Fishing with Floating Flies

by Samuel G. Camp

The sportsman familiar with the diversity of fishing-rod materials will at once note the implied elimination of rods constructed of the various solid woods, such as bethabara, greenheart, lancewood, dagama, and others, as well as of split-cane rods of other than six-strip construction, such as the eight-strip, steel-centered, double-built, and so on. It is not my purpose to consider at length historically, theoretically, or practically, the matter of fishing-rod materials as compared one with the other—matters quite fully discussed in my volume on "Fishing Kits and Equipment." Rather it seems best to state once and for all that past experience has proved and present use serves only to emphasize the fact that there is no better fly-rod, all things considered, for the trout fly-fisherman than the one of six strips of cane, rent from the whole cane, carefully fashioned by hand and assembled with skill.

Of the solid wood fly-rods it is generally believed that bethabara (washaba, "noibwood") is the best. My own experience with this material has been such that I cannot discuss it with any great enthusiasm. Greenheart is largely used in England for all sorts of fishing-rods, but over there, also, the split-cane rod is conceded first place for the trout fly-rod, and is constantly increasing in use.

Parenthetically, the present trend of English anglers is toward the use of shorter and lighter rods of the American style, the two-handed fourteen-foot affair for trout fly-fishing being little in evidence; in fact, one of our most reputable firms of rod-makers annually sends a considerable number of fly-rods to England. But the split-cane fly-rods of the English makers and anglers are still much stiffer and heavier, length for length, than those favored in this country. For instance, a split-cane fly-rod constructed by a very famous firm of rod-makers according to the directions of Mr. F. M. Halford, whose angling books and articles, largely on dry fly-fishing, are absolutely authoritative as well as most readable, sensible, and genuinely informative for the American as well as the English fly-fisherman, is nine and a half feet in length with a weight of nine and a half ounces. An American split-bamboo fly-rod of this length would not, at the utmost, weigh over six ounces. Moreover, this proportion of weight to length—except in rods called "featherweights"—is maintained throughout the general run of English split-cane fly-rods in common use.

The American fly-caster for trout need not concern himself other than theoretically, as a matter of general angling information, with octagonal, double-built, or steel-centered split-cane rods. Eight-strip rods are commonly produced in this country—at a considerably higher figure than the rod of six strips—but it is generally and wholly agreed among those who know that there is nothing to recommend the octagonal over the hexagonal rod. The double-built rod—a rod in which each triangular strip of cane, as finally ready for completing the rod, is composed of two strips cemented together, superimposed, thus having two thicknesses of the hard outer enamel—is undoubtedly desirable where great strength is imperative, but hardly requisite for the trout fly-rod. Practically the same may be said of the steel-centered rod. Double-built rods are not made in this country. Only one firm of rod-makers produces a steel-centered rod.

To the experienced fly-fisherman the impossibility of such a thing as an "all-round" fly-rod is constantly more apparent. No one rod can, in the very nature of things, prove thoroughly adapted to the variety of trout streams whipped by the angler even within a restricted territory. Angling conditions vary considerably with each stream; upon one water a rod of four ounces, or even less, eight feet in length is exactly the thing; for another stream the wise angler would rightly select a ten-foot rod of six ounces or thereabouts.

In view of this it is scarcely possible for one to recommend any particular length or weight of rod as being the most satisfactory and efficient. For small trout in small streams only the lightest tackle should be used for fly-fishing, either wet or dry. But, particularly with reference to casting the dry fly, it may be said that a fly-rod of from nine and a half to ten feet is the most desirable for streams of average size. While it is seldom necessary for the dry fly caster to cast any great distance, it is only in the longer rods that really good casting power can be obtained; and casting power, in view of the preferable use of a somewhat heavy tapered line and the constantly repeated process of drying the fly, Is very necessary.

The ten-foot fly-rod, other things being equal, is probably the most efficient tool for the dry fly fisherman. However, a nine-and-a-half-foot rod is a sweeter rod to handle, is suited to a greater diversity of trout waters, and, granting good material and action, is sufficiently powerful for average work—the foregoing, by the way, with the understanding that increased length spells increased capacity for handling the line, which certainly does not follow unless the rods are built on the same proportional dimensions and in proportionate weights. The five-ounce rod of the tournament fly-caster is a very different matter from the five-ounce rod of the average practical stream fisherman.

The rod for dry fly casting must not be too light in the butt; otherwise the rod will lack line-driving power; the tip, also, must not be too light and pliant, or it will result in the practical impossibility of lifting the heavy tapered line quickly and neatly from the water when a fair length of line is out. However, while a strong, speedy, and resilient rod is manifestly indicated, its action must not be too harsh—if possible the golden mean should be the final choice. The fly-caster should never lose sight of the fact that fly-casting, pure and simple, is by no means all of fly-fishing—that in the selection of the fly-rod its suitability to striking, playing, and landing a trout must receive careful consideration.

Fly-rods which answer all too strongly to the quick impulse of the angler's wrist when striking a rising fish are by no means rare. Bearing in mind the small flies and delicate leaders necessarily used in dry fly fishing, the result of striking too strenuously can easily be imagined, but the fault cannot be corrected if the use of a rod too stiff and harsh in action is persisted in. Moreover, during the process of playing a trout, it is essential that the rod give and take with the movements of the fish, exerting an even but not too decided strain. A stiff rod is a very risky one with which to play a fish; there is great danger of the unconscious employment of too much force; a trout even poorly hooked may usually be safely landed if delicately handled, but a fish quite firmly fastened can easily be lost if forced by the angler. A rod possessing just the correct degree of elasticity and resiliency may often offset errors of judgment on the part of the angler while playing a fish, but a rod of incorrect action can never be other than a handicap no matter how skilfully It may be handled.

In the selection of the dry fly-rod it is well, however, while avoiding the really stiff rod, to favor one with an adequate degree of "backbone"—in other words, steer very clear of the whippy rod. For dry fly casting no line is the equal of the double-tapered silk line, enameled or vacuum-dressed, and a rather heavier article than the ordinary level line chosen for wet fly fishing should be used. The rod must have sufficient casting power to handle a line of this sort. The line generally employed is size E. The matter of the mutual adaptability of line and rod will be treated later; it can, however, be noted here that only a rod tending to stiffness rather than whippiness is capable of rightly handling the line designated.