane though.

In the meantime, technology has advanced to the point that it is indeed
possible to emulate all these things, to a degree at least, but it is
basically a waste of time and effort One must try and maximise the
properties of any material, and this is not achieved by attempting to
emulate the properties of others. The result of any progress must be
"better", as otherwise it is pointless. If cane is indeed "optimal", for
some things, then there is no way to improve on it, and exertions in thes
regard are superfluous.

"Emulation" is not a good blueprint for progress. "Innovation" is the
watchword..

Carbon fibre rods have a number of advantages, glass rods have some ( though
admittedly few), cane rods also have some intrinsic qualities. It is
extremely difficult to be objective about many things, as so much depends on
skill, knowledge, experience, amd completely imponderable personal
preference.

All the things various people posted on here may or may not be useful to
you, and may even help you choose a rod for your intended purpose. What
finally counts however, is what you "feel" when using such a rod, and nobody
can tell you that. You really have to try it.

Whatever I say reflects my personal experience and preferences, even though
I do my utmost to be objective. Yours may be completely different, or you
may not even have any.

Basically, if you really want to "know" what is best, then you must peforce
try them all.

My main motivation for a very long time was simply to catch fish. I never
really worried over much about the implements I was obliged to use in this
endeavour. When I was young and impoverished, I used what I could get,
sometimes extremely cheap and completely unsuitable gear. Now I am old, and
a bit better off, and so I buy the "best" I can afford, or otherwise obtain,
also of course based on my knowledge and experience. I doubt I catch one
single fish more as a result. Indeed, I actually catch considerably less, as
I no longer need or even want to catch so many fish, so I don´t even bother
trying..

The same applies to many thnigs. Lines are a case in point, despite
considerable progress, mainly in the direction of convenience, there is
still no substitute for a good silk line in many cases.

For more than a few years, I have done my level best to give beginners, and
others, advice. Not least because I remember all too well how difficult it
was to obtain any information at all, when I first started flyfishing.

Lately, I am constantly reminded, that knowledge is a wonderful thing, and
technical advances are also very nice, but more and more people seem, as a
result of their obsession with technicalities, to lose sight of their goals.
My main goals were always, catch fish, and enjoy yourself. Nowadays the
second goal has priority, as I no longer need the fish.

My apologies for the rant, but it is indeed germane. It really does not
matter whether you have the absolute optimal instrument for any particular
purpose. If you fish for pleasure, then pleasure is the main objective, not
lots of fish, or technical excellence.

You can obtain a great deal of pleasure with a stick, a bit of line, and a
bent hook. In searching for the optimal, one may lose a lot of simple
enjoyment. Although one may also gain considerable enjoyment form the
technicalities.

What all this amounts to is, I don´t know what is best for you. Only you
can know that.

TL
MC

Peter Charles

February 21st, 2004, 02:16 AM

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 11:22:59 -0700, rw
> wrote:

>Peter Charles wrote:
>>
>> Oh, I'm not ****ed off at all, just academic curiosity. I find that
>> the use of an ethnic slur, where an ordinary slur would suffice,
>> usually says more about the speaker than it does about the intended
>> victim.
>
>I honestly don't understand how you can contrue me calling myself a
>yankee to be an ethnic slur -- certainly no more than you calling
>yourself a Canuckistanni. Now if YOU called me a yankee, maybe, but
>Americans by and large (aside from Red Sox fans and Southerners) don't
>consider "yankee" to be a slur, even when it comes from a Canadian. :-)

Don't worry, I would never call you a Yankee. Some of my best friends
are Yankees. :)

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

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

Wolfgang

February 21st, 2004, 03:22 AM

"Peter Charles" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 14:44:33 -0600, "Wolfgang" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Tim J." > wrote in message
> >news:PeuZb.24666$Xp.104319@attbi_s54...
> >>
> >> "Peter Charles" wrote...
> >> <snip>
> >> > I remember going through a length thread years back on whether
> >short
> >> > or long rods were best for small streams -- a dapping vs. casting
> >> > argument. Nothing was resolved then either.
> >>
> >> If anyone was looking for resolution of *anything*, this sure as
> >hell wouldn't
> >> be the place to seek it. :)
> >
> >I agree.
> >
> >Um.....well, there, THAT'S settled. :)
> >
> >Wolfgang
> >
>
> But didn't we just resolve that we can't resolve . . . .?

Yes, we did.

> I'm confused . . . .

