TimD

Peter, I think the weight ratings on rods for a number of manufacturers a guess at best. A rod that may be a fast action 6wt could have a medium action when casting an 8. I have a 6wt that has no problem tossing 8wt lines until the casts get over 60'. The first thing to do would be to move the rod back and forth over your head without line on it to get a feel for how it bends without weight. Then use about 30' of line and make a normal back cast. The rod should load (bend down from straight) and then unload (bend up from straight) when you make the stop (1 O'clock). If the rod does not load and unload then you may be using a fast rod and you will have to accelerate your arm faster and stop quicker to get the rod to load and unload. If that does not work then your rod is probably under-lined and you should try a heavier line. If you don't have one ask a buddy or go to a fly shop that you know - they probably have some loaners. If the rod loads but does not unload, you may have a situation where the rod is overlined. Try lighter lines until the rod acts properly. The feeling of a rod loading and unloading is hard to describe but not too hard to feel. As you make your backcast, the rod bends towards the line storing potential energy. When the casting stop happens it transfers that energy into motion and the line accelerates behind you as the rod flips positions from being bent down to being bent towards where the line is going. Regards, Tim

Brent, Take a tip from me, figure out how to get closer to those fish and you will catch a lot more. Regards, Tim

Rickr, I think you got it. Rods don't generate line speed, arms do. People that can't accelerate their arms quickly enough to load the rod find that it casts like broomstick. The one part that I would disagree a bit about is about distance. Most of the name anglers I have talked to say that line control is way more important than distance. The NLFT just had Skip Morris up for a seminar and he said that 15' plus leader is what people should aim for. Most of the authors I know say that the working cast is 30' and accuracy is more important than distance. Tournament casters are just casters- they are not fly anglers. Fly angling is about presentation and line control. This BS about needing super fast rods to catch fish is just a bunch of marketing junk trying to move over-priced product, fly rods are not golf drivers, they are more like putters or wedges. There are lots of Happy Gilmores out there who can drive a ton but not get a round under 80. Fly fishing is about getting the fly in front of the trout in a way that gets them to take it - not talking about how far the rod casts. Cheers, Tim

From rodbuilding.org: http://www.common-cents.info/part5.pdf In this dynamic straightening process, the speed of the rod tip starts at zero (fully loaded) and reaches a maximum at the point the rod reaches its original “straight” position. Then, it slows and the line, now traveling faster than the tip, forms the loop and the cast is on its way. The line can never travel faster than the tip. (Hauls represent a different situation.) The “speed of the stop” (i.e., how quickly the angler can decelerate the rod) and rod tip velocity are the critical factors in how far one can cast a line. Badger, You can disagree all you want, but you can't have an increasing constant - please show me where the guy talks about it on rodbuilding.org? Where does he talk about rod mass? Feel free to find somewhere that says spring mass is a determinant in its potential energy. Overlining works until the limit for elastic range of the spring has been met. There are a lots of guides out there that help clients that are weak casters by overlining their rods. I used to cast 7wt lines with my 5 wt rod and the rod could handle it until its range topped out (about 50-60 feet). The little quote I have above talks about f=ma. The only way to get acceleration is to move your arm. The basic casting stroke is to gather up slack line, start slow, accelerate and then stop. The well-timed stop lets the rod unload and deliver the line. So it is about casting skill more than anything. From Brent: In essence though, overlining a rod helps make that rod slower, and underlining makes it quicker, so suddenly we're back at the fact that a faster rod will cast further... K is only a constant for that ONE spring (rod). Of course this is all irrelevant, as someone who could be the best caster you've ever seen with a fast rod, might have their technique completely ruin trying to cast a slow one you're also taking it far too literal, obviously there are far more motions in work then just conservation of energy (let alone that a rod is not a spring) Brent, Overlining up to a point helps the spring (rod) load, too heavy of a line will turn the spring into overcooked spaghetti. A faster rod will cast further if the spring (rod) is loaded and that means greater acceleration (when mass is held constant). I don't think it is irrelevant - they do not suspend the laws of physics for fly fishermen - they just allow us to make them longer. But I do agree with you totally that it is more about casting skill than the rod someone is holding. Here is wikipedia on Hooke's Law and linear springs: Objects that quickly regain their original shape after being deformed by a stress, with the molecules or atoms of their material returning to the initial state of stable equilibrium, often obey Hooke's law. We may view a rod of any elastic material as a linear spring. The rod has length L and cross-sectional area A. Its extension (strain) is linearly proportional to its tensile stress, σ by a constant factor, the inverse of its modulus of elasticity, E, hence, \sigma = E \varepsilon or \Delta L = \frac{F}{E A} L = \frac{\sigma}{E} L. Hooke's law only holds for some materials under certain loading conditions. Steel exhibits linear-elastic behavior in most engineering applications; Hooke's law is valid for it throughout its elastic range (i.e., for stresses below the yield strength). For some other materials, such as aluminium, Hooke's law is only valid for a portion of the elastic range. For these materials a proportional limit stress is defined, below which the errors associated with the linear approximation are negligible. Rubber is generally regarded as a "non-hookean" material because its elasticity is stress dependent and sensitive to temperature and loading rate. Applications of the law include spring operated weighing machines, stress analysis and modeling of materials. (Tim again)Sure sounds like the rodbuilding.org guy. Brent I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that a rod was a spring a few posts ago - as long as it is not made out of rubber. Cheers, Tim

