Rod length in small creek fishing

"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 .

"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

"Peter Charles" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 18:53:09 -0600, "Wolfgang"
wrote:


"Stephen Welsh" wrote in message
. 1.4...
"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

"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

"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.

"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

"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 .

"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

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

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