1. Loop Cross 11ft 6" Switch 6#
2 Loop Cross 12ft 7# small DH
3 LTS Explosive 13ft 6" 8/9#

Covers all my needs... All paired up with Loop Classic reel's to suit.

Kenny

 

My in use fly rods are pretty simple. A guideline lpxe 13footer, a hardy jet sintrix switch in 6/7 and a hardy shadow sintrix in a 10ft 7wt single hander.
Its rare i use anything but the switch but thats due to the spate river fishing i do.
I also find that distance wise, the 13 footer and switch are pretty similar in my big clumsy mitts.

Would a 14ft, a switch and single hander not cover it all ?

 

It certainly might for some. My go to is a 13' Vision Tool, and it takes a bit of influence to make me pick something else. For smaller rivers in bigger water I'll throw a 36g EMT or a 37g 3D. In summer a 33g switch line or 34g integrated scandi is excellent on more open water. I can't cast my switch anywhere near as well as the 13' so it definitely fills a big part of my fishing. The bigger stuff then is for 42g plus heads for the most part. If I were a better caster then absolutely I could do more with fewer rods.

 

Well I don't need a big lot of double handers but I do need a big one, a large medium, a small medium and a light. So I don't use a big one very often so I still use my old 15' Z-axis. Because it is largely for foreign rivers I need 2, in case of a breakage but also having 2 different lines set up saves time.

large medium is a 13' 9 8/9 GLX
Small medium is a 13' 4 7/8 GLX
current light is a TFS 12' 7wt

I think I probably need more but that is the minimum I guess.

Then just an 11' 5wt, 11' 6wt and 11' 7wt switch selection.

Single handers are a bit more complicated. I need 3 10' 7, 3 10' 6 a couple of 10'8 and 9'6 7's and probably a couple of 9'6 7's and maybe a 9'6 6wt. A 12' 7 is handy as well.

BUT the real question is why stint yourself?

 

BUT the real question is why stint yourself?

Well, I suppose one thought is would I cast, and maybe fish, better if I had fewer rods and focus on getting very familiar with them.

My switch is a Vision Hero and I love it, think it's about perfect as far as rods in that class go, lovely light presentation. The Tool has me covered in that 13' space for home but wouldn't be a travel rod. If I were downsizing I'd look at RJC or similar and have a set made.

 

Perish the thought, I know! But in the darkness of a closed season and far from a bit of fishing, I wondered how I'd go about simplifying my rod collection and therefore choices, largely based on what lines I currently have.

Realistically I think two double hand rods proper, maybe 13' and 14'6" (anything I can't reach with that and a good line, I probably can't hit with a 15' either, right?), a switch and a single hand rod covers everything I'd probably want to do or have any business attempting.

And all rods should ideally be travel suitable, naturally. Has anyone else really simplified their collection and if so has it worked, or is there still the same interest in getting something just to try it, because you can? I ask because despite having four rods between 13'9 and 15', I still saw that Hardy Demon in the Classifieds and wondered whether it would cast a good range of my lines from the 42-47g, and it certainly wasn't with a view to getting rid of all the other rods I have that cast those lines!

Anyway, not necessarily the most practical discussion, but fodder for closing in evenings perhaps. What would your own bar minimums be, and what would they include, and has anyone stripped it back to that?

Not a chance, but good luck to you Sir!

You are overlooking the simple fact that after a successful rod cull the mentality (imagination, sense of a 'bargain', the plotting and scheming of a fisherman) that got you into the surplus rods position in the first place still exists.


Perhaps hypnotherapy before you give it a try? Though frankly I doubt it would work.

 

Not a chance, but good luck to you Sir!

You are overlooking the simple fact that after a successful rod cull the mentality (imagination, sense of a 'bargain', the plotting and scheming of a fisherman) that got you into the surplus rods position in the first place still exists.


Perhaps hypnotherapy before you give it a try? Though frankly I doubt it would work.

Culling as in putting them in the garage and forgetting all about them ? 👀😳

 

For salmon 1x13’3” #8 (don't care if the river is 200’ wide), 1x10’10” switch, 1x9’#7 (with an #8 line.) I use 1x9’#5 for all trout and grayling. All fit in standard travel back.

That's what I actually use, sadly I do have more.

 

This selection will see me out:
9'6" #7 single hander
11' 6" Switch for small rivers
12' 6" #7 - Ure low water & Findhorn
13' 6" #8 - Ure higher water and most other rivers
14' 6" #9 - Norway, Tweed & big rivers

 

Tried this exercise on many occasions over numerous disciplines of fishing (Migratory/Trout/Sea boat lure & bait) & its destined to fail as I have come to realise that fishing in all its codes is an "acquisitive" pastime as well as a participation one. I have calculated that the number of rods I want (need & want are two totally different concepts) is in direct relation to the following equation:
Funds available= X
Potential for Wife discovery=Q
Space available in fishing room=Y
Time remaining to next trip=Z
Amount of tackle needed=A
Amount of tackle wanted=B

So my theory is:
Z+A+B=(Y-X)Q

Someone has to keep the tackle Companies in Business, although especially with Salmon rods I rarely buy new as would rather someone else take the initial hit.

