Why short rods?

This board is for discussing concerns of fishing bamboo fly rods. Examples would be, lines, actions, classic and modern makers actions and the like.

Moderators: pmcroberts, uniphasian

User avatar
Short Tip
Bamboo Fanatic
Posts: 3443
Joined: 02/26/06 19:00
Location: Old Dominion

Re: Why short rods?

#41

Post by Short Tip »

quashnet wrote:
09/23/21 13:01
Small streams are unsuitable for trolling, so I can understand why you wouldn't enjoy them.
That one made me laugh out loud! Or LOL as we faddish collectors like to say.

User avatar
Flykuni3
Bamboo Fanatic
Posts: 3267
Joined: 12/21/11 14:11
Location: California

Re: Why short rods?

#42

Post by Flykuni3 »

Why go short, say, a cane rod of 6' -- 7', casting lines 2--4 at tops? Favorite 6x, a good floaty attractor, and durable for all the slashing trout and branches that grab? And good wading boots with good felts? And a sandwich, pal -- or solo -- camera and water bottle and breathe deep the fresh, mountain air? Going back to this Sierra creek in a few weeks. That is why. Ahhh.

Image

This brown fellow battled and battled, ran all over the small stream. Magnificent fight on a 7' Edwards Autograph.

Image

User avatar
scarlet>fire
Guide
Posts: 136
Joined: 08/29/20 07:56
Location: Cheyenne, Wyoming

Re: Why short rods?

#43

Post by scarlet>fire »

Beautiful, Flykuni3. Good luck when you go back!

Cheers, Chris

User avatar
Caneghost
Bamboo Fanatic
Posts: 1185
Joined: 06/15/13 18:51
Location: Hancock, NY
Contact:

Re: Why short rods?

#44

Post by Caneghost »

I freely admit that Ed Shenk had a big influence upon me, and the short rods he loved were perfect for the Cumberland Valley spring creeks. I learned they are not only fun to fish, but were far better tools for fighting big trout in cover and tight quarters. A short rod reacts quicker when you have to change angles, etc. whether there is brush in your way or not. Ed loved them down to 5 1/2' and 6' lengths. 7' is a sweet spot for me, as I fish much larger waters now and cast longer distances, targeting large trout. I fish rods to 8' on the Delaware regularly and can reach anywhere I need to with them.
I have two special 7 footers for big fish, a Tom Smithwick 7' for a 5 line and the rod I call the Shenk Tribute Rod just made by Tom Whittle to fish with Ed's Hardy Featherweight and a four line. Distance casting is no problem with either of these wonderful rods, and they are a joy to fish.

The Tribute rod's first fish? A bit over 20" from the Neversink. I honestly don't fish the little five foot wide streams any more, and short rods are still the most fun! Ed used to say that if longer rods were so much "easier" to cast, mend, etc. "then where's the challenge?" Amen!


Image

Image
...a wink of gold like the glint of sunlight on polished cane...

brightwatercatskill.art.blog

User avatar
VanfromMaine
Guide
Posts: 105
Joined: 07/17/19 17:07
Location: Wiscasset, Maine

Re: Why short rods?

#45

Post by VanfromMaine »

kevinhaney1 wrote:
09/23/21 10:31
I know a lot of you will probably disagree about this, but my own opinion is that some streams are just too small to fish. I’m talking about the ones that are only a few feet wide or less.
If you want to see some fishing REALLY small brooks check out my Favorite blog. Small Stream Reflections

User avatar
carl otto
Master Guide
Posts: 863
Joined: 01/31/10 19:00
Location: Michigan

Re: Why short rods?

#46

Post by carl otto »

Interesting thread.

If memory serves me right the majority of rods built before 1950 seemed to be in the 8'6" and 9'0" format, 4 WT and up. Shorter rods were offered for more specific work, but rare in their manufacture. That is why those earlier short rods command(ed) such high prices on the used rod market. Most folks were not bushwhacking in small streams, but on decent rivers, lakes/ponds fishing. After the 50's one found more shorter rods being manufactured. Maybe it was easier to make, package and ship a shorter rod. With the new emergence of bamboo rod building back in the 80's I would think tackling a shorter rod would be easier than building longer sections and multi-piece long rods. Based on the builders I know and the pricing one sees on their sites, its easier to build shorter rods, so why not steer purchasers in that direction. Also, and until recently, it was impractical to build a long bamboo rod for 2,3 & 4 weight lines. So, if one wanted to fish these light lines they used shorter rods.

