Second Rod

[JackM]

I'm with Matt, I don't buy expensive reels, but I know they are for more than holding line. I use mine all the time to land fish.

 

[OhioOutdoorsman]

I was just saying if you had $300, spend most of in on your rod and line. I love BBS reels, and for a light line rod a BBS II reel is my fovorite. I agree about not finding much in quality drags below $100 (okumas and cabelas prestige plus being a notable exceptions).....I was just saying don't feel like you have to spend several hundred bucks like you potentially do with saltwater or steelhead (although my BBS held up just fine fighting steelhead last year). A BBS or a ross cimmaron is the most I'd spend on a 2-4 wt reel.

 

[jayL]

okumas and cabelas prestige plus being a notable exceptions

I'm glad you wrote that... I was worried I'd have to post in this thread again.


Wait, damnit........

They are both very good reels, however the okuma doesn't age very gracefully. The drag got kinda crappy over time, but it's still workable. Overall, for what I paid, excellent reel. I'm still waiting on the prestige plus to disappoint me.

 

[ian_brown]

Of course, I have my eye on a 5'6" three piece.

 

[OhioOutdoorsman]

I'm still waiting on the prestige plus to disappoint me.

Me either. I've sold several more expensive reels in favor of the prestige plus. The handle and mid arbor spool design is spot on and the drag is SMOOTH and reliable. I use it and the BBS exclusively now. Why pay more?

Of course, I have my eye on a 5'6" three piece.

I get tons of requests to build these sort of short/light rods becasue there is a gap in the market currently. To be honest though, I think it would be a poor choice for a second rod because its built for a very specific pupose and isn't very versitile. Though you can cast fairly far with it, it suffers on the mending a lot. People underate the mend and overrate the cast, IMHO.

 

[MattBoyer]

OhioOutdoorsman wrote:
People underate the mend and overrate the cast, IMHO.

Amen to that brutha! Anything under 7 foot is meant to catch fisherman imho. I would have to guess that I probably fish some of the smallest streams of anyone here and have never run into any length related issues. The only advantage of a rod shorter than 7' is walking through the bush, and you shouldn't be going fast enough to break a rod if you want to even catch a glimpse at the king brookie. The other thing to consider is whether the cover is just on the sides or overhead. On a stream with brushy sides and little overhead cover, a longer rod is actually an advantage. It gives you more reach around obstacles. These are just my observations, and as we all know, I might be an idiot, but I hope this helps. :-D

Boyer

 

[OhioOutdoorsman]

On the conseverse, I think length and modulus are avastly overated in determining how far you can cast. I can cast my 9 ft 6 wt G. Loomis IMX 95ft but can cast my 7ft 3wt diamondglass 70ft.

In reality, people don't need many rods. You'd be well served with a 8 ft 5wt for 90% of PA trout streams. A two rod line up of a 9ft 5wt and a 7 1/2 ft 4wt would be all one could concievably need and both would serve as an adequate backup for the other if need be.

Now mind you its taken me many rod builds to realize this......

 

[jayL]

Personally, I've never met my match on a trout stream equipment wise.

I have:

7.5 foot 3 weight

8 foot 4 weight

9 foot 5 weight.

That has covered all my bases so far, and the three weight would easily be expendable. The 4 weight, I've found, is the best all around rod for PA for my style of fishing.