Yes, you are.

Wolfgang
hell, this resolution **** is EASY.

Mike Connor

February 21st, 2004, 11:14 AM

"Mike Connor" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
<SNIP>
> > What about fiberglass, Mike, you didn't mention anything about that? I
> > know you've certainly got *some* opinion on fiberglass rods. :-)
> >

There are some glass rods which will work very well for this type of thing.
Several have been mentioned on here before. They tend to be fairly robust,
and there is no doubt that they will do the job. Some people like them, some
people hate them. This is much like the "cane" vs "graphite" arguments. If
it does what you want it to do, and you enjoy using it, then it does not
really matter much what you use.

Given the choice for small stream fishing, I would probably go for a
reasonably priced short 6...7´6" cane rod. Probably a #3 or #4 weight,
matched with a silk line, and a Vivarelli reel.

As it is, I never really had the choice, as the cane rods I handled and
liked were always a bit too expensive for me, and I was more than a little
worried about them breaking in use, small stream fishing can put a lot of
stress on rods, and accidents happen easily, so I compromised, and used a
fast #3 weight carbon fibre, overlined with a #4 weight silk line, and the
Vivarelli.

The silk lines are of course pretty expensive, but they are perfect for the
job, and last a very long time. I have handled a few glass rods as well,
but much the same applies, the ones I really liked were a little bit too
expensive for me.Although I worried less about damaging them, they are
generally robuster than fine cane rods. Also, I have not seen any glass
blanks for sale for quite a while, and If I really decided to get such a
rod, I would prefer to assemble it myself, with the fittings etc, which I
prefer.

As you know, I already own a large number of rods, obtained in various ways,
quite a lot of them self-built, many bought second hand, etc etc. and paying
out good money for more and more, does not seem sensible.

The combination I used always worked well, and I had no real reason to
regret not having a cane, or a top quality glass rod.

With regard to the discussion on length. As I said at the very beginning of
this thread, I normally like to use the longest rod I can get away with.
Unfortunately, on very small overgrown streams, you may even be pushed using
a 7´6" rod. In many cases, you will not even be able to raise the rod to
cast. Side casting, roll casting and various other tricks are the order of
the day.

When I say overgrown, I mean the stream is covered for long stretches with
trees and bushes, and of course the banks are lined with well nigh
impenetrable brush and undergrowth. One must often make detours around
really dense areas, and there are places which are unfishable no matter what
rod you use.

TL
MC

Tim J.

February 21st, 2004, 02:47 PM

"Wolfgang" wrote...
> "Peter Charles" wrote...
> > "Wolfgang" wrote:
> > >"Tim J." wrote...
> > >> "Peter Charles" wrote...
> > >> <snip>
> > >> > I remember going through a length thread years back on whether
> > >short
> > >> > or long rods were best for small streams -- a dapping vs. casting
> > >> > argument. Nothing was resolved then either.
> > >>
> > >> If anyone was looking for resolution of *anything*, this sure as
> > >hell wouldn't
> > >> be the place to seek it. :)
> > >
> > >I agree.
> > >
> > >Um.....well, there, THAT'S settled. :)
> > >
> > >Wolfgang
> > >
> >
> > But didn't we just resolve that we can't resolve . . . .?
>
> Yes, we did.
>
> > I'm confused . . . .
>
> Yes, you are.
>
> Wolfgang
> hell, this resolution **** is EASY.

I disagree.
--
TL,
Tim
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

Willi

February 21st, 2004, 03:38 PM

rw wrote:

> Peter Charles wrote:
>
>>
>> I wa just curious why you felt compelled to turn a
>> ****ing contest between two fishermen into a ****ing contest between
>> two nationalities.
>
>
> History.
>
> I knew I was doing the wrong thing when I wrote that "yankee" comment,
> but I had no idea it would **** off a Canuckistani. :-)
>
> Lazarus's post was provocative. I think he meant it to be so. I couldn't
> resist puncturing his Pommie arrogance. :-)
>
> This thread is, IMO, one of the best I've seen on ROFF in recent months,
> despite Lazarus's opinion. The lesson I've learned from it is that
> everyone has their own unique opinion about how to fish small streams,
> and how to retrieve snagged flies. :-) For my part, I'll just use my
> trusty workhorse Sage Sp 5wt 8.5' and pull on the line.
>
> I don't much like really small, brushy streams. They can be an
> entertaining pastime, and they can hold a few large fish, but they're a
> lot of trouble. My ideal stream size is a "river" that is just large
> enough that I can't wade across. Then, if I don't catch fish, I can
> rationalize it by thinking they're all in those unreachable eddy pools
> on the other side.
>

I find overly brushy stream a PITA. I like to cast.

