248 



FOREST AND STREAM. 



[April 24, 1884. 



LONG VS. SHORT FLY-RODS. 



Editor Forest and Stream: 



Premising that these remarks are confined solely to single- 

 handed rods, may not this problem be analyzed, and atleast 

 in part determined by reference to well settled mechanical 

 principles? 



It would seem that the excellence of a fly-rod depends on 

 the perfect embodiment of each of the following qualities ; 



1. Power to cast the fly. 



2. Power to control the fish after it is fastened, or "kill- 

 ing power." 



3. Ease and comfort in use. 



Other qualities of importance there are, but on reflection 

 they seem either to be embodied in, or necessarily to follow 

 one of the above. For instance, elasticity is a necessary con- 

 comitant of the first, strength of the second, lightness of the 

 third. 



That a fly-rod is a lever is too plain to admit of argument. 

 Whether the rod be lengthened or shortened, but one ele- 

 ment of this lever is varied, and that element is the longer 

 arm. To the end of this longer arm, the weight against 

 which the angler must labor, is applied, whether it be the 

 strain of the struggling fish, or the weight of the line and 

 the resistance it encounters from the air and water in 

 casting. 



It needs no Sir Isaac Newton to assure us, that with the 

 same -weight of line or fish, the muscular effort required 

 from the angler is greater with a long, than with a short 

 rod, since the power he must overcome is applied against 

 him at the end of a longei lever. 



The next question in order seems to be to determine, if 

 possible, what sacrifice in this respect each additional foot of 

 length requires. 



Using for this purpose the table computed by Mr. William 

 Mitchell of this city (as I am informed from direct experi- 

 ment), we find the leverage upon a rod: 



12 feet long. i%oz., reel and line 6}^oz leverage 30oz. 



11 feet long. 7J^oz., reel and line 5 oz. leverage 20oz. 



10 feet lo»ng, 4>goz., reel and line 3^oz leverage 16oz. 



Of course the leverage changes with the angle at which 

 the rod is held, bat sinte this affects every length alike, the 

 relative proportions are not varied thereby. 



If this table is correct, it would therefore appear that be- 

 tween two individuals, one using a twelve-foot, and the 

 other a ten-foot rod, the former is compelled to do nearly 

 twice as much work as the latter. Though this seems a 

 large difference, still I hardly think it wili be questioned by 

 one who tries such rods comparatively, one immediately 

 after the other. At all events such an one will admit that 

 the difference is very marked, and quite sufficient, after 

 some hours 1 use, considerably to affect the pleasure of an 

 angler of the average endurance of men of sedentary life. 



Therefore that the longer rod is under considerable disad- 

 vantange in this respect,^ seems to be certain. 



But let us consider the question further; for it may well 

 be that the longer rod offeis advantages in other directions, 

 more than sufficient to offset this. 



We will then pass to the second consideration — the power 

 to control the fish after he is fastened, which I take to be 

 substantially the same thing as "killing power." 



But the same laws of mechanics apply here as well; and 

 from them and the table it necessarily follows that to apply 

 the same strain upon the fish, he wdio uses a twelve-foot rod 

 must exert nearly double the effort of him who employs one 

 of ten feet. If the relative proportion stated be thought ex- 

 cessive, still it must be admitted that a very considerable 

 difference does exist, and in the direction indicated. 



The question may be advantageously viewed from another 

 standpoint. Which has the greater killing and controlling 

 power, a twelve-foot fly-rod, or an eight and a half foot stiff 

 rod such as is employed in salt-water fishing for striped bass? 

 This admits of but one answer; and it therefore seems un- 

 questionable that the killing power of a rod depends on its 

 length, only iu so far as increase in that respect increases the 

 effort the angler must exert to produce a given effect on the 

 fish; and that consequently the longer rod is again at a dis- 

 advantage. 



The foregoing seem to rest on established mechanical prin- 

 ciples, not to be gainsaid without at the same time con- 

 troverting rules, recognized as truths in designing every 

 construction of modern engineering skill. 



But the first proposition — power to cast the fly — cannot be 

 tested in this way. 



llere we stand on fairly debatable ground, for our only 

 appeal s-.enis to be to experience; or, in other words, to the 

 individual opinion which each reader may have formed from 

 the experience he has had. The circumstances under which 

 experience is gained are so important an element in determin- 

 ing the value, and the applicable limit of the teachings de- 

 rived therefrom, that divergent opinion must necessarily 

 follow. It may well be conceived that he whose angling 

 has been confined to waters wdiere a pound fish is a rare 

 event, and he who habitually fishes where such are regarded 

 as small fish, would differ on many points, perhaps radi- 

 cally. 