 

I blame ebay for my tackle hoarding. When im bored, i have a little look. If somethings going for less than what i think its worth, ill stick a bid on wether i need it or not as its "cheap".
Tackle collectors also have to shoulder some of the blame. If i see an unused old hardy reel at a good price, the senses go into overdrive and itl go into my collection of "spare reels" 😂

 

He’s always designed great rods and I do think his latest venture is a rare take on tackle design. Enter Ian Gordon at Cadence. Ian was responsible for the Partridge rods a while back, the Shakey Oracles and Hardy Zeniths to name but a few. All great rods.

And in his latest venture he does something rare. And it just might help the few….

take a rod, any of his DH’s and he has a replacement section one weight up, or down from set. So you can have three rods in one bundle.

though I am not 100% sure all 6 will fit in one tube TBH. But it will be a bargain compared to buying 3 full rods in a range.

I have his micro Spey rod - beautiful in detail and to cast.

anyone tried his replacement section I’d be keen to know….

 

Perish the thought, I know! But in the darkness of a closed season and far from a bit of fishing, I wondered how I'd go about simplifying my rod collection and therefore choices, largely based on what lines I currently have.

Realistically I think two double hand rods proper, maybe 13' and 14'6" (anything I can't reach with that and a good line, I probably can't hit with a 15' either, right?), a switch and a single hand rod covers everything I'd probably want to do or have any business attempting.

And all rods should ideally be travel suitable, naturally. Has anyone else really simplified their collection and if so has it worked, or is there still the same interest in getting something just to try it, because you can? I ask because despite having four rods between 13'9 and 15', I still saw that Hardy Demon in the Classifieds and wondered whether it would cast a good range of my lines from the 42-47g, and it certainly wasn't with a view to getting rid of all the other rods I have that cast those lines!

Anyway, not necessarily the most practical discussion, but fodder for closing in evenings perhaps. What would your own bar minimums be, and what would they include, and has anyone stripped it back to that?

In answer to your question, yes. I've narrowed it down to a small core set of rods and lines, but to do this you need to get away from one mental block which is being made repeatedly by posters on here. That is, I need this precise length of rod and line weight for this particular river and another one for this other slightly different river. I was guilty of this way of thinking for years, but actually, given the vast improvements in lines and rods it is not really true any more is it?

Where I Was

For years I carried a KISS rod tube that contained:

3 x 15' #10s - 4 pc
2 x 14' #9 - 4 pc
2 x 12' 6 # 8s - 4 pc
2 x 11 # 8 Switch - 4 pc

I also did and still do own a variety of S/H rods but I also use these for Trout,Sea Trout and Carp so I don't have any solely for salmon fishing. Those rods were matched with all sorts of reels and lines.

Where I am now

The Kiss Rod Tube now lives in the garage.

2 x 14' # 9 (but really a 10) 6 pc (fits in hold luggage)
1 x 12'6 # 8 4 pc
1 x 11 # 8 4 pc

While it is true by giving up the 15' there is a slight loss of distance and control it is no longer material in the way it was 20 years ago. Thinking back, the numbers of lies I fished where you needed to cast 40 yards to cover them (e.g Town Road on Rothes, Lower Gannets at Borrowston or Home Pool on Yokanga) are relatively few and far between. If you want to fish at Rome Croy or the Namsen then an 18' seige canon is what you probably need, but I can't see any reason why I'd do this again.

Also, the only full lines I use now are a floating switch and 67' Headed spey line. A couple of other reels with running line and a wallet of skagits, T-d heads, Sagit and skandi versitips and that's a huge reduction in reel weight you need to carry about with you and, in my case huge cost tied up in expensive reels I hardly ever use.

With my heavier end 14' I'd happily fish anywhere in the UK (ex Double Dunter Land), Norway or Iceland. For the aforementioned countires, if 14' is seriously overgunning then I'd then go to my 11' # 8 switch then probably a 10' # 6 S/H. The only reason I keep my 12' 6 # 8 (apart from the fact it really is a beautiful rod to fish with) is it was an unexpected anniversary present from my wife that she secretly plotted with Danny North at Sportfish to buy. Obviously, punishment for e-baying that does not bear thinking about.

Will I stick with this selction? Well if someone bought out a materially better 14' # 9 6pc I'd replace the ones I have (historically that's what I did anyway). However, that is currently a very high bar so is unlikley to happen any time soon. Ditto the switch. Am I suddenly go back to wanting a 15'. No

Exactly what tackle you'd like to cut down is a matter of your preference, casting skill, rivers and budget. I can't tell you that. However, the discipline of what do I really need against what is nice and shinny (based on a flawed precision logic) to have is indisputable.