Although they're hard to find, my favorite waters are smaller waters
that hold big fish. IMO, small waters are usually less traveled and in
prettier setting than large rivers.

Willi

Jarmo Hurri

February 21st, 2004, 03:51 PM

Thanks for your insight, Mike. I had never heard about those Vivarelli
reels before, looked quite interesting. I am a bit afraid of cane
myself, because of a) price and b) vulnerability.

Regarding your long "rant" about learning from others or learning by
experience, that piece of text reminded me about Wolfgang's
writings. Simply put: over here speculation is at least half the
fun. Whenever we're not fishing, especially during the winter, we
share ideas and dreams about different places to fish, equipment,
flies etc. This is what we call speculation. Speculation keeps us
mentally close to this superb hobby/lifestyle all the time. Isn't this
what (the minor, on-topic part of) roff is all about? What the heck is
wrong with that?

And as far as rods are concerned, there is also the minor issue of
differences in services in different parts of the world. Especially
our US friends have a much better situation than what we have here up
north, because they obviously _can_ test different rods before making
the purchase. We're not so lucky. And I am as sure as hell not going
to blame anyone if I do not agree with their opinions and
recommendations.

Sorry for the emotional counter-rant. :-)

--
Jarmo Hurri

Commercial email countermeasures included in header email
address. Remove all garbage from header email address when replying,
or just use .

February 21st, 2004, 05:07 PM

Jarmo Hurri wrote:
>
> Whenever we're not fishing, especially during the winter, we
> share ideas and dreams about different places to fish, equipment,
> flies etc. This is what we call speculation. Speculation keeps us
> mentally close to this superb hobby/lifestyle all the time. Isn't this
> what (the minor, on-topic part of) roff is all about? What the heck is
> wrong with that?

I enjoy reading other folks' thoughts on the subject even though there
is no chance a discussion on rod length for small streams would be of
any "practical" use to me (over the years I've consciously pared down my
once large collection of rods to just a few, each well suited for a
specific task, settling on a single much-loved 7.5-foot, four-weight
cane rod for small streams).

The thoughts expressed on ROFF are influenced greatly by the accidents
of each person's history (which rods he's happened to use, which streams
he's happened to fish), his own interpretation of the words "small" and
"overgrown", his general preferences in rod length and action, his
personal decisions on how many rods are enough, whether (and why) he
likes small stream fishing enough to justify a separate rod for it,
etc. All of that is--or can be--interesting in itself, whether or not
it changes my own decisions on what rod to use.

And for folks whose collection is still in the growth phase <g>, who may
not yet have a small stream rod or are not real happy with what they do
have, a large, varied, and even contradictory set of public ruminations
may be of practical value.

JR

Mike Connor

February 21st, 2004, 06:02 PM

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jarmo Hurri" >
Newsgroups: rec.outdoors.fishing.fly
Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2004 4:51 PM
Subject: Re: Rod length in small creek fishing

>
> Thanks for your insight, Mike. I had never heard about those Vivarelli
> reels before, looked quite interesting. I am a bit afraid of cane
> myself, because of a) price and b) vulnerability.
>
<SNIP>

Yes, as I said, those were also my main problems with cane. The rods I
sometimes used belonged to other people, and I was terrified of damaging
them, so I did not fish in very difficult places with them. I also remember
the first relatively expensive rod I bought, ( expensive for me at least).
I was also terrified of damaging it, and as a result I caught fewer fish,
and gained less satisfaction.

As somebody noted in one of the posts, there is a lot to be said for a cheap
"knockabout" rod. One is not afraid of breaking it, and consequently fishes
difficult places, or even not so difficult places more aggressively. This
inevitably results in more fish.

In my opinion, the Vivarelli is the finest trout reel ever built, bar none.

Sorry about the "rant", but it seems that some imagine that one is
propagating religious dogma, and not just an opinion. While I was replying
to these posts, I was constantly interrupted by various things, and after
reading them again here, they seem a little disjointed, but you got my drift
I suppose.

Nothing whatever against "speculation". Indeed, I indulge in it a great deal
myself. If these various opinions help you to make a decision, then they
are worthwhile.