Bigbadbrent, I think you math is a little out. K is the spring constant and unique to a fishing rod or any spring - it can't be used as a variable (thing of big springs vs little wienie springs). The other aspect of K is that it only works for the elastic range of the spring - meaning that overloading a rod could remove it's ability to recover. X is the rod load (deflection from straight). The equation pretty much says that the only way to impart more force to the line would be to load the rod more (i.e. increase X). The way I can think of to do that would be by accelerating one's arm faster MA (mass times acceleration) for a given length of line or by increasing the mass of the line used - as long as the elastic range was not breached. I teach my students that they have to start the cast slow, then accelerate quickly and then perform a dead stop with their arm. If they don't stop properly it reduces the spring's displacement and robs the cast of power. A couple of interesting points are that: Faster rods (higher K value) need more force to get the energy out of them - one needs to cast harder using more acceleration Over-lining for short distance casts would help the rod load better, as would under-lining for long casts. Since K is a constant, physics would tell us a rod that loads well for distance casting would not be as useful for shorter distances (that marketing BS about rods that are good for distance and close in is just physically impossible) Technique - timing, arm acceleration, transfer stop, and line hauling are way more important in casting than how expensive the rod is. Regards, Tim

I can sort of relate. I got my first fly rod in 72, I think I paid $10 and I don't know how long I saved for it - but it was a long time. The rod was a fiberglass Daiwa 7/8wt 8-1/2 foot and lasted me until I broke it at Struble lake in 1991. The fly line I bought with it was Aircel (same brand I use now) it cost about $8 and the reel was a Southbend that I still have. I caught a lot of fish and had a lot of fun with that fly rod. About 3 years after buying the Daiwa I saw one of those Fenwick Eagle graphites at a Woodwards' store, it was like $54 and I could only dream about paying that much for a fly rod. Reality sank in and I got over the Fenwick - the fish could not tell which fly rod I was using and they seemed happy with what I was delivering with my Daiwa. Cheers, Tim

Browntrout could you give me an example? I don't remember any bamboo rods being faster action than graphite. Regards, Tim

