Printable View
Okay! I just re-read a chapter about rods in the book, FLY FISHING HERESIES, by Wright. In that chapter he gives his very staunch opinion, along with specific reasons, why the 'long rod', by that he means a minimum of 9', is better suited to flowing water. Just wondering what the your opinion(s) is/are about Wright'sconclusion. Again, he was talking about fishing in water with currents.
Deezel
Deezel,
I would agree that in most cases the longer rod is better for flowing water, with the exception of small streams.
I use two11 foot Sage rods, the XP and the Z-Axis in a 6 weight for fishing on the rivers of Washington, Montana and Wyoming. The extra length allows for a nice reach cast, and tossing in a mend is just a matter of flipping the wrist compared to using the whole arm as with a 9 foot rod.
Naturally, on small streams a 7?6? to 8? rod is all you usually need what with the brush and trees hanging over your head. Most casts are very short to allow maximum line control. A 9 foot or longer rod just gets in the way on those small mountain streams.
However, out in the flat lands, with a stream meandering through a meadow, I would see an advantage of a longer rod.
Larry :D
Deezel,
Just because someone wrote a book, doesn't mean he/she knows more than you, or anyone of us, does about choosing equipment for our own fishing.
My only problem with the so called experts is that they apply their particular parameters to the 'specific reasons' why a certain type/weight/length of rod is better 'suited' for a particular application.
If you grant them that, then they tend to be somewhat accurate.
We can all be guilty of that, as Larry points out by stating "Naturally, on small streams a 7?6? to 8? rod is all you usually need what with the brush and trees hanging over your head".
For him, it's a natural fact that this is true, but I disagree and feel that a 9 foot or longer rod is better for that type of water. Both our reasons are valid and neither one of us is 'wrong', we just look at it differently.
It's all pretty subjective and truly matters little in the long run.
If you 'like' 6 1/2 foot rods, for whatever reason, you can easily fish them effectively in a current situation.
AND, if you 'like' 12 foot rods, you can easily fish with them on a small brush choked creek or stream.
I know that there are folks out there who only own one rod (don't understand that, but it happens). For them that rod, whatever it is, works jut fine for whatever type of fishing conditions they face.
No one should think that because they don't own a certain rod that they shouldn't fish in a particular palce.
If, like me and thousands of others, you are on the quest for that perfect rod for each situation that you face, forget the 'experts' and use what YOU decide is best for YOU.
So, while Mr. Wright probably believes that he is correct, the truth of the matter is that it's just an opinion based on his personal experience, and is no more valid for others than yours or Larry's or mine.
Expert= <ex spurt'>='ex' ='has been', 'spurt' = drip under pressure.
Good Luck!
Buddy
Long rods definitely have the advantage for moving water. You can more easily nymph at a longer distance yet still maintain good contact with your rig. Also they are quite superior for small streams with heavy brush as long rods are great for bow casting.
I don't know where you guys fish, but the "small streams" I fish around here are a bit brush choked.
Bushwackin' with a 9' rod is next to impossible
A 6.5' rod is about all you can handle and a tough old glass stick is best
While I do agree that a long rod is best for nymph fishing, I prefer a midsized rod of 7.5 or 8" for fishing dries.
In a different kind of current, the surf, I like an over sized rod of 10' for mending line over breaking waves
Dudley,
I have no troubles 'bushwhacking' with a 9 foot rod.
Some of the small streams I fish are almost inaccessible, and 'bushwhacking' through thicketts and dense trees is the only way to get in.
I just take my time getting to the water, and then stay there until a fallen tree forces me out again. It's more about paying attention and going slow than it is about the length of the rod. If I can get 'me' in (I'm not a little feller), I can get any rod in.
AND, once I get there, the longer rod gives me better line control and 'reach' where casting is difficult.
However, I also fish the same waters with a 4 1/2 foot rod. Catch fish with both. I just 'prefer' the longer rod for efficiencies sake. I can make better presentations with it, more of them, and thus get the fly to more fish. I use the little short rod when the conditions are 'perfect' and I know I'll get plenty of fish on dries. The little rod is lots of fun to fish with.
It really is just a matter of preference and your own fishing style. What works well for me may not work well for you.
Part of what makes this so darn much fun.
Good Luck!
Buddy
Hey Deezle,
I started out fishing exclusively with long rods. Over the years, I have
almost exclusively fished still waters. Over the years, my rods have gotten
shorter and shorter by choice. The rods I now use range from 5' to 6 1/2
foot and that is how I like it. My choice! Warm regards, Jim
I wouldn't think of fishing from a drift boat with anything less than 8'6" ~~ preferably 9'. On the other hand I love 7'6" and shorter rods for the fishing I do in the Sierras. All the more reasons to get more rods. Although I did have a 4'4" 4 wt bamboo rod once ~~ I never did find the right fishing for it.
I love the long rods. They just work really well for the way I fish. I love the way they let me handle line in the air and on the water.
I have three blanks to build this winter. All three are 10.5 feet long single handers.
