Earlier this season I felt the same when fishing the Don with my 10 foot #5. Just did not seem to be loading the rod well at short distances. I thought this was odd as in the old days on the buns of my youth I was fishing a short line most of the time. Moved down to an 8 ? foot #4 and felt much more in control. I guess with some effort I could have loaded the 10 footer better on shirt lines but hell, catching fish on the Don is effort enough! Besides it gave me a new toy to play with!!! I like the idea of Wyatt's technique of letting line out downstream and letting the flow load the rod for the forward cast. No false casting to spook fish and I reckon I and others do that a lot on the Don. I really have to improve and widen my casting repertoire
Once you've got the desired length of line isn't a roll cast the simplest solution here?
Not that I'm any expert or anything! (Just ask Swithun- he saw my efforts in Norway!)
Regards
Tim
No, I'm the same Swithun. I just can't get the technique quite right- but would love to.
This sounds like the Crask expedition is likely to be one long roll-casting lesson!
Tim
FWIW, most of my short casts (and there are many), are with a small rod and, particularly, a DT line. I've used a WF line with a small (8'6 or below) rod and did not like the result at all. With a short line, the front taper on the Wf was not enough to load the rod properly, and I found that delicate casts at slightly greater distances were difficult.
Some of the shortest casts are, of course, made with no line through the top ring at all, just the fly and the leader - but that's short line nymphing and usually no more than a few feet away. Generally, my short casts (within about 5m) are done with a roll cast (cos otherwise the trees will eat my line). I just can't do that with a WF line.
Yer right Ptnid, weight forward lines are nae use on wee rods for shot casts - infact I reckon they are nae use for any sort of dry fly river fishing. I just cant get on with them at all. Most of my fishing is done at short range and I can't say I have many problems casting a very short line on either my 7'6" or 9' (5wt) rods with a double taper line.
Quote from: Ptinid on September 27, 2006, 11:07:29 PM
FWIW, most of my short casts (and there are many), are with a small rod and, particularly, a DT line. I've used a WF line with a small (8'6 or below) rod and did not like the result at all. With a short line, the front taper on the Wf was not enough to load the rod properly, and I found that delicate casts at slightly greater distances were difficult.
Some of the shortest casts are, of course, made with no line through the top ring at all, just the fly and the leader - but that's short line nymphing and usually no more than a few feet away. Generally, my short casts (within about 5m) are done with a roll cast (cos otherwise the trees will eat my line). I just can't do that with a WF line.
Why? The first 30 feet of a DT is the same as the first 30 feet of a WF. The difference only comes in when you go over that and you get to the running line on the WF whereas with the DT you are still on the belly and as you get more of it out of the tip ring you begin to overload the rod. On short casts it makes no difference. If you consistently cast short lengths of 15 feet or so then go up a line weight or two above the rating for the rod. The shorter length of the heavier line will load the rod as if it was the correct line. I have a #5 8ft rod and use a #5WF floater for bigger rivers where I have to cast farther, and use a #7WF for short casts on small ones, I can't do long casts though or it overloads the rod. I can roll cast, switch cast and on my 10' #7 with a WF floater I can lift off, change direction and cast with the belly and part of the running line out to cover a rising fish after casting in the opposite direction. It isn't pretty and only works some of the time, but it can be done.
Swithun,
If your waitin till Paul gets up then it will be around tenish as he likes to cuddle the feathers :lol: :lol:
Paul, Im still waitin for you to make the "Breckie" :lol: :lol:
All the best Acesleeper
Richy
Fishtales,
What you say is all true in theory but I think in practice (and maybe it just the lines I've tried) the the WF profile seems to be a "thicker" towards the end of the line than a double taper. I just cant seem to cast so well with them but thats probably due to years casting a double taper about 5 yards! Just got used to the "feel" of the line and the WF's feel heavy and cumbersome in comparison.
The weight of any line that gives it the AFTMA number is in the first 30 feet. That is the same for WF, DT, floating or sinking. The only difference is in the profile and sinkers are thinner in diameter.
Have a read at this.
http://www.sexyloops.com/beginners/lesson2/aftm.shtml
http://www.common-cents.info/part3.pdf
Sandy good advice about lining a rod. The only problem is there is alot of let say 6 weights out there that are not 6 weights at all. I have a 6 that has an Effective Line Number of 7.9 and an Action Angle of 70. This in essence makes it an 8 weight. In order to short cast as you have said with 2 up on the line I would go to a 10. Which I may add I have done and casts a dream. The whole problem is back to folk buying any weight of rod for a job and the sticker on the rod rating is not reflecting what the rod actually is. Ok Ive talked enough pish for yun night
The last three posts are spot on. If you are fishing a mainly short line, it makes sense to "overline" the rod by going up a line weight or even two.
I regularly do this when short line nymphing on a river. Later in the same day might see me having to cast dries 25 metres to fish right under the far bank, so the best all round solution for me on a typical day is to use a WF line of a size above what my rod is rated for. This is usually a WF5 on a 4 rod or a WF6 on a 5 rod, depending how heavy a nymph I am expecting to cast.
If I were to use a DT one size up in these circumstances the rod would be sluggish in reacting to the greater weight and it would be more difficult to throw a tight loop and therefore more difficult to get the required distance.
