Intro and a fishing equipment question - (Long-winded)

Hello all,

Been lurking awhile and I see there are a few legitimate anglers in the
crowd and a few with lot's of experience they're willing to share - so I'll
wade on in and ask for some advice.

First a little background so you'll know I'm a true novice but not exactly a
newbie. Over the years, we have been fortunate to live in some of the most
beautiful parts of the country and enjoyed many fishing and camping trips to
places others may only ever read about. I was introduced to fly-fishing
back in the 70's while we were living in Montana. Since we enjoyed the
hiking, I got myself a 4 piece pack rod back that has the action of a 2x4 -
but luck prevailed and quite a few native cutthroats ended up in the creel.
Where we fished was typically densely covered streams in the mountains and
using any method I could to get the fly - somewhere - in the water was used.

Obviously I learned a lot of bad habits which were only compounded by trying
to use spin casting skills on a fly rod. Luck continued on our trips into
Nebraska waters and eventually on up to Alaska over the next few years. If
you've ever fished the Russian river, you know that it generates its own
wind and you darn near need a brick tied to the end of the tippet to get the
line out in some places. Again, the same 4 piece rod was used but here, the
stiff action was a plus but my skills were no match for the challenges
offered. I often reverted back to a spinning outfit so I could concentrate
more on fishing instead of trying to get my fly line untangled from a nearby
tree.

I now look back at those wonderful adventures (which I tell many a tall tale
about today) and finally realized after all these years that the most
enjoyable fishing I ever did was with that simple 4 piece fly rod. After we
moved back east, I gave that rod to my brother-in-law since he enjoyed
hiking into places and fishing. That was 20 years ago and he still has that
pack rod although it is rarely used these days. My brother is also an avid
fisherman but has never tried fly fishing. After hearing all of my tall
tales (they get better every time I tell them...) he is now interested and
wanted to borrow that 4 piece rod to try. That rekindled my brother-in-laws
fondness for stalking some brooks again and my own interest went kinda wild
too. Sort of like a slippery slope.......and just before Christmas
too......

Well Santa was extremely good and he found some excellent deals on a few St.
Croix and Diamondback rods along with a few Hardy and Orvis reels. Went
with 9' rods 6wt and 5/6 Hardy reels for those rods as gifts and one for me
too. I did say slippery slope didn't I? So after Christmas I went looking
for some line and found three (6'6", 7' and an 8'), 4wt rods that really
feel nice. Since they were priced so I couldn't refuse them - I picked up
all three with the intent of returning two after I've tried them.

Now I don't need all three of these rods and that is my dilemma. One is a
Diamondglass 7', (real slow action), the others are both St. Croix (Avids)
graphite's with one being 6'6" and the other an 8'. The wiggle test alone
has almost eliminated the 8' rod based on my past experiences of stream
fishing where a long rod could be a real pain and it being a relatively fast
rod may be a problem due to my lack of skills right now.

I picked up some 333 Cortland line (WF4F) just to use for testing these rods
and will save the good stuff for when the ice is fluid again. So I'll be
out in the back yard tomorrow flogging the snow testing these rods which
should get the neighbors talking....

I would be interested in hearing what others think about the 4wt
Diamondglass rods and the 6'6" Avid rod. I like the feel of each with the
St. Croix obviously being faster (moderately fast) and the Diamondglass
feeling like a silk scarf in the hand. Can't wait to see how they feel with
some line going thru the tip. I've matched a Cortland Embassy 40 to the
Diamondglass and an Orvis CFO III to the St. Croix 7'.

When the wife asks why I need two 4wt rods, I'll be standing on thin ice
here so it's my full intent to hand her one of the rods and tell her I've
been testing them both to insure (pick one) will be perfect for her when she
wants to join in on the fun..... Now how can she deny me on that one I
ask....;-)

Thank you for your input and a Happy New Year,

Bob S.

Bob S typed:
Hello all,

Hi Bob.
snip
Now I don't need all three of these rods and that is my dilemma. One
is a Diamondglass 7', (real slow action), the others are both St.
Croix (Avids) graphite's with one being 6'6" and the other an 8'. The
wiggle test alone has almost eliminated the 8' rod based on my
past experiences of stream fishing where a long rod could be a real
pain and it being a relatively fast rod may be a problem due to my
lack of skills right now.