The writer has for quite a number of consecutive years 

 fished the streams of New York and Pennsylvania and the 

 ponds of Long Island for small trout, as well as the waters 

 of the Rangeley region of Maine for large. He is. therefore, 

 emboldened to express his individual opinion on this branch 

 of the question, and the reasons on which it is based. Many, 

 doubtless, will disagree with his conclusions, in just as firm 

 belief that they are erroneous, as he does that they are sound. 

 We all seek the truth, and only by fair discussion and honest 

 comparison of all sides of this important question can that 

 truth be reached. 



Those who ai the tournament at Central Park, on Oct. 16, 

 1883, saw t5 measured feet cast with a 10-foot rod, weighing 

 4f ounces, will hardly question the ability of a rod of that 

 length, and of say frj- or 7 ounces in weight, to meet every 

 requirement in this respect. Perhaps the discussion might 

 be rested right here by an appeal to the hundreds who, in 

 common with the writer, witnessed that feat. To such as 

 may be unfamiliar with that event, it may be remarked that 

 the caster stood upon a platform elevated one foot above the 

 water; that the distance was accurately measured from the 

 edge of the platform ; that the weight and length of rod were 

 correctly ascertained, and that a possible error of 18 inches 

 in the distance credited to the cast would be a very liberal 

 allowance. 



Attention might also be called to the fact that at a similar 

 event, in the preceding year — the caster standing three feet 

 above the water — 91 feet were reached with an eight-ounce 

 rod 10 feet 4| inches long, though it must be admitted that 

 this was a "rolling," and not an overhand cast. 



These facts would seem pretty decisive; still, let us go iuto 

 the matter a little further. 



At onetime the opinion was current, that an increase of 

 one foot in rod length, would be answered by a correspond- 

 ing increase of five feet in the possible length of the cast, 

 This allowance is now thought by many to be excessive. 



But admitting the five-foot standard, we then allow again 

 of ten feet in casting distance to the twelve over the ten foot 

 rod. 



For some years I have each season been in the way of see- 

 ing many excellent and skillful anglers cast day after day, 

 and all day long; and this where there was unlimited space 

 to swing all the line they might wish. In no instance can I 

 reoall a single cast in actual fishing that would exceed 65 

 feet measurement from the caster. I doubt if any would 

 even reach 60; while it is believed to be the general experi- 

 ence, that more than ninety-five out of every'hundred casts 

 in actual fly-fishing throughout the length and breadth of the 

 land, will fall within fifty measured feet. 



With average skill, 60 to 65 feet can readily be reached 

 with a ten-foot rod. 



The question then seems to resolve itself into this: Shall 

 double labor be constantly undergone, and power to control 

 and kill be sacrificed, to attain ten feet increase of cast— an 

 increase seldom or never to be utilized in actual fishing? 



It is a question of personal preference, which each must 

 decide for himself; but it seems to me it is "paying rather 

 dear for the whistle." 



One advantage, however, should in fairness be accredited 

 to the longer rod, and as far as I can learn from the teach- 

 ings of theory and practice, it is the only one. 



In fishing for the small trout of much-fished waters, so 

 handling the flies that the droppers just drop upon the sur- 

 face, undoubtedly gives the best result. It is clear the length 

 of cast can be more varied without losing this advantage 

 with a longer than with a shorter rod. Still, by adjusting 

 the flies on the leader at somewhat increased intervals, it is 

 believed that the disadvantage of the shorter rod in this re- 

 spect becomes slight, and by no means sufficient to offset its 

 other and decided points of superiority. 



1 seem to recognize a radical change of opinion on this 

 subject within the last few years. At first short rods were 

 only fit for baby -fishing, now their sphere of usefulness is 

 asserted by many to be confined to long-distance casting 

 from the tournament stand. 



Beginning with a twelve and a half foot rod, year by year 

 and little by little, I have reduced the length of my rods to 

 ten feet, and even below; after some experience in that 

 region, I confidently believe that with rod of the length last 

 named, the largest trout that swims the Rangeley waters can 

 as readily be enticed, and be more certainly handled and 

 killed, than with a rod of twelve feet. 



In advocating a ten-foot rod, I do not wish to be under- 

 stood necessarily to mean one limited in weight to 4f ounces. 

 On the contrary, I strongly believe in plently of backbone 

 in a rod. Have this first, if then the material employed will 

 give the other as well, so much the better. A rod should 

 be flexible to the very handle, but never to such a degree as 

 to prevent absolute command over the upper part of the rod, 

 or even to render this a matter of question. 



This, of course, is a mere matter of personal preference 

 and opinion, for I freely admit than in nothing more than in 

 the action of a fly-rod is it true, that "what is one man's 

 meat is another man's poison." 



But however this may be when the preferred action is 

 determined on, there is no reason why a fourteen-foot rod 

 and a nine-foot six rod should not have the same action. 