TL
MC

lazarus

February 22nd, 2004, 08:43 PM

rw > wrote in message >...
> Peter Charles wrote:
> >
> > I wa just curious why you felt compelled to turn a
> > ****ing contest between two fishermen into a ****ing contest between
> > two nationalities.
SNIP
>
> Lazarus's post was provocative. I think he meant it to be so. I couldn't
> resist puncturing his Pommie arrogance. :-)

I've always thought of Roffians as lonely, bitter old men, socially
inadequate, their faces blotched red as they hunch over a computer,
a tumbler of malt whisky close at hand -- cyber-world being the only
place they can nurse their copious grievances and interminable feuds,
since all real human beings avoid them. (this is certainly what I'm
like.)

But I didn't expect to find my cartoon image to be so signally
confirmed as it was by Royal Wulff (what is this thing with Royalty?
the folks round here just treat it something to be suffered, like the
weather.)

As Peter said, no I'm not a Pommie - I can trace my ancestry back
through a line of impoverished farmers to 1723, and there's not a drop
of English blood in my veins. I was American for the first fifteen or
so years of my life, and I've been Irish for about thirty now. But
call my a Pommie if you like. I'm not black, or Jewish, or arab , but
feel free to call me a ******, a yid or a dago. My children have no
English ancestry either, but they *are* partly African, so if you want
to be accurate you can call me a ******-lover. I won't mind, nor will
they, and at least it'll be true.

Most of my fishing in Ireland has been around the border counties that
my family come from - Tyrone, Derry, Fermanagh Leitrim - where there's
been a terrorist war going on for all of my adult life, but in all
that time I've never once, in any fishing bar or hotel, heard a
fisherman insult another for being Catholic or Protestant, or black or
white, or Jewish, American or German. Not even for being English.

Of course short or long rods for bushy streams are a matter for choice
-and, hopefully, for argument, which is something I'm all in favour
of.

I do have a lovely 6' cane rod made for me by the late Lance Nicholson
of Dulverton , the village on Exmoor where Jan Ridd met Lorna Doone .
The rod was made for just these sort of circumstances, but I rarely
use it.
The point about very lightweight rods is that lightweight rod means
lightweight fly means lightweight leader, and a one and a half pound
leader will snap when you're trying to get a fly off a tree a lot
faster than a three pound one. (no, even I don't yank it off with the
rod)

And while very short rods can, in theory, roll cast in a tight space,
they're harder to use when you're on a bank, poking the rod out over
the water in a tiny space, and want to flip the fly upstream. If you
have an eight-foot rod, you can make a little back-cast. If it's a
six-foot one, the fly will come too far back towards the bank.

I still love my little Barle rod, and love using it, but it mostly
stays hung up.

I can see nowhere on my post where I said anything about Yankees, or
any other grouping, apart from roffians, of whom I'm one. But I must
admit that the post looks a bit ebullient. I think I must have been on
the single malt. From my farewell greeting - "m Htp" - I think I'd
mixed up the newsgroups, and thought I was on
alt.history.ancient-egypt.

>
> This thread is, IMO, one of the best I've seen on ROFF in recent months,
> despite Lazarus's opinion. The lesson I've learned from it is that
> everyone has their own unique opinion about how to fish small streams,
> and how to retrieve snagged flies. :-) For my part, I'll just use my
> trusty workhorse Sage Sp 5wt 8.5' and pull on the line.
>

It humiliates me to say so, but I totally agree. Ah well, back to the
single malt....... ;-)

m Htp
TL
Lazarus

Wolfgang

February 22nd, 2004, 10:56 PM

"lazarus" > wrote in message
om...

> ...Ah well, back to the single malt....... ;-)

Which, if you had left it alone prior publishing a long and fatuous screed
about things which are apparently a complete mystery to you, would not have
necessitated a long and insipid defense of inscrutable (as well as
indefensible) small stream tactics and an immeasurably tedious genealogical
treatise coupled (miscegentically, no doubt) with a genuine yawner of an
explication of your (presumably, dearly held, if somewhat pedestrian)
notions on race relations and which will, if we are lucky, in all likelihood
result in yet another phantasmagoric venture into the dimly lit corners of
your (judging by the aroma) rather unhygienic little id. One can hardly
wait.

Wolfgang

just al

February 22nd, 2004, 10:58 PM

Dude, that's a lot of adverbs...