That Diamondglass 7' 4WT is a sweet rod. I borrowed one for a few hours this
past year and enjoyed it a lot. Very slow, but good for short, delicate
casts in the streams here in MA. I'm looking to buy a short 2WT, but the
Diamondglass 2WT is only 5', and I'm not sure I want to go *that* short.
Besides, I ****ed off a certain not-to-be-named NC fly shop proprietor a few
weeks ago and he won't sell me one now. ;-)
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj/

"Tim J." wrote in message
...
Bob S typed:
Hello all,

Hi Bob.
snip
Now I don't need all three of these rods and that is my dilemma. One
is a Diamondglass 7', (real slow action), the others are both St.
Croix (Avids) graphite's with one being 6'6" and the other an 8'. The
wiggle test alone has almost eliminated the 8' rod based on my
past experiences of stream fishing where a long rod could be a real
pain and it being a relatively fast rod may be a problem due to my
lack of skills right now.

That Diamondglass 7' 4WT is a sweet rod. I borrowed one for a few hours
this past year and enjoyed it a lot. Very slow, but good for short,
delicate casts in the streams here in MA. I'm looking to buy a short 2WT,
but the Diamondglass 2WT is only 5', and I'm not sure I want to go *that*
short. Besides, I ****ed off a certain not-to-be-named NC fly shop
proprietor a few weeks ago and he won't sell me one now. ;-)
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj/

Tim,

Thanks for your input. I just managed to get out for a few minutes in the
snow and bat at the snowflakes coming down with both the St. Croix 6'6" 4wt
and the Diamondglass 7' 4wt. Good Lord I've forgotten how lousy I really am
with casting a fly rod. For the purists, that would be, trying to "control
the fly line"....

Managed to get a couple of casts (controlled lashes?) despite the wind
knots, cold wind and snow blowing around. Based on my limited testing, I
can see a need for both rods.

1) I like them
2) The wife now thinks one of them is hers.......;-)

The St. Croix 8' 4wt goes back since it's a bit redundant with having a 9'
5/6wt already. Besides, I'm out of "justifications" for this month....


Bob S.

"Bob S" wrote in news:L5etf.47091$XJ5.8529
@twister.nyroc.rr.com:

I would be interested in hearing what others think about the 4wt
Diamondglass rods and the 6'6" Avid rod.

All depends on the kind of fishing you plan to do. By my own standards, If
you can't cross a stream in less than about a five or six steps, and the
canopy isn't that of a rain forest, I like a longer rod, and generally
won't go below about 7'9" for such purposes, with 8'6" often better.

Casting can get a hair tough sometimes, depending on the cover, but not
impossible. What you'll find with experience is that there's a trade off.
You'll always be dealing with avoiding streamside brush, and that a short
rod can help with that. The flip side is that line control is very
important to achieve a drag free drift with dry flies and a dead drift with
nymphs, and a long rod makes these things much easier.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

"Scott Seidman" wrote in message
. 1.4...
"Bob S" wrote in news:L5etf.47091$XJ5.8529
@twister.nyroc.rr.com:

I would be interested in hearing what others think about the 4wt
Diamondglass rods and the 6'6" Avid rod.

All depends on the kind of fishing you plan to do. By my own standards,
If
you can't cross a stream in less than about a five or six steps, and the
canopy isn't that of a rain forest, I like a longer rod, and generally
won't go below about 7'9" for such purposes, with 8'6" often better.

Casting can get a hair tough sometimes, depending on the cover, but not
impossible. What you'll find with experience is that there's a trade off.
You'll always be dealing with avoiding streamside brush, and that a short
rod can help with that. The flip side is that line control is very
important to achieve a drag free drift with dry flies and a dead drift
with
nymphs, and a long rod makes these things much easier.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply


Scott,

Thanks for the advice and while I'm only a novice fly fisherman, I do have
some experience with using both short and long rods in tight situations.
It's been my nature to stay away from places where you find a lot of
fisherman flailing the waters and that usually means trekking on in to the
tougher spots - where not everyone will bother to go. While I've been to
some of those picture perfect waters you see - those spots are not the norm.
Mountain streams, deep, fast and narrow with the eventual pool or beaver
dam, and lots of tree's seem more in line with what I usually found in the
past as un-crowded places to fish.