Time and again this comes up. A longer fly rod is more advantageous for most situations than a shorter one. That is why there are so many made then and now in all materials. Yes, lots of folks spring forth with pictures of tree tunneled streams and point out this is small rod water, and Lee Wulff caught Atlantic salmon on a 6 foot rod, BUT how many of us are fishing in such places? I grew up fishing an 8'6" Heddon Pal in Michigan, and I fished the small streams of the UP and Isle Royale without a problem. You can drift a nymph down and through a minute pool without any line on the water and when you came to a beaver pond....or found Coasters rising in a Lake Superior bay.....Watch Joe Humphreys fish his little Rhododendron choked Pennsylvania streams, he is fishing a 9 foot rod and never seems to have a problem, casting through the trees, bow and arrow casting in under a canopy, circle cast out, around and out in a small clearing and the like. A fly rod is a tool. The skill of the user is what makes the tool shine or fail.

The accuracy point. Hmmmm... what length rod do you see at the Golden Gate and other open competitions. Not 7 footers. Again, its about the skill of the user. A tool does not make one better at a craft. Practice and experience hone ones skills.

Weight, older longer rods were mostly heavier and tended to be slower. Then there were E. C. Powell's and Winston's. And now? There are so many good builders building lightweight, hollow, responsive, long rods that the weight argument goes by the wayside. I own a 9'0" Hanson 4 WT. which weighs out finished just a touch over 3 ounces, less than some graphite rods I see on the racks. It is a quick, responsive rod in any condition.

Don't get me wrong, I love a Payne 98, Young Midge/Princess/Driggs/Perfectionist....great rods all. (Interesting Young and you might say Dickerson, built a good number of rods 8 foot or less in length. Others?) Most of the time though, no matter what the stream width, one will find me with a rod well over 8 feet on stream, there is so much more you can do with them, which outweighs any negatives the length may impose.

Based on the responses to the original post, I know I open myself up for a deluge of small rod proponents to come nipping at my heals. Let's pick a variety of different water conditions and have a shoot out... small stream, normal sized river, big river, lake, pocket water, nymph and dry, wading, shore and from a boat, normal equipment. Let a friendly competition settle this out.

Is that a glove on the floor ;)

Carl

P.S: 20+ inch Cutt, with 8'6", 6WT, #16 Adams, 6X tippet, 15 foot wide mountain stream, casting 20 feet upstream into a pool and under overhanging willows, which were about four feet off the water.


Image

And by the way, the 8'6", 6WT., weighed 3.3 ounces.

User avatar
Seabowisha Salmo T
Bamboo Fanatic
Posts: 1330
Joined: 01/15/07 19:00

Re: Why short rods?

#47

Post by Seabowisha Salmo T »

carl otto wrote:
09/24/21 15:14
Interesting thread.

If memory serves me right the majority of rods built before 1950 seemed to be in the 8'6" and 9'0" format, 4 WT and up. Shorter rods were offered for more specific work, but rare in their manufacture. That is why those earlier short rods command(ed) such high prices on the used rod market. Most folks were not bushwhacking in small streams, but on decent rivers, lakes/ponds fishing. After the 50's one found more shorter rods being manufactured. Maybe it was easier to make, package and ship a shorter rod. With the new emergence of bamboo rod building back in the 80's I would think tackling a shorter rod would be easier than building longer sections and multi-piece long rods. Based on the builders I know and the pricing one sees on their sites, its easier to build shorter rods, so why not steer purchasers in that direction. Also, and until recently, it was impractical to build a long bamboo rod for 2,3 & 4 weight lines. So, if one wanted to fish these light lines they used shorter rods.

Time and again this comes up. A longer fly rod is more advantageous for most situations than a shorter one. That is why there are so many made then and now in all materials. Yes, lots of folks spring forth with pictures of tree tunneled streams and point out this is small rod water, and Lee Wulff caught Atlantic salmon on a 6 foot rod, BUT how many of us are fishing in such places? I grew up fishing an 8'6" Heddon Pal in Michigan, and I fished the small streams of the UP and Isle Royale without a problem. You can drift a nymph down and through a minute pool without any line on the water and when you came to a beaver pond....or found Coasters rising in a Lake Superior bay.....Watch Joe Humphreys fish his little Rhododendron choked Pennsylvania streams, he is fishing a 9 foot rod and never seems to have a problem, casting through the trees, bow and arrow casting in under a canopy, circle cast out, around and out in a small clearing and the like. A fly rod is a tool. The skill of the user is what makes the tool shine or fail.

