Desirability Then and Now

[carl otto]

These discussions have the underlying question of the experience of the responder. As stated before a longer rod is functionally/mechanically a better rod to fish with than a shorter rod. At my age and depth I am in to this bamboo "thing" I make the following notes;

1) I own an 9'0", 2/2, Leon Hanson, 4 WT. It weighs 3.2 ounces, about 1/2+ ounce more than a typical graphite. The last time I "got into" this kind of discussion with a graphite person, we discovered my entire rod outfit weighed over an ounce less then his ultra light, nano technology, plastic kit 9'0" 4 WT..

1A) Again, the attack from the world of plastic while fishing on the Big Hole, where my 9'3", 4 5/8 ounce E. C. Powell, 7 WT outfit was a full 2 ounces less in weight then the shining black soul-less stick thrown out to support their argument.

Let's throw out the weight question. Especially, coupled with actually balancing your outfit out correctly, should not be a factor. If weight were really a concern most of us certainly should all be focusing on our BMI.

2) The average angler with practiced experience under normal conditions should be able to cast a competently made fly rod, made from any of the materials well with-in the ranges associated with our sport. Most of us are not competition casters. Throw out the cast distance argument.

Yes, one can obtain typically higher line speeds with a graphite rod. I believe the quest for speed diminishes with age and skill. I also have prejudice, the "feel" of a bamboo rod is just more pleasant in hand, then an arrow straight poker of a featherlight graphite rod.

3) To amplify, having a bad casting 9'0" rod should not be a pronouncement against all 9'0" bamboo rods. I have handled bad casting rods in all lengths. Many times the poor casting can be attributed to an improperly balanced outfit, incorrect line (i. e., rod maker says its a 5 weight, but your casting style improves it with a 4.) and/or your unfamiliarity with the rod, or the taper style is just not a fit with you. A competent person should be able to cast a fly line with a stick, its just a matter of overcoming the inefficiencies and adapting to the tool being used. Also to be noted, that in time past when many of the manufacturers were producing those 8'6"- 9'6" fly rods many were not the finest made, and made for a market not using them totally for dry fly fishing.

I truly believe if any of you had in your hand a 9'0" bamboo fly rod, balanced properly with the line and reel, such as an E. C. Powell you would change your thinking. As I think about it, are there many(any?) contemporary makers building rods 9'0"+ bamboo rods? Most of the market seems to be for shorter rods. Is it easier to build shorter? Does that influence the market?

Carl

[Seabowisha Salmo T]

carl, your analysis is right up there with arthurk. excellent!. i have two f e thomas 6' 8" rods, as elegant as any rod made; and i look at them and pick up a long rod to carry out the door on most days. of course i learned to angle for trout in 1953, so 5 inch trout = 5 in a skillet - breakfast! up to 14 inch trout = lunch! 15 inch trout and larger = bake it, too tough to fry!
i like to eat trout, and that's o. k.
regards, jim w

[quashnet]

I have a rare 9'0", 7-weight version of Paul Young's Parabolic 17, built in 1951 (the model only appeared in the circa 1952 catalog), that might give me the closest equivalent experience to Carl's E.C. Powell rod. I also have a PHY 9'0", 5-weight Nymph Rod which, in 1949-1950, Paul Young thought would fully establish his reputation as a maker (along with the Para 15). These are, in fact, both wonderfully efficient casting rods, and I enjoy using them. But within a few years, the 6'3" Midge was Young's most popular selling rod. So how did this happen?

The best-known short rods at the time were made by Orvis, and popularized by Lee Wulff. I think there was an element of practicality and efficiency in adoption of the short rod - for the manufacturer, if not for the angler - because of the 1952 trade embargo with China that stopped the importation of Tonkin bamboo. More short rods could be built and sold to customers using a limited stock of culms.

But for the angler, there were benefits too. You can argue all day that the long rod is more efficient, but sometimes efficiency is not what we are after. The PHY Midge was an instant hit after Young made a few and distributed them as, essentially, toys for the boys. The "boys" began playing with their toys by custom-splicing weight-forward silk lines and competing with each other to see how far they could throw a fly with the Midge. Reports of seventy-five-foot casts were relayed back to the Young shop, along with a fistful of new orders for Midge rods. It turns out that "efficiency" can be overrated as a motivator for tackle design. Sometimes guys just want to goof off.