"Wolfgang" > wrote in message
...
>
> "lazarus" > wrote in message
> om...
>
> > ...Ah well, back to the single malt....... ;-)
>
> Which, if you had left it alone prior publishing a long and fatuous screed
> about things which are apparently a complete mystery to you, would not
have
> necessitated a long and insipid defense of inscrutable (as well as
> indefensible) small stream tactics and an immeasurably tedious
genealogical
> treatise coupled (miscegentically, no doubt) with a genuine yawner of an
> explication of your (presumably, dearly held, if somewhat pedestrian)
> notions on race relations and which will, if we are lucky, in all
likelihood
> result in yet another phantasmagoric venture into the dimly lit corners of
> your (judging by the aroma) rather unhygienic little id. One can hardly
> wait.
>
> Wolfgang
>
>

Ken Fortenberry

February 22nd, 2004, 11:04 PM

Wolfgang scolded:
>
> Which, if you had left it alone prior publishing a long and fatuous screed
> about things which are apparently a complete mystery to you, would not have
> necessitated a long and insipid defense of inscrutable (as well as
> indefensible) small stream tactics and an immeasurably tedious genealogical
> treatise coupled (miscegentically, no doubt) with a genuine yawner of an
> explication of your (presumably, dearly held, if somewhat pedestrian)
> notions on race relations and which will, if we are lucky, in all likelihood
> result in yet another phantasmagoric venture into the dimly lit corners of
> your (judging by the aroma) rather unhygienic little id. ...

Here's some periods for you . . . . . . Use the goddamn things
every now and then why don't ya. And "miscegentically" ?????
Good grief.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Wayne Harrison

February 22nd, 2004, 11:07 PM

"just al" > wrote in message
...
> Dude, that's a lot of adverbs...

oh, for god's sake. you are enough to turn pj roberts into a net nanny.
care to define the difference between "adverb" and "adjective"?

wayno

Wolfgang

February 23rd, 2004, 03:26 AM

"just al" > wrote in message
...
> Dude, that's a lot of adverbs...

Oh, we are gonna have SUCH fun together. I just KNOW we're gonna be best
friends! :)

Wolfgang
still a bachelor and master of none.

Wolfgang

February 23rd, 2004, 03:29 AM

"Ken Fortenberry" > wrote in message
m...
> Wolfgang scolded:
> >
> > Which, if you had left it alone prior publishing a long and fatuous
screed
> > about things which are apparently a complete mystery to you, would not
have
> > necessitated a long and insipid defense of inscrutable (as well as
> > indefensible) small stream tactics and an immeasurably tedious
genealogical
> > treatise coupled (miscegentically, no doubt) with a genuine yawner of an
> > explication of your (presumably, dearly held, if somewhat pedestrian)
> > notions on race relations and which will, if we are lucky, in all
likelihood
> > result in yet another phantasmagoric venture into the dimly lit corners
of
> > your (judging by the aroma) rather unhygienic little id. ...
>
> Here's some periods for you . . . . . . Use the goddamn things
> every now and then why don't ya.

If you miss an occaisonal period, I'd say it's a personal problem......and
it's got nothing to do with me.

> And "miscegentically" ?????
> Good grief.

Tough one, huh? Not in the Funk and Wagnall's?

Wolfgang

Mike Connor

February 23rd, 2004, 03:41 AM

"just al" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
> Dude, that's a lot of adverbs...

Do you, by any strange and probably entirely serendipitous chance, happen
to be in the extremely fortunate, and apparently desperately necessary
possession, of a large quantity of shiny new nickels?

Just wondering.

TL
MC

Scott Seidman

February 23rd, 2004, 12:49 PM

"Wolfgang" > wrote in
:

> If you miss an occaisonal period, I'd say it's a personal
> problem......and it's got nothing to do with me.
>

But, it does explain an awful lot ;)

Scott

Ken Fortenberry

February 23rd, 2004, 02:16 PM

Wolfgang wrote:

> "Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
>
>>And "miscegentically" ?????
>>Good grief.
>
> Tough one, huh? Not in the Funk and Wagnall's?

It's not so tough to figure out from context that you were
trying to torture the word miscegenation into becoming an
adverb, but some words aren't so easily intimidated.