 Not the length alone, but the other proportions as well 

 should be, and usually are, varied. This, it seems to me, 

 has not always been duly considered in the discussion of 

 this subject. 



It might be supposed that all would admit that for equal 

 lengths, a heavier material must make a heavier rod — to get 

 the best possible action — than a lighter material; unless the 

 heavier were at the same time the stiffer. But the common 

 practice does not appear to sanction tnis supposition. The 

 tendency seems to be to sacrifice everything to lightness. It 

 seems to me that the propriety of this inay well be questioned; 

 as well as whether in this strife for excessive lightness, the 

 diminution of the timber allowed to a rod has not fully 

 reached, it' it has not quite gone beyond, the prudential 

 limit. 



One other consideration occurs to me, which to some will 

 seem to have an important bearing on the question in point, 

 if it is not its solution. 



After all, what are we after — what is the end in view ? It is 

 not merely obtaining possession of the fish, for this result 

 can be had at far less cost, with much greater certainty, 

 with a silver hook in the fish market. 



Recreation and amusement are the objects we seek; and 

 therefore is it not reasonable to conclude, that whatever 

 methods and whatever appliances best conduce to these re- 

 suits, are the best in themselves, even though the total 

 catch were a little diminished thereby? 



Since this depends solely on the personal preference of 

 each individual angler, it may be claimed that I leave this 

 question just where I found it. 



But this I think is scarcely just. 



To one escaping but seldom from the weary routine of 

 office work, to swing even a seven-ounce rod all day may 

 become a burden; while to him whose muscles are braced by 

 abundant exercise and robust health, it seems but as a 

 feather's weight. The truth is, that there is in this matter no 

 hard and fast line where dogmatism may take its stand and 

 say, this is right and that if, wrong. Let each use that rod 

 which to him affords the most pleasure, and for him that 

 rod is the best, whether it be forty feet long or only two. 



I have only sought to maintain what I believe to be the 

 truth, that any considerable excess over ten feet in length is 

 attended with an increase of labor, for which no compensat- 

 ing advantage can be found. To some this unnecessary 

 work may be a pleasure, but to many, and those the very 

 persons to whom this diversion is the greatest boon, I 

 know it is a burden. To benefit the latter, if I may be so 

 fortunate, I have said my say. Henry P. Wells. 



New York, April 17, 1884. 



California Trout in Western New York.— Olean, 

 April 16.— On May 20 last we put in 30,000 California 

 mountain trout in our streams here, and to-day I have two 

 caught in Wolf Run near here by Burnside, they measure 

 four inches in length. We also put in 15,000 brook trout, 

 and we have an. order for more this spring, and we shall 

 keep at the good work until our streams are restocked with 

 the beauties. They were put in by the Olean Sportsmen's 

 Grub.— Fred. R. Eaton. 



LITTLE BROOKS. 



i^NE day some two or three vears ago the Doctor and the 

 W writer determined to hunt up a brook laid down on the 

 map, and find out whether there were trout in it or not, and 

 if so, whether they might be caught. After a drive of 

 several mileswe turned down a side road, a stony, overgrown 

 track, with bushes on either side that ncarfv met in the 

 middle and after following this about half a mile, came out 

 in a httle valley. Here was the place, and we began to look 

 for the brook. At last we crossed a small bridge a mere 

 hole under the road, and concluding that it must be the 

 stream, got out and tied the horse to the fence Rods in 

 hand we plunged into the bushes, and after strueeHflE 

 through an alder swamp for a quarter of a mile name out. 

 into the meadow. Here we found the brook, a mere trickle 

 of ice-cold water from a mass of woodland springs forming 

 a swamp above. I was scarcely a foot wide on the average 

 and almost entirely covered over with the tall grass, Flies' 

 being of no use, we put on good, lively worms, and wherever 

 we could find an opening dropped them iu. In this way we 

 fished down the meadow and took sixteen trout, nine inches, 

 just the size for the pan, and much to our Surprise, too, for 

 it was a brighl, hot afternoon in July. After we 'had 

 worked down through the meadow, we found that the brook, 

 receiving more water from an open swamp, became larger 

 and formed some fine pools. The first one we came to in 

 the edge of the woods was an ideal trout pool. A little cas- 

 cade tumbled iuto it and sent a swirl of water along a huge 

 hemlock log, that for thirty feet formed a mossy embank- 

 ment along the side. 



There were fine lurking places all along under this log. 

