Rod length in small creek fishing

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/~pcharl...ers/index.html

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/~pcharl...ers/index.html

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

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

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...

"Peter Charles" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
om...



TL
MC ( One of the objective half Irish)

"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

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/~pcharl...ers/index.html

"Peter Charles" wrote in message
news
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" 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