Miscegenationally ain't a word either, but it is somewhat
less of an affront to those of us who claim English as our
mother tongue.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Wolfgang

February 23rd, 2004, 03:23 PM

"Ken Fortenberry" > wrote in message
om...
> Wolfgang wrote:
>
> > "Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
> >
> >>And "miscegentically" ?????
> >>Good grief.
> >
> > Tough one, huh? Not in the Funk and Wagnall's?
>
> It's not so tough to figure out from context that you were
> trying to torture the word miscegenation into becoming an
> adverb, but some words aren't so easily intimidated.

> Miscegenationally ain't a word either, but it is somewhat
> less of an affront to those of us who claim English as our
> mother tongue.

If English is your mother tongue, it is fortunate for her that you were
weaned long before close scrutiny by child welfare authorities became a
common practice. As it is, you probably no longer have recourse to any sort
legal action.

Wolfgang
anyone want to take a shot at the rules governing english adverbial forms?
:)

Ken Fortenberry

February 23rd, 2004, 03:58 PM

Wolfgang wrote:

> "Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
>
>>Miscegenationally ain't a word either, but it is somewhat
>>less of an affront to those of us who claim English as our
>>mother tongue.
>
> If English is your mother tongue, it is fortunate for her that you were
> weaned long before close scrutiny by child welfare authorities became a
> common practice. As it is, you probably no longer have recourse to any sort
> legal action.

If tortured syntax, turgid, unintelligible prose, ridiculous
misinterpretations and deliberate obfuscation were virtues,
you would be canonized in a heartbeat.

> Wolfgang
> anyone want to take a shot at the rules governing english adverbial forms?

You first. Why don't you take another shot at miscegenation ? ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry

DaveMohnsen

February 23rd, 2004, 04:38 PM

"Wolfgang" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ken Fortenberry" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Wolfgang wrote:
> >
> > > "Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
> > >
> > >>And "miscegentically" ?????
> > >>Good grief.
> > >
> > > Tough one, huh? Not in the Funk and Wagnall's?
> >
> > It's not so tough to figure out from context that you were
> > trying to torture the word miscegenation into becoming an
> > adverb, but some words aren't so easily intimidated.
>
> > Miscegenationally ain't a word either, but it is somewhat
> > less of an affront to those of us who claim English as our
> > mother tongue.
>
> If English is your mother tongue, it is fortunate for her that you were
> weaned long before close scrutiny by child welfare authorities became a
> common practice. As it is, you probably no longer have recourse to any
sort
> legal action.
>
> Wolfgang
> anyone want to take a shot at the rules governing english adverbial forms?
> :)
>

Uhh . . .absolutely, irreconcilably, irrecoverably, irredeemably not.
DaveMohnsenly,
Denverly
(hmm . . .I got to go fishin' . . .soonly!)

Rob S.

February 23rd, 2004, 05:57 PM

rw > wrote in message >...
[snip]
> and how to retrieve snagged flies. :-) For my part, I'll just use my
> trusty workhorse Sage Sp 5wt 8.5' and pull on the line.
>
[snip]

rw,

when I read L's comments about a sturdy rod to tug on snagged flies, I
did not immediately think of the extreme example...that is, really needing
to break the tippet or bend the hook to get the fly off the line. There are
numerous cases where the fly is just caught on a bit of leaf and tugging
with the end of the rod will do to extract it. In this latter case a sturdier
rod helps, that's all I read into it.

-- Rob

Wolfgang

February 23rd, 2004, 06:15 PM

"Ken Fortenberry" > wrote in message
...
> Wolfgang wrote:
>
> > "Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
> >
> >>Miscegenationally ain't a word either, but it is somewhat
> >>less of an affront to those of us who claim English as our
> >>mother tongue.
> >
> > If English is your mother tongue, it is fortunate for her that you were
> > weaned long before close scrutiny by child welfare authorities became a
> > common practice. As it is, you probably no longer have recourse to any
sort
> > legal action.
>
> If tortured syntax, turgid, unintelligible prose, ridiculous
> misinterpretations and deliberate obfuscation were virtues,
> you would be canonized in a heartbeat.

Aw, are the naughty big words giving you fits, little fella? :(

Tell you what, I don't know if he actually does this sort of thing for hire,
but if he does, I recommend that you contact old BJ. I think that, with the
able assistance of his able assistants, Flush and Koolaid, he can get you on
the right track to reading comprehension.

Wolfgang
and remember, you must be at lest this tall to ride.

Ken Fortenberry

February 23rd, 2004, 08:35 PM

Wolfgang wrote:
>
> Aw, are the naughty big words giving you fits, little fella? :(

You can pretend that your bombast is erudite if you want but
your brand of pretentious, cutesy verbiage doesn't impress me.
What are you doing, practicing to be James Joyce ?