The accuracy point. Hmmmm... what length rod do you see at the Golden Gate and other open competitions. Not 7 footers. Again, its about the skill of the user. A tool does not make one better at a craft. Practice and experience hone ones skills.

Weight, older longer rods were mostly heavier and tended to be slower. Then there were E. C. Powell's and Winston's. And now? There are so many good builders building lightweight, hollow, responsive, long rods that the weight argument goes by the wayside. I own a 9'0" Hanson 4 WT. which weighs out finished just a touch over 3 ounces, less than some graphite rods I see on the racks. It is a quick, responsive rod in any condition.

Don't get me wrong, I love a Payne 98, Young Midge/Princess/Driggs/Perfectionist....great rods all. (Interesting Young and you might say Dickerson, built a good number of rods 8 foot or less in length. Others?) Most of the time though, no matter what the stream width, one will find me with a rod well over 8 feet on stream, there is so much more you can do with them, which outweighs any negatives the length may impose.

Based on the responses to the original post, I know I open myself up for a deluge of small rod proponents to come nipping at my heals. Let's pick a variety of different water conditions and have a shoot out... small stream, normal sized river, big river, lake, pocket water, nymph and dry, wading, shore and from a boat, normal equipment. Let a friendly competition settle this out.

Is that a glove on the floor ;)

Carl

P.S: 20+ inch Cutt, with 8'6", 6WT, #16 Adams, 6X tippet, 15 foot wide mountain stream, casting 20 feet upstream into a pool and under overhanging willows, which were about four feet off the water.


Image

And by the way, the 8'6", 6WT., weighed 3.3 ounces.
as usual, i believe you have the best response.

regards, jim w

User avatar
quashnet
Bamboo Fanatic
Posts: 5205
Joined: 03/22/04 19:00

Re: Why short rods?

#48

Post by quashnet »

No one should criticize you for presenting such a well-balanced discussion. The OP, who started his Hardy reels thread by claiming that "most of them look like old hunks of unpainted metal," and began this short rods thread by dismissing them as "the latest fad," is merely trying to stir the pot. I think most respondents are amused, rather than defensive about their interest in shorter fly rods.

By 1950, Paul Young thought that his rod making reputation would rest upon two models - the 8'0" Parabolic 15 and the 9'0" Nymph Rod. But things changed in a hurry. In addition to the reasons you mentioned, bamboo rods quickly became shorter because of the US government's embargo on goods and materials shipped from China. By 1952, Young was worried that he would soon run out of culms and his dream of building rods from scratch would be over. Building shorter rods made the bamboo last longer. Young didn't know that his supply problem would be solved by big makers like Heddon getting out of bamboo and into fiberglass as a rod making material, and selling their culms to smaller shops like his.

My family ran a saltwater charter fishing business in the 1950s and 1960s. As a contrast to the long and heavy saltwater tackle, we got into small fly rods for our freshwater fishing. I still own, and occasionally fish, a 7'3" Garcia Conolon fiberglass fly rod that I know I was fishing for brook trout over sixty years ago. I remember Dad buying it, and I remember my first fish caught on it. Somewhere around here I think I still have a South Bend seven-footer from the same time period. We certainly knew what longer rods were. We just didn't enjoy them as much. (I also remember a 1960s trip to New York with my dad when I was a kid. We went to Abercrombie & Fitch, where on the ground floor I saw a stool made from an elephant's foot. But then we went upstairs to the rod shop. Boy do I wish now that my father had bought some of those little fly rods that were hanging on the wall).

Fast forward six decades and for my trout fishing I enjoy Young fly rods ranging from a four-weight 6'3" Midge to a 9'0" Nymph Rod that takes a five weight line. As a casting tool the Midge is not the equal of a Driggs or a Perfectionist, but there are tight little woodland streams I go where I wouldn't preferentially fish anything else. Al McClane enjoyed fishing his 7'6" Perfectionist pretty much anywhere (see his 1965 article, "The Case for the Flea Rod"), and I can't say that I blame him. But if you ever invite me to fish with you over a variety of water conditions, well then in addition to a Perfectionist I just might also bring the Driggs, and a Para 15, and a Nymph Rod too. After all (and I'm sure you would agree), if fishing isn't fun, then what's the point?
Please visit and bookmark the Paul H. Young Rod Database
Image
Other rod databases: Dickerson , Orvis , Powell

User avatar
kevinhaney1
Master Guide
Posts: 631
Joined: 11/11/19 22:11
Location: The mountains of Maryland
Contact:

Re: Why short rods?