To be honest, there are angling situations I enjoy where I really do think the 6'3" Midge is my most efficient choice for a fly rod. But if you are disappointed with your Midge, remember that Quashnet's Home for Young Wanderers is always open to care for these poor, inefficient orphans of the classic tackle world.

[Webfly]

The best-known short rods at the time were made by Orvis, and popularized by Lee Wulff. I think there was an element of practicality and efficiency in adoption of the short rod - for the manufacturer, if not for the angler - because of the 1952 trade embargo with China that stopped the importation of Tonkin bamboo. More short rods could be built and sold to customers using a limited stock of culm.[/img]

Wow Quash, that's the first time I've heard that explanation for short rods at the time. I know that Wulff popularized them and fished them for Atlantic Salmon and monster Brook Trout, but never thought about the embargo thing....

[Flykuni3]

I don't buy into the myth that small waters require short rods and larger waters require a longer rod. My shortest cane is an 8 footer.

Literally, different strokes.

On some of my punji stake streams -- apologies to any 'Nam vets present, welcome home by the way -- an 8'-er would be as easy to handle as a pole vault pole, a flag pole, one goal post, in other words, where I ramble and scramble the shorter is indeed better: 6'--7' rods, with 7 1/2' at the very most. And am not any sort of fan of the tankara, look at me, I can poke a rod through brush team. Wait, I misspelled tenkara, which in Japanese means "rookie."

Go Dodgers, by the way.

[Seabowisha Salmo T]

The best-known short rods at the time were made by Orvis, and popularized by Lee Wulff. I think there was an element of practicality and efficiency in adoption of the short rod - for the manufacturer, if not for the angler - because of the 1952 trade embargo with China that stopped the importation of Tonkin bamboo. More short rods could be built and sold to customers using a limited stock of culm.[/img]

Wow Quash, that's the first time I've heard that explanation for short rods at the time. I know that Wulff popularized them and fished them for Atlantic Salmon and monster Brook Trout, but never thought about the embargo thing....

yes, and others were beginning to advocate shorter rods about the late forties and fifties, read in eric peper and jim rikhoff's fishing moments of truth "the wee stick" and "four rivers in iceland"; mc clane with a seven foot and wulff with six foot rod. it was a fad, partly something new and partly i have something you do not have. i was ten years old in '46 and a religious reader of sports afield and field and stream.
regards, jim w

[abingram]

Bob, thank you of your picture of your Brook trout and Midge rod, and Jim thank you for reminding me of the nice stories in Eric's book about catching salmon on "wee sticks." This has been a very hard year on all of us being able to drive where we want to and fish where we would like to fish. Because of this I have limited most of my fishing to a small creek in and right outside of my neighborhood. It is called Station Camp Creek and you can drive the country road next to it and pick out quite a few pull offs and get out and fish. I have not fished my smaller rods in a few years but this is a must on this creek. I have really enjoyed my Garrison 193 and Payne 98 tapers that friends have made for me and since turning 72 this year it has been a great joy. So right now in my life the "wee sticks" have made my fishing more enjoyable with what's going on around us without having to travel very far. Barry.

[Seabowisha Salmo T]

Bob, thank you of your picture of your Brook trout and Midge rod, and Jim thank you for reminding me of the nice stories in Eric's book about catching salmon on "wee sticks." This has been a very hard year on all of us being able to drive where we want to and fish where we would like to fish. Because of this I have limited most of my fishing to a small creek in and right outside of my neighborhood. It is called Station Camp Creek and you can drive the country road next to it and pick out quite a few pull offs and get out and fish. I have not fished my smaller rods in a few years but this is a must on this creek. I have really enjoyed my Garrison 193 and Payne 98 tapers that friends have made for me and since turning 72 this year it has been a great joy. So right now in my life the "wee sticks" have made my fishing more enjoyable with what's going on around us without having to travel very far. Barry.