 The Doctor, standing well back, dropped his bait into the 

 fall, and let the water roll it along the bottom in front of the 

 log. I waited eagerly. We had had such unexpected luck 

 in the little stream above that I anticipated rare sport in this 

 pool. 1 saw the Doctor's line tighten. He struck and the 

 next instant was lifting carefully ashore, a large, well-fed- 

 dace. Noticing the expression on his face I said nothing, 

 but leaving him struggling with the fish, which had snarled 

 his line in a bush, I took his place and cast. I had a bite, 

 struck, and lifted ashore— another dace. Well, wc stood 

 there ten or twelve minutes and lifted out dace alternately. 

 I put on a cast of flies and caught— dace. We worked down 

 stream to experiment, but it was all dace and no trout, and 

 as the afternoon grew late we retraced our steps, and drove 

 home in time to see our trout smoking on the supper table. 



This incident illustrates well some points 1 wish to make 

 in regard to little brooks. It is, alas, an undeniable fact that 

 the trout in our brooks and streams in the New England and 

 Middle States arc every year decreasing in numbers, and de- 

 teriorating in size and quality. The cause of this is not diffi- 

 cult to find. It is not so much the illegal taking of the fish 

 by spearing, snaring, netting, and poisoning the pools with 

 lime, though this is bad enough, for trout have stood all this 

 and have not been entirely exterminated; it is not so much 

 the dumping of sawdust, filth and chemicals into the brook, 

 for there are thousands of small streams throughout the coun- 

 try where this has never been done, and yet where trout once 

 swarmed now they are not, but it is by the reckless and inju- 

 dicious cutting down the woods. I am not now speaking of 

 the wholesale destruction of vast forests, such as is now 

 agitating the public at large; it is a much more simple and 

 every day matter. 



Our trout is not a true trout, in one sense of the word, but 

 a char, and like all of the chars, icy cold water is his very 

 fife. In the Thames, where his congener, ifafono fario, is 

 every year caught of enormous size, our trout could not, 

 probably, thrive at all. Now, that which gives the water of 

 our streams this quality, so necessary to Satodtnus fontinaUs 

 (does not his very name be"speak it?), is spring water. Every 

 year the farmers, in cutting down woods, lay bare some 

 spring. This may not always be an open one, but there are 

 always indications that it is there. Thus uncovered to the 

 sun, the spring either dries up or its waters become warm 

 and bad. In this manner the brooks, and of necessity the 

 larger streams, gradually become tepid in temperature, and 

 in summer diminished in volume, killing the trout in time, 

 and causing them to decrease in size and quality in the pro- 

 cess. At the same time, it favors the spread and growth of 

 coarse, soft-fleshed, inferior fish, which take the food from 

 the trout and devour their spawn. In the incident I have 

 related, the tiny beck which issued from a swampy piece of 

 ground, filled with springs, was alive with trout, because its 

 water, being sheltered at'its very source from the fierce July 

 sun, was cold and clear. But as we went lower down, 

 another stream of larger volume joined the little brook. The 

 water of this latter stream came from an open swamp 

 exposed to the midsummer heat, and as a natural sequence 

 we found no trout below its mouth, but dace. Now, had 

 this swamp been covered with a heavy growth of timber, I 

 venture to assert its waters would have been much improved 

 in quality and temperature, and the trout would not have 

 been obliged to leave the main stream and crowd up into the 

 little brook in order not to stifle. 



I think that twenty acres of woodland, rightly distributed 

 in protecting the springs and marshy, springy spots, which 

 form the headwaters of the little brooks and their confluents, 

 would be of more value on a farm thau fifty acres in one 

 patch left at random, and could this be realized generally we 

 would have less of the shrinkage of water and water power 

 in summer time Unfortunately, most farmers seem to have 

 no idea of the value of a piece of woods beyond that of some 

 day being able to cut it all down to sell, or use the lumber. 

 They think that a patch of woods is waste ground (ill it is 

 down, and never realize that it is really, if rightly placed, a 

 vast sponge to store up water which will make their land 

 more fertile and help them out in time of drought. This is 

 well illustrated by one of the correspondents of' this paper, 

 who told of the increased fertility and value of his land from 

 having formed a trout pond. The thirsty land by capillary 

 force drew the water many rods inland, and thus improved 

 the crops. There are many little water-courses which run 

 dry in summer, which, if tneir sources were properly pro- 

 tected, would be little trickles of water even in the hottest 

 weather. These are of untold value to the farmer and the 

 streams. It is, of course, well nigh impossible to get the 

 farmers in the settled parts of the country to do anything 

 radical to improve this matter, but Bhow them it will pay, 

 and the right spirit once aroused, much will be done. In 

 parts still unsettled an ounce of prevention is worth a pound 

 of cure. 



As I write, an instance of this thing rises before me, and I 

 feel impelled to give it. I know a stream that once, from its 

 seiurce to its mouth, was a fine trout brook. It is formed by 

 two main branches, and on the map looks like a little Y 

 Both branches rose in woodland fields, their waters were 