Bigbadbrent, Rod speed is needed for distance, but casting distance really tied to arm speed and the speed of the rod tip when it unloads. Imagine our friend with the broomstick, the maximum velocity of the line is related to how fast the angler moves their arm and the length of the broomstick (rod). Slow arm speed equals shorter casts. The difference between a broomstick and a fly rod is that the rod (when compared to a broomstick) actually moves slower as it loads and faster when it unloads. A fast rod is only faster than a slow rod when it is loaded, if the caster cannot load the rod it is no different than casting a broomstick. Some anglers think that getting a faster rod automatically means longer casts and that would be true only if they change their casting style somewhat. I find that when I am using one of my fast rods, I really have to accelerate the cast (move my arm very fast) , sometimes even using a haul on the pickup to load the rod and then do same thing on the forward cast in order to cast properly. That is fine when I am casting 60-80' but when casting 30-40', I have to accelerate the same way to load and then decelerate so I can get a nice presentation. Regards, Tim

Taco, I think his cast is a little wristy - but the haul seemed well-timed. Bigbrown, I hear people saying that a slow rod is for 'beginners' and I also hear that bamboo is the ultimate rod. Correct me if I am wrong but isn't bamboo one of the 'slowest' materials out there? I think that the 'fast rod is for experts' is just some type of marketing propaganda. Besides I think that there is a tradeoff between rod speed and control - most experts would want control. Regards, Tim

I had to wait way to long for the Sage I broke in July. Way too long in fact I called the factory and politely asked if they were serious about fly fishing. That is why I always have a backup rod. I still like the 'it depends' option. A fast rod may be nice for throwing bullets into the wind but it would pretty much suck when trying to drop a 20' cast on one of those slurpers at Stauffer. When I am fishing the Bow, I like a rod with more muscle than the one I use on the Crow or the Ram - way more current and water volume to deal with. Maybe someone could start a poll on asking what type of rod would be best for a particular type of fishing. If I were re-buying my inventory of rods, I would have mad sure they were all 4-piece ones; that way I could have saved buying two rods. Cheers, Tim

Presentation is related to angling skills like reading the water, working with light and terrain. It is something that is learned not bought - unless of course one takes angling lessons or reads a bunch of books on presentation. Longer casting is more a function of casting skill first and then rod design. There are lots of things that can be done before one has to buy another rod. Besides lots of rods that cast long are not that handy when casting a short distance. The majority of casts that catch fish are less than 30' - way better line control and setting response. When I have made 80'+ casts to a fish, I don't expect to hook it. I would agree with the lighter part, the difference would probably be less than 20 grams. I am pretty sure I can hold up that extra weight for a day of fishing. How would one measure if a rod is tougher, stronger and more sensitive. I know the person who is promoting the expensive rods says they are but how do they tell and how do we know they aren't just following a script? It is hard to say anything is tougher, stronger or more sensitive without having an objective measure - like a toughermometer. Line control and accuracy are casting/fishing skills. Give me a reasonable fishing rod (like any of the ones I have) and I will catch just as many fish. Better components - yes and - when I built my Sage SP, I made it from a blank using oversize guides, made a larger handle (full-wells), put in measuring marks and used a gorgeous rosewood reel seat. All of the components were higher-end than the Sage-built rods. It is one of six good rods that I own and I haven't lost one fish with any of my other rods due to a failure in component. Fly rods are really subjective tools and I won't blame a rod for me not catching a fish. They are always coming up with 'new and improved' rods that somehow make the old rods obsolete and anglers need to buy so they can consistently catch fish. It is almost like those golfers that keep blaming their putter instead of working on their putting. Best regards, Tim

I broke my St Croix 3 times the first year I owned it, have broke the Scott 3 times since I have bought it (only one was my fault- I swear it - but it was only partially my fault if I remember correctly), and I broke the Sage once - and that was Garry's fault - he hit it with a clouser doing about 40mph when we were fishing the Bow one spring. I told him he broke the rod and sure enough it broke in that very spot about 2 months later. Rods are fragile fishing tools and I get attached to them in the same way carpenters do hammers. I heard of an angler that met one of those TV guides somewhere down south in bonefish land; he asked the famous guide who the best rod manufacturer was and was told, "whoever pays me the most to use it." All in all they are only fly rods, just a means to an end. That is why I like rods with warranties - however the Martin is a nice 4 piece I got off ebay and I could not refuse at $25 (freight in) - even though it is sans warranty. Put a fish in front of me and hand me any fly rod - I will catch it. Cheers, Tim

