FOREST AND STREAM. 
April 27, 1907.] 
CHARLES STEPATH MAKING A LONG CAST WITH THE BAIT ROD. FLY- AND BAIT-CASTING. 
MEMBERS OF THE ANGLERS’ CLUB OF NEW YORK PRACTICING IN CENTRAL PARK. 
r 
Level and Taper Lines. 
The principle of a fly-fishing outfit being a per¬ 
fect taper from the hand-grip to the extreme end 
of the gut cast is correct so far as it goes; and if 
the taper could always^ remain perfect it would 
be correct at all times in both theory and prac¬ 
tice. Before the introduction of winches, the 
taper could be—and was—made perfect after the 
manner described by Cotton, simply because the 
rod and line were a fixed quantity; there was al¬ 
ways the same length of line extended from the 
rod top, the taper of which was adjusted to suit 
the rod. With the introduction of winches it 
became possible to use a greater or less length 
of line at will; at the same time it became im¬ 
possible to have a perfect taper with, say, twelve 
yards of line extended that would remain per¬ 
fect when more or less line was extended. Yet 
the principle of the taper outfit remains correct 
to-day, and it may be of interest to some readers 
to discuss how best to get it as nearly perfect 
as possible—that is, what combination of rod, 
line, and cast is most likely to work “clean and 
sweet” at any distance varying, let us say, from 
ten to twenty yards. I suggest that such a range 
of distances covers all water necessary in con¬ 
nection with single-handed outfits; the remarks 
that follow refer more especially to such an 
outfit, but they can be applied to double-handed 
outfits and longer distances. 
There has always been a number of anglers, 
says E. S. S. in the Fishing Gazette, who prefer 
level lines to taper; and although they have been 
included, for the most part, among the wet-fly 
fishers, they have not been wanting among the 
dry-fly men. It is my experience of late that 
quite a number of men who discarded level lines 
in favor of taper some years ago are returning 
to their old love. Many of these are skilled and 
successful anglers, and it follows that in con¬ 
nection with this discourse we must not lose 
sight of the fact that there is something to be 
said in favor of level lines. It is especially 
claimed for them that more delicate casting can 
be done, but, for my own part, I cannot agree 
with this, and, further, I would suggest that any 
condemnation of taper lines for such a reason 
can only occur in connection with the very 
heavy tapers. I think this is another case where 
the extremists are to blame, and that the solu¬ 
tion once more lies in the adoption of the happy 
medium. Very heavy taper lines “came in” 
with proportionately heavy dry-fly rods, and 
they are “going out” with them. This passing 
of the heavy taper line, however, does not spell 
the condemnation of the principle of the taper 
outfit, any more than does the passing of the 
heavy dry-fly rod go to declare the absurdly 
light rod to be the weapon with which the great¬ 
est amount of comfort in fishing and the most 
delicate manipulation of cast and flies are to be 
accomplished. It is a case of extremes, and I, 
for one, cannot believe in them. I have so 
much practical proof that they invariably lead one 
astray. I repeat, there is something to be said 
in favor of level lines, but, personally, I con¬ 
sider that the usefulness of the level line can be 
practically associated with that of the taper line, 
and the latter is nearer perfection for the fly- 
fisher’s purpose, whether he be a wet-fly man 
or dry-fly man. 
