Rod length in small creek fishing

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.

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

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/~pcharl...ers/index.html

"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.

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.

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/~pcharl...ers/index.html

"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.

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.

Lazarus Cooke wrote in message news:180220042257015021%lazarus@stonecurlewfilms. com...

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.

"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