I never had a short rod until this summer, when I was given a 7'6". I happened to have a sore rotator cuff, so decided to try it to see if it would be any better than the 9' and it was decidedly easier on my shoulder, and I fished the Bighorn with it very successfully, and didn't see any difference in the way it mended. I also used my bamboo "banty" at 6' and thoroughly enjoyed it. I think it all amounts to the feel that you like, and each rod has a different personality.
Like Buddy says, Mr. Wright is really only stating his opinion. And we all have one or more of those.
I just recently bought a 9' / 6wt. , and it was my first of those. I had an old Japanese 'boo rod in a flimsy wooden box when I was a kid, and I have no idea what wt. or length it was, but it seeemed pretty long to me. I used to use it to belly crawl up to Rush creek back home, and poke it way out through the weeds to dab a little chunk of worm on a little bitty hook just over the edge of the cutbank to catch some very spooky little brookies by the bunch. I haven't a clue what happened to it, but if it was any shorter, it wouldn't have worked too good. Now I have three rods, the 6 I mentioned, a 8'6 /7wt. and a big ol 10' /11 wt. I just love my new 6, and my casting skills have improved some this past summer, but now I want to get a shorter rod. I can even come up with some great reasons. Truth is, though... I'm just hooked, and I want to try another rod. I'm an ex - spurt on that and many other things. Hopefully, though, my next rod will be the custom I build from that Nunley blank I hope to win :lol: Way back when, when I first started tying flies, I built about 6 rods all from Fenwick blanks. It's been over 30 years since then, and I know once I get back into it, I'll probably get carried away. When I spend a bunch of $$ on blank, reel seat etc. and spread it out, I forget how much it adds up to, and the rod feels like it was a pretty good bargain, so, I figure, well, now I think I want a diferent one.... That's some of the greatness of any sport.
Hunters have lots of guns, Bowlers have lots of balls, Fishermen have great rods, and more is better. Rush creek is surrounded by private property now, and I don't think it's anything like it
was, but, I think if I ever get a chance to go back there, I'll need another rod................................ModocDan
I have to agree, with all that stated "Wright's opinions are just that.............. "OPINIONS".
Fly fishing for over 30 years, I've run into situations where any rod length at all, wouldn't have made a difference in reaching the fish I then saw, rising and there's been times when the fish were so close, I caught them on just the leader and tippet hanging from the end of the rod. So, how long would a rod like that, have to be? (Or, rather,how short? The fish were at my feet!?).
There are not any "experts" in the sport of Fly Fishing. There are many that are better at casting and tying flies, than others are, but that's about it. To me, although very good at what they do, (or, did), Lee Wulff, Wright, McKinnize, et al, are or were very, very good at the sport. But, their opinions are still their own ideas and experiences put into play for the way they like to do things and they write a book and pass those opinions onto us, thankfully, or, regrettably.
In contrast, Lee Wulff believed whole heartedly that; "The SHORTER the rod, for ANY fly fishing situation was better". He also once cast to, hooked, played and landed an Atlantic Salmon without using a rod at all. The fly reel was held in his hand and his pocket.
I was fishing with Dave Huges and asked him about fly fishing the coastal rivers in his and my, home waters and asked him something on the order of "Being an expert on fly fishing the coastal streams". He darn near fell into the Nestuca River, he laughed so hard at me, when I referred to him as an "expert".
Before I knew any better, I once told Henry Hoffman, while at his house; "Gads, it must be nice to be an "expert" on fly tying!". He, also, couldn't stop laughing at me.
"Long rod?" "Short rod?" What do YOU like, the best? THAT to me, is the right answer!
Paul
Moving water creates situations where I find rod length important. I have rods from 5'-9'6" and use them according to the "space requirements" of the stream. While everybody has differing opinions on where a short rod is required; in the places I use them nothing else would work, believe me. I'm talking about spots where you can't even MOVE the rod tip of a 7'0" rod more than two feet without whacking a tree branch and roll casts are IMPOSSIBLE with ANY rod.
In those short rod places the only lament I have is reach issues. If you can't keep the rod tip and line belly extended over a drag inducing riffle or chute below a pool; you have major drag problems. It is a pain in the butt at times but the small streams where I find the shortest rods necessary usually are manageable. I NEVER use those rods on places where I can use something longer.
Another issue with rod length that comes into play for me is wading depth. If I am wading deep which effectively shortens the rod tip distance from the ground or water; I want a longer rod because of the possibility of backcast drop. Since the majority of my rods are slower actions; a faster casting stroke isn't always the answer. The same holds true on places with a lot of tall vegetation on the stream banks. I have fished meadow streams that are 5 feet wide but have 9 foot corn stalks along their length. You better believe I use a long rod there.
So for me; a longer rod on moving water IS an advantage because I typically choose one where ever I can get away with it for the reasons above. But if I am fishing still water from the bank where I have clear sailing behind me; I really don't find any huge advantage to a longer rod.
http://www.thesmilies.com/smilies/symbolic/twocents.gif
I got an 11 foot 6-weight mainly because I needed the reach on some of the small streams that I fish. It literally allows me to cast around corners in some places where a shorter rod doesn't work for me. Note that some people might be able to fish sections like that with a 5 foot long rod.
Now, about that new 2-weight that I've got to order next week.... :)
Ed