--
Ken Fortenberry

Wolfgang

February 23rd, 2004, 09:28 PM

"Ken Fortenberry" > wrote in message
m...
> Wolfgang wrote:
> >
> > Aw, are the naughty big words giving you fits, little fella? :(
>
> You can pretend that your bombast is erudite if you want

Pretend what? You REALLY don't have a clue, do you? :)

> but
> your brand of pretentious, cutesy verbiage doesn't impress me.

And you think that impressing you is my idea of a worthy goal?.....something
that I aspire to?

> What are you doing, practicing to be James Joyce ?

Never read Joyce. Is he any good?

You know, it's really no surprise that you and little Stevie got yourselves
worked up into that mutual snit a couple of years ago, or that the much
anticipated and ballyhooed knock down drag out showdown never got
consummated. You see, you both think alike. The truth is that the world at
large doesn't much give a **** about your existence one way or
another.....and you both know it....and it rankles....and there ain't a
goddamned thing you can do about it. Impotence sucks, don't it? :)

Wolfgang
who, it must be admitted, never tires of watching 'em miss the lobs.

Ken Fortenberry

February 23rd, 2004, 09:45 PM

Wolfgang wrote:
>
> <snipperoo>
> Wolfgang
> who, it must be admitted, never tires of watching 'em miss the lobs.

Didn't miss, nailed it dead center, THAT'S what rankles your ass and
that's what precipitated this predictable and pedestrian nasty gram.
But that's alright, I don't take nasty grams to heart.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Wolfgang

February 23rd, 2004, 10:09 PM

"Ken Fortenberry" > wrote in message
...

> ...I don't take nasty grams to heart.

No, of course not.

Wolfgang
REMEMBER YELLOWSTONE! :)

Ken Fortenberry

February 23rd, 2004, 10:18 PM

Wolfgang wrote:

> "Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
>
>>...I don't take nasty grams to heart.
>
> No, of course not.
>
> Wolfgang
> REMEMBER YELLOWSTONE! :)

Huh ?

Actually I did have a pleasant little flashback last week. NPR did a
segment on wolf watching in the Lamar Valley.

--
Ken Fortenberry

B J Conner

February 24th, 2004, 06:44 AM

He doesn't need to learn to read, You need to learn communication. Fresh
and Coolaid are just the tool to quantify that you fail at it time and time
again. Additional proof would be the Roffians who read your babble and say
to themselves WTF!. Many of them go to the dictioinary and I'm sure there
impressed. The simple fact is you fail to get ideals from you pointy
little head to someone elses.
Grant me a boone and if time should allow rewrite the Declaration of
Independance in Wolfgangian. Jefferson did it fairly well. History will
bear out that he was confident enough in himself that he didn't need to
change ever third word with something he looked up in his Roget's. It's
amazing that so many intelligent people with good ideals and that are well
based in fact can communicate so simply and effectively.
If on the other hand you use Roff as your magic mirror your excessive
verbage serves you and only you well. You can write upon the Roff mirror
read it yourself and luxuriate in your reflected image of an intelligent,
erudite scholar. Over here on the dark side of the mirror it doesn't come
through so well. I'm sure your'e very intelligent and have knowledge and
ideals worth sharing- if only you could ( or would).

"Wolfgang" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ken Fortenberry" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Wolfgang wrote:
> >
> > > "Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
> > >
> > >>Miscegenationally ain't a word either, but it is somewhat
> > >>less of an affront to those of us who claim English as our
> > >>mother tongue.
> > >
> > > If English is your mother tongue, it is fortunate for her that you
were
> > > weaned long before close scrutiny by child welfare authorities became
a
> > > common practice. As it is, you probably no longer have recourse to
any
> sort
> > > legal action.
> >
> > If tortured syntax, turgid, unintelligible prose, ridiculous
> > misinterpretations and deliberate obfuscation were virtues,
> > you would be canonized in a heartbeat.
>
> Aw, are the naughty big words giving you fits, little fella? :(
>
> Tell you what, I don't know if he actually does this sort of thing for
hire,
> but if he does, I recommend that you contact old BJ. I think that, with
the
> able assistance of his able assistants, Flush and Koolaid, he can get you
on
> the right track to reading comprehension.
>
> Wolfgang
> and remember, you must be at lest this tall to ride.
>
>