Regards

NHP

 

I wish I had your discipline!

It is funny how during the course of my salmon fishing life the 15' has gone from being almost the only serious choice for even medium rivers to being a non starter for most people. I am not even slightly considering ever buying another and I am a terrible one for the flawed precision thing!

I have 3 double handers I would like to buy, but I would sell 3 of my current horde as a quid pro quo. Do I need them? Absolutely not!

 

If I fished professionally, I’d have the rods I needed. I don’t, so I have the rods that I want.

For example, I’m lucky to have 2 x 12’6” ish rods in 7/8. One is a B&W shooting head rod and the other a Meiser CX. The Meiser is a more tolerant, through action rod, but the B&W is also very enjoyable to cast. Some days I take the Meiser, some days I take the B&W.

This is replicated up and down rod weights. In truth, my 13’6” 8/9 shouldn’t really offer much more than the above 2 rods, but I enjoyed building it and love fishing with it. I do need to get rid of some longer, heavier rods that I no longer use though….,

 

If I fished professionally, I’d have the rods I needed. I don’t, so I have the rods that I want.

For example, I’m lucky to have 2 x 12’6” ish rods in 7/8. One is a B&W shooting head rod and the other a Meiser CX. The Meiser is a more tolerant, through action rod, but the B&W is also very enjoyable to cast. Some days I take the Meiser, some days I take the B&W.

This is replicated up and down rod weights. In truth, my 13’6” 8/9 shouldn’t really offer much more than the above 2 rods, but I enjoyed building it and love fishing with it. I do need to get rid of some longer, heavier rods that I no longer use though….,

Im like that with my 13s. Some days ill take my lpxe but know that my timing has to be good or it dosent like it. If i want a lazy day ill take the old greys spagetti special which dosent really care what you do and will still get a line out.

 

Firstly, the kind of even pool distribution typically only happens in a limited range of heights. At 2' 6" Kincardine Village pool on the Dee has about 300 yards of water where you could hook a fish any where from the Gabions on your bank to the far side as the water was reasonably even depth across). At that height you have to fish from the bank (see picture below taken from the start of the Gabians ). All I used to say to new rods is a 40 yard cast will mean you cover all the taking opportunities, 30 yards 3/4, 20 yards 1/2 and 10 yards a 1/4. However, once the river drops below 2' the fish concentrate towards the middle so a 40 yard cast is not really beneficial. 2' at Islamouth and I can think of a couple of spots including where you mentioned where that is true. However, most of the time in lower or higher water the same principle noted in the village pool applies.

Indeed. I was talking in general terms, and conditions always change pools, lies and the tactics needed. For example, a few weeks ago I had 3’ of water on the Spey. Having fished the previous day in low water with my usual 15’er, I actually put up a 13’ rod (though admittedly it was partly because the rod was new to me and I wanted to try it out). As one of the gillies said, ‘short casts and plenty of them’ were the order of the day. There is a popular perception that high water demands heavier tackle; counterintuitively, the reverse is often the case as the fish pull in closer to the bank and a 40 yard cast just puts your fly into a raging torrent.

p.s Where you used to be in Norway - long cast definitely needed here


View attachment 115532

Mostly not when I was there, in fact! You were there is exceptionally low water conditions - in a normal water the current is perhaps twice as wide as in your picture, and again would be a raging torrent in the middle, far too fast to fish (and wouldn’t even hold fish). We would fish that pool from the bank with a shortish cast, and then fish the far side of the current, again with a short cast, from a boat. Sadly, having been one of the places in Norway that used boats a lot and had 1:1 gillieing, much of that has all but disappeared. I was there for a brief (non-fishing) visit back in June, and while the river is still fished, the lack of gillies and boating makes it a far less efficient operation than used to be the case. But as I said in my previous post, that river is a very different prospect from the lower Spey and it is somewhere where concentrating on the ‘taking strip’ is essential and you would almost never would find fish lying across a wide area. When JAC fished with us there, it was a source of frustration to the gillies that he insisted on casting far too long a line and was much less effective as a result.

I’m definitely not suggesting that 40yd casts are needed in all circumstances - just that they’re far from redundant!

 

Double handed wise, I’m getting by at the moment with just a Sage Method 14’ #9, 12’ 6” #8, and a Loomis 15’ #7/8. The least number of salmon rods I’ve ever had. Having said that, I’m doing much less fishing at the moment, despite unfettered access to an Upper Tweed beat. Fish just ain’t there and water been so low.

Having said that, I find that the less fishing I do, the more acquisitive I get in terms of tackle, especially reels, then I purge and the cycle starts all over again. Trying to resist the urge and get back to a simpler way of thinking and fishing.