The choice of a line is materially influenced by 
the design of the rod to be used with it; but I 
am not with those who assert that such choice 
depends entirely on the rod: rather am I of the 
opinion that the class of line to be used—one 
that will most easily accomplish the work to be 
done—should govern the choice of rod in no 
small degree. I shall be told, perhaps, that this 
was the original cause of the introduction of 
heavy dry-fly rods; and so it was: but in this 
latter case anglers and manufacturers went to 
that extreme which it is suggested is wrong— 
howbeit they, in doing so. taught some of 11s 
much that is useful, including the fact that a 
taper line assists the angler very materially in 
“driving” a fly to the desired spot. This dis¬ 
course concerns rods only so far as they should 
influence one’s choice of a line; otherwise much 
might be said about them: for the present pur¬ 
pose a few words will suffice. If you wish to 
fish with the least amount of exertion, and the 
greatest amount of precision and delicacy, your 
rod must have “driving” power; this occurs, 
principally, in the butt of the rod. and means a 
certain amount of material: material means 
weight, and it follows that with a loss of weight, 
beyond a certain point, there is a loss of “driv¬ 
ing” power, which, in turn, means more exer¬ 
tion on the angler’s part and consequently less 
actual control over one’s outfit. That is an ihi- 
portant objection to very light rods; up to a 
certain point they are all right, but that point 
does not extend to the requirements of average 
fishing; beyond it they fail, and thus we find so 
many of them assuming the “broken-backed” ap¬ 
pearance which has been the cause of so much 
correspondence in the Fishing Gazette, and 
which, I suggest, is caused through faulty design 
rather than material. In other words, in the 
effort to lighten rods too much, design has 
suffered, and “broken backs” are the result. 
Even if you get a very light rod with sufficient 
backbone, then it develops an equally objec¬ 
tionable characteristic; it is too “steely,” it does 
not discover that pleasant “poetry of motion” 
in action, the “rebound” is quite harsh; when 
used with a level line such a rod is an utter 
failure, and the result is very little better when 
a taper line is used. On the other hand, it by 
no means follows that every rod of the weight 
to be presently recommended has sufficient 
backbone, and it is possible for it to have too 
much. That is the fault of bad material, in¬ 
correct design, or a combination of both, and 
should not—does not—occur with rods sent out 
by our best British manufacturers. Whether it 
be of greenheart or built-cane, I consider a ten- 
footer weighing from 6 ounces to 7 ounces is 
the most serviceable weapon; it fishes with great 
ease, is light enough for any one, and yet con¬ 
tains sufficient material (which I presume to be 
of best quality) to give it the “backbone” with¬ 
out which no fly-rod is worth twopence, either 
for casting with or for killing a decent fish. Be¬ 
yond all it will fish a line that is the best for the 
angler’s purpose. Just one other point concern¬ 
ing the rod. You shall handle three rods, all 
of the same quality material (the best), and the 
same length and weight, but one shall be very 
whippy, another very stiff, and the third the 
happy medium. Choose the third one—that is 
my advice. 
Such a rod will carry a medium-size level line 
and with it fish fairly well up to fifteen or twenty 
yards; but not so well, in my opinion, as with 
the taper line presently recommended. More¬ 
over, an objection to a medium-size level line 
is that it is not fine enough at the point of at¬ 
tachment to the cast and for a few yards above. 
The only way to remedy this with a level line 
is to use one of finer make; then the rod recom¬ 
mended is too much for it, and one must fall 
back on the whippy rod (or, worse still, a very 
light one), and the old objection arises. Conse¬ 
quently, one reason for favoring the taper line 
is that it enables an angler to fish fine while 
still retaining “driving” power in his rod. Next 
let us consider the effect on our rod—and con¬ 
sequently on our fishing—of different tapers of 
lines, and we take the objectionable heavy taper 
first. 
Take an ordinary heavy taper line and try it 
with the rod recommended. With from ten to 
twelve yards of line extended the outfit will 
probably work satisfactorily, but with fifteen 
yards, or more, extended the rod fails to re¬ 
spond to the unfair call made upon it. If you 
wish to fish with such a line you must have a 
suitable type of rod, which means either a much 
stiffer or a much heavier weapon: then you can 
fish well at from, say, fifteen yards to twenty 
yards, or more. But what happens when you 
wish to fish as close as. say. nine or ten yards, 
and I believe it will be readily admitted that it 
is very useful at times to be able to control 
one’s outfit perfectly at such a, comparatively, 
short distance? The stiff (or heavy) rod refuses 
to work “sweetly” with such a short line ex¬ 
tended, and the cast is a failure. 
Even if the actual cast is not a failure, delicacy 
of manipulation is almost impossible, and the 
action of striking a fish spells disaster. Con¬ 
sequently, unless you propose to do all your 
( Continued, on page 677.) 