hello, abingram; station camp to cottontown, the home of t. tommy cutrer's family. nice fish in the creek. do you get to the caney when able to travel?
regards, jim w

[kingstu]

It seems every time I go out fishing in mid size to larger rivers I am always yearning for a longer rod. The 8 footers a lot of time does not suffice and more work is involved with handling the dry fly on the water. So I bought a Dickerson 9015 5DT and fish it on the mid + rivers and less work is needed with the fly and more focus on reading the currents is uplifted. Weight is not an issue. I also have a Hanson 3/2 8.5' 4wt for the same reason. Also, I will soon have a Brandin 9.5' 2/2 Truckee Special 4wt. for the same reasons. It's funny I have done a complete 180 from being a fanatic with shorter rods to the exact opposite.
Stu

[SalmoNewf]

“ Wow Quash, that's the first time I've heard that explanation for short rods at the time. I know that Wulff popularized them and fished them for Atlantic Salmon and monster Brook Trout, but never thought about the embargo thing....”

Lee Wulff was making a living in a very competitive outdoor writing field and that required making a name for himself by a variety of means, and I’m not trying to take anything away from him. I have copies of all his books and a signed original photo from “Leaping Silver” on my study wall. I can’t lay my hands on it right now but I read an article by or interview with him in which he talked about the short rod for salmon. He got the idea from his tuna fishing experiences where short, stiff rods were able to pressure those big fish enough to bring them in in a reasonable amount of time. Unlike the recently sold Wulff rods, six foot, 4wts, his original six footers required the equivalent of a modern 7 wt. line to make them work. He described his casting action as being like a baseball pitcher winding up and the life span of those original cane rods as measured in weeks of use. Not exactly the gentle art! The one piece six footers were also convenient for carrying, fully set up, in his small float planes.

[Greg Reynolds]

“ Wow Quash, that's the first time I've heard that explanation for short rods at the time. I know that Wulff popularized them and fished them for Atlantic Salmon and monster Brook Trout, but never thought about the embargo thing....”

Lee Wulff was making a living in a very competitive outdoor writing field and that required making a name for himself by a variety of means, and I’m not trying to take anything away from him. I have copies of all his books and a signed original photo from “Leaping Silver” on my study wall. I can’t lay my hands on it right now but I read an article by or interview with him in which he talked about the short rod for salmon. He got the idea from his tuna fishing experiences where short, stiff rods were able to pressure those big fish enough to bring them in in a reasonable amount of time. Unlike the recently sold Wulff rods, six foot, 4wts, his original six footers required the equivalent of a modern 7 wt. line to make them work. He described his casting action as being like a baseball pitcher winding up and the life span of those original cane rods as measured in weeks of use. Not exactly the gentle art! The one piece six footers were also convenient for carrying, fully set up, in his small float planes.

The Orvis Deluxe & Superfine rods used by Wulff for salmon could only handle a AFTMA 7-weight line for the shortest casts. Currently, most fisherman would use 4 or 5 weight lines:

1952:

1954

[Short Tip]

To Quashnet's point, there has always been a fascination with light and miniaturized tackle. Hardy, Leonard, Payne, Thomas and others sold tiny rods starting early in the 20th century. Whether it felt like a higher level of accomplishment, or was just a hoot to cast and catch fish with, there has long been a place for light and ultralight gear. And while I'm sure modern technology has lightened the longer cane rods, if given the choice to fish all day with a Payne 208 or a 9ft. Scott, Winston or T&T composite rod, I'm going graphite.

[Greg Reynolds]

I don't buy into the myth that small waters require short rods and larger waters require a longer rod. My shortest cane is an 8 footer.

I have a hard-enough time fishing streams like these three with a 6-foot rod:

[Morten]

I don't buy into the myth that small waters require short rods and larger waters require a longer rod. My shortest cane is an 8 footer.

Agree.

The shortest rods I fish are 7,6" in overgrown creeks. On open streams I prefer the longest possible because, of the grassy banks I have to deal with. The only problem I have with long rods and smaller streams, is if a hooked fish is passing you downstream. So for me 8" is the perfect length. But I am using 8,6 and 9 footers on wider streams.

