TROUT FLY-FISHING IN AMERICA 



As there is absolutely nothing in what Dr. Henshall 

 says about a fly-rod, not an iota of anything, that could 

 in all fairness have called forth such a suggestion as cul- 

 minates in this expression of opinion, what was it, then, 

 that prompted it? The reader must draw his own conclu- 

 sion. 



It requires something more than a mere statement of 

 opinion based solely upon an assumption to disprove a 

 principle, and surely some reasonable presentation of 

 facts to convince experienced anglers that Dr. Henshall 

 is wrong. 



Fifth — That a "soft" rod is not as good as a "more powerful 

 rod." 



Now we are informed that a "soft'' rod is not as good 

 as a "more powerful rod," and this is a fact when it is con- 

 sidered that a "soft" rod is one that is very willowy, or 

 flexible to a degree, and lacks the important feature of 

 resilience, while a "more powerful rod" is one that has 

 this essential characteristic to a marked degree. 



But no one save Mr. La Branche has mentioned either 

 kind of rod; surely Dr. Henshall has not done so, and 

 the rod he does mention most certainly could not, by any 

 stretch of the imagination, be called "soft." 



Let us again see just what it is that Dr. Henshall has 

 to say about the fly-rod: 



''// is the continuous spring and yielding resistance of the bent 

 rod, constantly maintained, that not only tires out the fish, but pro- 

 tects the weak snell or leader from breakage, and prevents a weak 



82 