Fishtales
Dunno why - I understand the theory, but I still much prefer the DT for short and dry fly fishing. It may just be what I'm used to I suppose, but I do think (maybe it's just the line) that the taper to the thick section of a WF line is too short. I end up with splashy casts and almost too much energy going into the cast. My style (which is primarily roll and side casts) works best with a DT line. I have WF lines for the rod and am just not comfartable.
Quote
I still much prefer the DT for short and dry fly fishing. It may just be what I'm used to I suppose, but I do think (maybe it's just the line) that the taper to the thick section of a WF line is too short. I end up with splashy casts and almost too much energy going into the cast.
Quote
PTinid,
Sounds like that if you find the back taper to be too short, then you are usually casting a longer line than the "normal" 30' that rods are rated for. Having said that, there are big differences in tapers at the business end.
I used to use a Lee Wulff TT, but whilst it was great in ideal conditions, I found it lacking in a wind or when using heavier/bulkier flies. I have tried several others which had had the same shortcomings.
These days I have settled on a Scientific Anglers GPX (DT or WF to suit what I expect to be fishing on the day) for most of my river work.
Suits me....
The serious problem of casting short distances is partly because of the weight and action of modern carbon fly rods. If you waggle one without a line through it then the amount of flexing movement is negligible - they are too stiff and light. A modern carbon rod needs something to work with. In contrast older materials could flex with their own weight and therefore materials like cane and glass can cast short distances much more easily. Unfortunately however very long casting and very short casting require very different actions in a rod. The only carbon rod I've known good at casting really short distances was my old Sue Burgess Diamond Back. Unfortunately what little stiffness it had was rudely taken away by a wind assisted door of a Volvo. :(
Malcolm
Quote
The only carbon rod I've known good at casting really short distances was my old Sue Burgess Diamond Back. Unfortunately what little stiffness it had was rudely taken away by a wind assisted door of a Volvo.
Quote
:lol: :lol: :lol: Nice one Malcolm.
I fish the upper reaches of the river Endrick where short casts are the norm, i use a 7 wgt rod with a size 9 line and this helps me got a decent load on the rod for short casts, more of a lob than a cast though :) :).
cheers...james.
Alan,
QuoteA great deal of my wild troot fishing is right at my feet with either D.T. or W.F lines and it really depends on the outfit you're using.
Ok it's mostly a double taper i use as i feel it's a wee bit more versatile especially when you're looking to fish short line style.
.
Don't want to pick hares :lol:, but if you are fishing within the length of the head, the only thing that matters is the weight of the line and the front taper. The rest of the line is on the reel.
I would go along with what you are saying about a DT being more flexible as an all-round line. The reason being that (given a clear back cast) you can simply extend the length of the back cast and drop the fly where you want. If on the other hand you are fishing a river with a WF and are faced with a long cast, you have to shoot line and just judge where to drop the fly.
Depends where you expect to catch most of your fish I suppose. On the Clyde, a DT5 would do me fine for most of my fishing during summer. If I think I won't be using heavily weighted nymphs, I'll use a #4 rod, but probably with a #5 line (WF) just in case I resort to weighted nymphs.
In winter I would go for a WF6 line on a #5 rod for nymphing for grayling.
That way I still get fun out of playing fish and can fish a very short line, which works most of the time. If I have to cast say 20 yds plus and feed line down the current via stack mending, the heavier head helps carry the weighted nymphs out there.
One thing I would add. Some lines are more geared towards long casting than fishing. Some make great play of "presentation". I had a couple of Wulff TT lines, which were great for casting small, light flies in ideal conditions. Absolute crap into a wind, or using a decently weighted nymph. There are loads of these lines around. Personally, I reckon if you are happy with the profile of a line, stick with it. If you want to improve your distance casing (which is after all, just a barometer of your technique), do some practice or take a lesson. Don't change the line.
QuoteCasting technique is the key and very much overlooked a good range and understanding of styles makes for a vast range and versatility when faced with our ever changing and unpredictable waether.
Too right Alan. Different casting methods allow you to approach your fishing from all sorts of different angles. You will get longer drag free drifts by putting in an aerial mend etc.
I love fishing pocket water because every part of it presents a new challenge and needs a curve or a big wiggle put in the line.
Magnus put me onto this some time ago, but you guys might want to have a look at it too. Especially the bits on fly lines. It'll help explode some of the myths of "standardisation" of rods and lines etc. It explains why average / poor casters have trouble with "fast" rods and often find they have to move up a line weight or two to flex the rod properly and not just at short distances either. I found exactly this when I moved from "traditional" softer through action rods to stiffer tippier designs.
http://www.common-cents.info/
Thanks Fred that's a cracking link. Steve Parton has said the same for yonks in less words but this article puts some meat on the bones. Timing just right as well - on a less foul day I'd never have read it - I'd have been up some hill!
Makes you wonder why we ever buy a rod without trying it.
Malcolm
Of course the problem with DT lines is finding them!!
Is it just me or are they becomeing more and more scarce? Found a discounted 5wt DT floater in Mikes Tackle Shop in Portobello recently. It was bright pink. I didn't buy it!!
Maybe DT lines are less common these days, but I've never had any problems finding them. I use Scientific Anglers' GPX usually, or their standard Aircel range. Grey's Platinum lines (Shakespeare, I think) are nice too.
Alex