#49

Post by kevinhaney1 »

The OP, who started his Hardy reels thread by claiming that "most of them look like old hunks of unpainted metal," and began this short rods thread by dismissing them as "the latest fad," is merely trying to stir the pot.
Actually, nothing could be further from the truth, in both threads. I’ve only been flyfishing a couple of years so I’m still trying to understand the field. I’ve found that this forum is the best place for expert advice. I’ve never been an advocate of the troll lifestyle…

Kevin
Kevin Haney, Vintage Anglers
http://www.vintageanglers.com

User avatar
bugslinger
Bamboo Fanatic
Posts: 1157
Joined: 04/04/12 21:37

Re: Why short rods?

#50

Post by bugslinger »

Why not short rods......

rsagebrush
Bamboo Fanatic
Posts: 2266
Joined: 08/11/05 18:00
Location: RenoNV/FranklinWV 100%

Re: Why short rods?

#51

Post by rsagebrush »

Perhaps I am behind the curve but are they doing casting competitions on small brush lined creeks now?

User avatar
Greg Reynolds
Bamboo Fanatic
Posts: 3087
Joined: 12/21/04 19:00
Location: The Laurel Highlands, PA

Re: Why short rods?

#52

Post by Greg Reynolds »

A few comments & rebuttals Carl...

...Shorter rods were offered for more specific work...

• True, fishing tiny canopied streams in mountainous terrain being one example.

...Most folks were not bushwhacking in small streams...

• True, but some did and some of us still do…

...A longer fly rod is more advantageous for most situations than a shorter one...

• True, but they’re a disadvantage when fishing tiny canopied streams in mountainous terrain.

Yes, lots of folks spring forth with pictures of tree tunneled streams and point out this is small rod water... ...BUT how many of us are fishing in such places?

• Why do you care how many of us fish tiny streams? They’re what's available locally if I want to pursue wild trout, so I do.

...Watch Joe Humphreys fish his little Rhododendron choked Pennsylvania streams, he is fishing a 9 foot rod and never seems to have a problem, casting through the trees, bow and arrow casting in under a canopy, circle cast out, around and out in a small clearing and the like...

• Sorry Otto, but Humphreys recommended 7 to 7 ½-foot rods for "brush fishing" in both On the Trout Stream with Joe Humphreys and Joe
Humphreys Trout Tactics
. A 7-foot rod can be too long on plenty of our local streams, some of which aren't 7-foot wide in the dry months.
Revisit those photos you refer to in my initial post...

...A fly rod is a tool. The skill of the user is what makes the tool shine or fail...

• A skilled carpenter doesn’t use a 3-pound club hammer to drive finishing nails. The right tool for our local mountain streams is a short rod.

Don't get me wrong, I love a Payne 98, Young Midge/Princess/Driggs/Perfectionist....great rods all. (Interesting Young and you might say Dickerson, built a good number of rods 8 foot or less in length. Others?) Most of the time though, no matter what the stream width, one will find me with a rod well over 8 feet on stream, there is so much more you can do with them, which outweighs any negatives the length may impose.

• Don’t get me wrong. I fish long rods when they’re appropriate--on the larger stocked freestone streams in the Laurel Highlands and the central
Pennsylvania limestone streams for example.

Based on the responses to the original post, I know I open myself up for a deluge of small rod proponents to come nipping at my heals...

• I’m just an experienced & reasonably skilled proponent of selecting the best rod for the conditions.

:)

User avatar
GerardH
Bamboo Fanatic
Posts: 1071
Joined: 06/20/19 08:45
Location: Wyoming, MN

Re: Why short rods?

#53

Post by GerardH »

carl otto wrote:
09/24/21 15:14
Yes, lots of folks spring forth with pictures of tree tunneled streams and point out this is small rod water, and Lee Wulff caught Atlantic salmon on a 6 foot rod, BUT how many of us are fishing in such places?
I hope that was a rhetorical question, but in the event that it wasn't...you've seemed to have dropped your glove, sir.