Weedy my brother, The fly rod is only means to an end and I can catch fish with pretty much any fly rod as long as it can cast some line. As for the Martins, I had a somewhat famous guide tell me that if he had to pay full price, instead of the 1/3 of retail guide price that he pays for the high-end rods, he would be fishing Martins. Have a happy new year. See you at the lake. Cheers, Tim

How about a "It depends" selection? I have each of the following: Martin, Sage, St Croix, Powell, Scott and an 'I am not quite sure who made it' rods. They all work depending on the type of fishing and how I feel like fishing. Cheers, Tim

Brother, You posted that 2 out of like 10,000 are growing so there is 99.98% chance of a glacier receding; which by no coincidence means that it is warmer for glaciers now than it was. In other words, there is global warming. For you to support your side you should have evidence that says 99.98% of the glaciers are getting bigger - ergo - the world is getting cooler. Just saying the other side is wrong does not help your argument one bit. In fact only being able to find a minuscule number of growing glaciers in Canada is strong evidence that global warming does exist and I am pretty sure that some tree-huggers have sent thank-you notes for supporting their case. group hug, Tim

Kevin, All I am trying to do, as I am sure we all are, is protect against people who make wild accusations without backing up what they say. I would feel a little more comfortable about your position if you directly answered questions. Regards, Tim

Kevin, I will help answer my own question: There are like 10,000 glaciers on Baffin Island - it has 1/6 of Canada's total glacial area. So based on that there are maybe 60,000 glaciers and you only found two that are growing. That is not very good evidence for the case you are trying to make. You mention above that some areas are getting colder which ones are they? You say that the world is not increasing in temperature, could you please tell me where you are getting that data? Regards, Tim

Ok, so two are growing, how many glaciers are shrinking in Canada? What is the ratio of growing to shrinking? Regards, Tim

Civilized market societies have standards, regulations and licenses because it helps the marketplace function smoothly. Often where there is no regulation, user groups form and one of the first things they do is write up a code of conduct - I am thinking of the quad and skidoo people here. If these user groups don't have enough power then the government usually steps in with regulations. I can't think of a good case where one can talk of individual freedom without talking about responsibility. Sure the guides should be licensed, they should also have an association with a set of standards and behaviors that they all adhere to. They should also have some type of identification on their boats - so we know who the real guides are and who is just floating down the water - I have had drift boats interfere with my fishing a few times and I am not sure if it is a guided trip or a couple of people that don't have any etiquette. Charging royalties (user fees) to guides for using the resource is logical in one sense because nobody should ride for free but it would be hard to administer. I would hate to see some type of royalty payment without a code of conduct that says "guides will not move their clients into water being fished without getting permission." I could just see a situation where some guide says, "I paid to use this water and I have clients that should be shown some fish so we are going to fish in front of you." Regards, Tim

Here is one for you, I was fishing below Cottonwood GC and a guide boat came by while I was working a nice little spot. To my amazement, the guide pulled his clients away from my spot. Then to top it off, about 10 minutes later another boat did the same thing. I can't remember the last time that happened but I sure am glad that it did. I actually like that stretch of the river much better since the flood. Regards, Tim