Here on the east coast it's even more crowded but I do know of a few spots
that I want to try - and they're anything but open. So while a longer rod
would still work, I'll feel more comfortable with a shorter, slower action
rod for those situations. Based on my somewhat inconclusive testing with
the rods today, both fast and a slow rod, I'm still as lousy as ever.... But
lots of practice and some good coaching will help solve that little problem
and I'll be able to catch a tree along with the best of ya....

Thank you and a Happy New Year,

Bob S.

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005, Scott Seidman wrote:

impossible. What you'll find with experience is that there's a trade off.
You'll always be dealing with avoiding streamside brush, and that a short
rod can help with that. The flip side is that line control is very
important to achieve a drag free drift with dry flies and a dead drift with
nymphs, and a long rod makes these things much easier.

I actually like a longer rod for small streams for dapping and bow-n-arrow
casts.

Mu

Bob S wrote:
Hello all,

Been lurking awhile and I see there are a few legitimate anglers in the
crowd and a few with lot's of experience they're willing to share - so I'll
wade on in and ask for some advice.
snip

The shortest rod I own is a 7' 2wt. It's ok for the tight quarters,
small creeks I fish, but I find it a little too short, even for tiny
creeks. If your looking for one, all around rod, i'd advise you to get
the longer rod....but who are we kidding here. You'll have a fleet or
rods, in every imaginable weight and length. Reels.......fergetaboutit.
It sounds like you're already, well on your way. :-)

brians

"briansfly" wrote in message
news:kKftf.147$yW1.89@trnddc05...
Bob S wrote:
Hello all,

Been lurking awhile and I see there are a few legitimate anglers in the
crowd and a few with lot's of experience they're willing to share - so
I'll wade on in and ask for some advice.
snip

The shortest rod I own is a 7' 2wt. It's ok for the tight quarters, small
creeks I fish, but I find it a little too short, even for tiny creeks. If
your looking for one, all around rod, i'd advise you to get the longer
rod....but who are we kidding here. You'll have a fleet or rods, in every
imaginable weight and length. Reels.......fergetaboutit. It sounds like
you're already, well on your way. :-)

brians


Brian,

Spoken like a true fisherman...;-)

You obviously have fallen down that slippery slope yourself a time or two.
I've decided to keep both short rods - see post above - and with the 9' 6wt,
I'll have a good start on my collection.... We'll fill it in later when I
can find some more "justifications".

Thank you and a Happy New Year to you,

Bob S.

"Bob S"
Been lurking awhile - snip -

Detailed perhaps however, all information was relevant, certainly though
and not without little thought it is my opinion, if I may be so bold as to
offer in the midst of these fine, respectable gentlemen who represent the
North's and the South's most excellent manners and wit, among whom are not
in the least most well read gentlemen, I would like to say that I did not
think it in least, from any perspective of those present, long winded.....

john

"asadi" wrote in message
. com...

"Bob S"
Been lurking awhile - snip -

Detailed perhaps however, all information was relevant, certainly though
and not without little thought it is my opinion, if I may be so bold as to
offer in the midst of these fine, respectable gentlemen who represent the
North's and the South's most excellent manners and wit, among whom are
not in the least most well read gentlemen, I would like to say that I did
not think it in least, from any perspective of those present, long
winded.....

john

Hm......

Yep.

Anyway, the minority report:

Shorter is better......always......well, nearly. Longer rods are better for
dapping. That's o.k. if you're going to be a dapping specialist.....most of
us aren't. Theoretically a longer rod will also allow you to make longer
casts. In fact, improving your technique will make a much bigger difference
than does another foot or two of rod length. Besides, most people spend way
too much time making casts that are much too long to do them any practical
good in catching fish. Nothing wrong with making long casts if that's what
you're there for.....but it isn't the way to catch a lot of
fish.....generally.

Short rods are easier to pack, easier to carry through the woods, easier to
swing in tight quarters, and easier to control. There is a pervasive and
pernicious conventional wisdom that says a longer rod is better for fighting
fish because you get more leverage. This is as wrong as it can possibly be.
The fish has the long end of the lever. Since the fulcrum and the short end
remain constant (more or less), the shorter the rod, the less mechanical
advantage the fish enjoys. Leverage is also an issue in casting.....the
shorter the rod, the less work to aerialize the line. Short rods make it
much easier to bring a fish in close enough to grab or net when the time
comes. Short rods are lighter.

I've got a four foot rod I built out of the tip section of an old busted up
glass rod I found in an abandoned house. It works beautifully on small
overgrown streams. It has also served me well on larger, more open waters.

Wolfgang