Over 50 years of fishing these streams and 45 years fly fishing them: This brookie was the first with my new Midge build -- and several more subsequent to this one -- last April and was taken in this tag alder choked stretch with a PHY Midge copy. It was a struggle to even get a 7'6" rod in there prior to getting this build, the Midge made fishing in that tangle doable.

Image

Image

So I respectfully have to disagree with your assertion...the pics I post aren't b.s. and my first 10 years or so of trout fishing, these rivulets were all I knew and I keep returning to them to this day to fish with the ghosts of my childhood friends. Hence why I specifically wanted a Midge taper...Quash can vouch how I much I bugged him via PM to pry his experiences and opinion from him and Perry Palin can attest my inviting myself to his place to cast his PHY MIdge before ordering a copy -- I figured it was the most effective rod for these northern WI streams and it's proven its worth several times over in its inaugural season.

Bottom line is that I'm not sure how many people play 18 holes with just a driver in their bag. As mentioned in Greg's post above, different conditions call for different rods. FWIW, I do have an 8' rod on order.

User avatar
Flykuni3
Bamboo Fanatic
Posts: 3267
Joined: 12/21/11 14:11
Location: California

Re: Why short rods?

#54

Post by Flykuni3 »

Dapping a 9’ rod on a small stream isn’t true fly fishing, it’s tenkara, which in Japanese means “beginner.”

rsagebrush
Bamboo Fanatic
Posts: 2266
Joined: 08/11/05 18:00
Location: RenoNV/FranklinWV 100%

Re: Why short rods?

#55

Post by rsagebrush »

Actually doesn't it mean fishing from Heaven; apparently there are a lot of beginners out there. Actually I've never dapped with tenkara but I have with a western fly rod, go figure.

HexaMaineiac
Master Guide
Posts: 556
Joined: 01/08/04 19:00

Re: Why short rods?

#56

Post by HexaMaineiac »

Not only for tight, canopied brooks. I made a 6’6” rod for a six weight, based on the PHY Midge, that I use on a big river. I’ll start out with a longer rod, but as it gets dark and fish are rising by my pram that little rod allows me to cast with just a couple of feet of line and a furled leader. Of all the rods I’ve made none makes people smile more than that one.

rsagebrush
Bamboo Fanatic
Posts: 2266
Joined: 08/11/05 18:00
Location: RenoNV/FranklinWV 100%

Re: Why short rods?

#57

Post by rsagebrush »

Yes, my Orvis Rocky Mountain 6'6" 3pce seems to work pretty well on the local spring creeks around here because of all the cover but I don't use it much for river fishing.

Canewrap
Bamboo Fanatic
Posts: 2605
Joined: 12/07/03 19:00
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Why short rods?

#58

Post by Canewrap »

Carl, you said, "Yes, lots of folks spring forth with pictures of tree tunneled streams and point out this is small rod water... ...BUT how many of us are fishing in such places?

I am fishing in such places 90% of the time. Living in North Alabama the best fishing is on the small streams. I can go an hour south for the only trout fishing, but it's basically fishing in a ditch with put and take fish. I now have a lot of fish (mix of bass and other panfish) and quite a few hours on a bamboo rod I made from scratch and designed for this environment, where rollcasting 40 feet is the key to not lining fish (they're still wild fish) and a short rod (7' 6wt) makes it easier to get through the brush without breaking the rod.

User avatar
Flykuni3
Bamboo Fanatic
Posts: 3267
Joined: 12/21/11 14:11
Location: California

Re: Why short rods?

#59

Post by Flykuni3 »

sage, I was being gentle. it actually means hell, fishing in hell. As a beginner. I understand these work well on tenkara rods.

Image

User avatar
Flykuni3
Bamboo Fanatic
Posts: 3267
Joined: 12/21/11 14:11
Location: California

Re: Why short rods?

#60

Post by Flykuni3 »

carl otto wrote:
09/24/21 15:14

The accuracy point. Hmmmm... what length rod do you see at the Golden Gate and other open competitions. Not 7 footers. Again, its about the skill of the user. A tool does not make one better at a craft. Practice and experience hone ones skills.
Ha. Casting competitions do not take place on tight, brushy streams. If they did I know which rods would work, and which most certainly would not.

This
Image

Sure ain't this.

Image

Post Reply

Return to “Fishing Bamboo Fly Rods”