[abingram]

Jim, We do not fish the Caney Fork right now. Basically it has gone to pot. There has been a war between the fisherpersons and the canoe/kayak companies on the river. The last few times I've gone you have to be prepared to stop fishing and watch these people in these crafts from not bumping into you. That year I was hit two times in my backside and the people complained that you are in their way. Also the bug life is no longer there, and whenever they are not generating the water has been to low. We best places to fish not is in east Tennessee. My little creek here has a lot of brim, shellcrackers, bluegills, redeyes, and small and largemouth bass. But have really got back into smaller bamboo. In the Smokey Mountains I've always fished smaller rods. At the Bamboo Bash we have in Townsend I would say the majority of the rods that are brought here to cast and fish are 8' and under. Barry

[Canewrap]

Barry, I'm with you. The Elk River in Tennessee has also gone to pot and has the boating issue as well. I fish a lot of the smaller streams and rivers in N. Alabama for the same kind of fish you mention (bluegill, shellcracker, and various bass). My best rod for that fishing has been my 6'8" 5/6 wt I designed myself. A longer rod would be uncastable in the undergrowth I usually deal with. The upside is I almost always have this water to myself and can catch as many panfish as my heart desires. -Bill

[Tommasini]

In general, the reason some people don't like short rods is because they lack the casting experience to make them work. Short rods require more skill on the part of the caster, if you try one for only 5 min., your not going to like it. I think I should credit Ed Shenk and Tom Maxwell with that statement , albeit paraphrased.

[jeffkn1]

Hi,
An opinion topic, just curious. Why do so many anglers today seem to enjoy fishing shorter rods and lighter lines, when (based on the number I see available in the vintage rod market) the 9', 6 or HDH weight seems to have been the most popular in bamboo's golden age?

It's difficult to make sense out of 19th and 20th century rods when viewing them through 21st century eyes.

Thanks to habitat loss and degradation, most of today's suitable clean trout waters are relatively small, introducing more casting hazards.

Fewer people fish bait on the fly rod than they did 100 years ago. Ditto, small lures. Go look through a pre-WW II Heddon catalog and take note of the number of small lures of all kinds - bugs, spinners, wood baits - that could not be cast with anything except a fly rod. And a 6 or 7wt fly rod could cast a wider range of baits in a wider range of situations than a smaller, lighter line rod. Tight loops and high line speeds weren't necessary, nor practical, with bulky baits.

50 years ago, you might carry 3x/4x/5x tippet spools. Today, it's more often 4x/5x/6x, or lighter.

Back when Sage introduced their Graphite II series, I fished everything from a size 24 up to a size 2 on a 6wt 8 1/2' rod. It's folly to think that small, light line rods could have done that on the waters I fished. I sometimes fished #2 weighted Pteronarcys nymphs or #4 Matuka streamers in deeper waters. Too much....um...physics involved for the little sticks to handle comfortably.

The 'weight' thing is mostly in our heads. We are bigger and stronger than our forbears.

All of which shows why so few little rods were being sold, and why they're so scarce and pricey now.

[Woodlakejag]

I don’t know, I would guess the most common length fly rod sold today is still a 9 ft 5 or 6 weight. It’s just that today most fly rods that are sold are graphite.

[Brooks]

In general, the reason some people don't like short rods is because they lack the casting experience to make them work. Short rods require more skill on the part of the caster, if you try one for only 5 min., your not going to like it. I think I should credit Ed Shenk and Tom Maxwell with that statement , albeit paraphrased.

I would mildly disagree. I think casting light lines takes more skill, regardless of length. And shorter rods are often "lighter line" rods. I've taught many many casting lessons with short rods (specifically: 7-footers, 7 & 1/2) . They are an advantage in teaching kids and smaller gals--provided they cast and load with a line heavy enough that the beginner can feel and grasp the concept of "loading" the rod (or bending the spring as I sometimes explain to them). I prefer 6-weights or 7's for teaching with short rods. Adults and larger folks, I prefer 8'1/2 footers or nines for teaching.

Tunneling through thick brush, laying on your belly sticking your head and arms out over the bank, a' la Ed Shenk, the short rods definitely are an advantage.