Trust me too I don't mean to offend or be rude. Pumping and drawing conclusions with a small sample can lead to statistical wild goose chases. There are volumes of books written on sampling theory and they all point to more samples are better. I catch hundreds of fish on Chironomids each year, I use about 5 basic patterns: Chromie, Red Butt Chromie, Christmas Chromie, Burgandy Ice Cream Cone and a Black one. To me catch fish on Chironomids is mostly about depth and location, I use the same flies and adjust the other two until I catch fish. A friend of mine pumps fish (once in a while) and it works (sometimes). We catch about the same amount of fish. I teach fly fishing classes in Edmonton and ensure that every one of my students knows that the more they know the bugs, the more fish they will catch. That being said, I also teach them that they can scare up a lot of fish with a #14 Elk Hair Caddis on just about any freestone in Alberta. I also tell them that John Gierach (or A.K. Best or both) have a friend that catches a lot of fish using nothing but Royal Coachmen. So yes knowing the bugs are important (especially in lakes); but just as important is knowing how to read the water, and the value of using proper presentation techniques. Sometimes fish will get persnickety and anglers need an exact imitation, but those times are not as often as people think. I think we often give fish way too much credit trying to out think them. The vast, vast majority of fish feed opportunistically and a good presentation can make those freaky trout seem like suckers. Please don't take offense to this, some people get focused on imitation - and catch fish; while others focus on presentation - and catch fish. It is how well we take care of the resource that really matters. Cheers, Tim

Well not too backwards. All I was saying is that whatever fly you caught the fish on actually works so it is a good fly. If you found 5 red, 6 green and 4 black chironomids when catching a fish using a chromie - it is pretty clear that the chromie works. How about the example when you get 15 of the same chironomid and then change to that size and colour - now instead of a fly that stands out, it is just another bug that blends with the rest and some times there can be thousands of the same type in a cubic foot of water. People are always coming up with 'near perfect' imitations of bugs, but the flies that catch fish time in over time are the ones that are more suggestive that imitative. Making hasty generalizations on one sample may or may not work because there is no guarantee that the sample is representative of the population. The only thing that you know for sure is that the fly you caught the fish on actually works. The farthest I would go is to add a fly to the cast with the one that just caught the fish and see what works better. Regards, Tim

I think of it this way, If I am fishing just catch a fish and then pump it, all I find out is what that particular fish is eating. I also know that no matter what is in their throat, they took the fly I was using to catch the fish. So from that one fish I either learn that it took my fly because it was a great imitation of what was in the water or that the fish bit it because it looked good to them. Either way I have just caught a fish with a particular fly and I am not going to change flies from one that works to one that may or may not work. (The exception here being those situations when it is really slow and nothing has been working except the fly that I just caught this fish on.) Statistically speaking, and I can speak this way because I have a strong background in statistics, one fish is not a sample of what all fish are taking - it is a sample of one fish and small samples lead to a very high variance in extending the sample to apply to what the typical fish is eating. In other words, one cannot apply a sample of one fish to make a general rule about all the fish. What happens if the fish just caught has a vision defect, or a predisposition to a particular type of food, or is just feeding opportunistically? The sample size needs to be like 30 fish in order for the actual samples to have a reliable meaning. If I caught 30 fish on the same fly - I may not want to change flies. In short, pumping fish is ok because it helps anglers learn about what fish have been eating. Anglers will also learn about how many things that fish eat that are impossible to imitate (I have seen lots of fish pumped with size 30 chironomid larvae in their throat) but still have taken the angler's fly that did not imitate anything it the fish's throat. Some people swear by it and some people have swore off it, it seems to work either way. I think my time on the water is better spent fishing than pumping but others would not leave home without the baster. Cheers, Tim

Hey Taco, I am not much of a Gore fan, but I think we should err on the side of caution for this one. Besides nobody ever went broke saving money on fuel. For what it is worth, a lot of the US drop in greenhouse gas emissions have come from closure of manufacturing and heavy industry. Malls and office buildings pollute a lot less than car plants and steel mills. One person's environmental achievements are another's structural change in the economy. BTW - Chrysler is going to start building vehicles in China (for sale in the US) - it will probably earn them eco credits too. BTW 2 - Lots of those acid-rain affected rivers in the US north east are fish able again. While the fishing in China is not what it used to be. Regards, Tim