Fly rods and fly-tackle

Introduction

Not before you anglers loJio have grovm gray in the use of the rod do I presume to display my feeble light. It is to the beginner that I address myself, remembering, during my ototi novitiate, vnth lohat longing I sought, and how gratefully I icoidd have received, the information contained in this book.

Henry P. Wells.

FLY-RODS AND FLY-TACKLE.

Chapter I. Fish-hooks, And The Principles Which Govern Their Efficiency

The hook is the foundation of the Angler's Art: it is the point of attack. Weakness or inefficiency here can be aided little by the art of him who handles it, and not at all by any excellence of tackle elsewhere. The most skilled can but strike at the proper moment, and with the proper degree of force.

What senses a fish has, and to what degree they are developed, has been the subject of frequent discussion; and while there may be and still is some doubt among scientists as to what he does possess, there can be but one ojDinion among anglers : that he is, at least at times, altogether destitute of the sense of propriety. Without consultation with the angler, and without the slightest deference to his wishes, he rises to the fly or ignores it, as to him seems best ; and when he does come he comes in his own way, seizing the fly with resolution or diffidence, and in a manner over which the angler has no control.

Any hook which will hang together will secure the fish at times, and so will a bean-pole and clothes-line; but this is the art of the hippopotamus, who flounders through jungle and morass by sheer brute force, rather than that of the civilized man, who sweeps the one from his path and bridges the other,

A lady seeking to tickle the ear of a celebrated painter with that refinement of flattery only possible to women, asked how he mixed his colors to produce effects so lovely and so unusual. Like the trout, his sense of propriety was, at least temporarily, dormant. He refused absolutely to rise to that fly, notwithstanding the skill and delicacy of the cast. Gruffly he replied that he mixed them with his brains.

So the angler should fish with his brains, promptly tracing an effect to its cause, taking to heart every hint so obtained, whether it tends to improvement of tackle, or its use. Otherwise he is nothing but a pot-fisherman, whose proper fishing-ground is the market, and whose only tackle should be hard cash.

The Angler considers his pursuit as a fine art, of which merely to obtain fish is but small part — these he can get more cheaply and in greater abundance in the market. It is the Avay the thing is done — this and the open air, the odor of the woods and flowers, the laughter of the running water, the beauty and song of the birds, and that peace and content which open the heart of man to see and love the ever-changing beauties of nature — these give to that pastime a charm possessed by no other. Though old age and infirmity come on, and the foot once familiar with wood and stream is now confined to the narrow limits of a chamber, when every other earthly pursuit has lost its zest, who ever heard even then that the enthusiasm of the angler had diminished, or that the dim eye failed to kindle at the recollection and tale of earlier triumphs with the rod.

Fish-hooks. 11

Angler! — the term is to me a title of nobility, an order of knighthood open to personal merit alone. Not to every one who casts the fly is it given to belong to this brotherhood. He who would claim admission must be gentle, kindly, courteous, temperate, unselfish ; a lover of nature, a pleasant companion, and a true friend — and let us be thankful there are many such.

The relation of all this to fish-hooks is somewhat obscure, so perhaps it would be well to return to the point.

Since the gratification of a capture is measured largely by the degree of skill required to make it, it is desirable to eliminate as far as possible all chance from affecting the result ; so, if it may be, that when the fly is touched, no matter how lightly or from w^hat direction, the hook will fasten if manipulated with skill.

Ignorance of the mechanical principles which should be embodied in a fish-hook, and which govern its efiiciency, is altogether too common. Many examine a fly, and if it please in color, size, and neatness, little thought is given to the form of the hook.

The hooks ordinarily sold are none of them quite perfect, while many are very faulty in this respect. To formulate, if it may be, some simple and readily applied rule, guided by which the angler can justly criticise any form of hook at a glance, is the purpose of the remainder of this chapter.

If it is desired to drive a nail into a board to the greatest depth possible with a single blow of a hammer, everybody knows the blow should be delivered fair and straight upon its head, and by no means obliquely. And thus with a fish-hook. Though the power is first applied as a sudden pull, yet as it is transmitted through the curved form of the hook, eventually its direction is changed, and it becomes strictly a blow, which, to give the maximum of penetration, should be delivered in a direct line with the point.

This result would be well accomplished by any form of hook, were it not that another principle intervenes ; for the moment the forward movement of the hook, due to the pull on the line, is arrested by an obstruction at the point, the point tends to halt while the remainder of the hook still advances. Thus a cant is instantly given to the hook, the direction of the point is thrown out of line, and at an angle with the movement — the blow becomes oblique instead of direct — and the hook tends to rake its way out of the fish's mouth, rather than to imbed itself therein. (See Fig. 2.)

Try the experiment yourself.

Holding a hook in the position shown in Fig. 5 (page 19), except that the shank should be horizontal, insert its point lightly in any soft substance which will, like the inside of the mouth of a fish, permit the hook freely to assume its own position — a piece of blottingpaper for example. Now pull on the gut attached to the hook, and at once it will assume the position claimed and indicated. This change of position is the foundation of the main principle hereafter announced. Other considerations there are which affect the construction of hooks, but they are of very secondary importance.

Mr. H. Cholmondely Pennell, in his "Modern Practical Angler " (London, 1870), has treated this subject with marked ability. We feel certain that such of our readers as have not seen his book, will not think it amiss if we quote him somewhat fully. In this feeling it is hoped he will join.

Fish-hooks. 13

He discusses the question as follows :

"Extraordinary as it may seem in such a mechanical age as ours, we cannot go into a tackle shop, and buy a hook in which one or more glaring defects, or of offences against the first jDrinciples of mechanics, cannot be pointed out. The most common fault of all, perhaps, lies in the shape of the bend. I have shown, when alluding to this subject in the Book of the Pike, how great is the difference in the penetrating powers of different bends. Between the two extremes it amounts to no less than cent, per cent. ; and yet even the best of these fall below the point of efficiency which ought to be attainable. Another obvious fault is overfineness in the wire, from which it results that when the point comes sharply in contact with a bone or other hard portion of a fish's mouth, or even on the sudden jerk occasioned by striking softer material, it 'springs' — that is, yields by a widening of the bend outward — and so fails to penetrate. On the form of the shank of the hook, again depends, to a considei-able extent in fiy- fishing, the proper and even swim of the lure ; and while the point and barb are the first portions of the hook to be brought into requisition in practice, it would seem that they are the last on which any theoretical consideration has been bestowed.

" The theory of hooks, as based simply on mechanical principles, should j^robably run somewhat as follows :

" 1. What are the objects to be aimed at in a perfect hook?— "«. Penetration.

" h. Holding power.

"c. Strength.

" d. Lightness and neatness.

" 2. How are these to be attained and combined ?

Fly-rods and Fly-tacMe.

'■'■Penetration. — C ceteris ^^aribiis, the penetrating power of any hook will be greater in proportion, as the angle of impact — the angle, that is, at which the jioint of the hook strikes the fish's mouth — coincides with the direction of the force applied {i.e., the pull of the line) ; or to illustrate this by a diagram :

Fig. 1.

Fig. 3.

The dotted line a e represents the direction of the applied force ; the penetration will be greater as the direction of the line of the point c d is coincident w^ith that of a e. In Fig. 1 these two lines actually correspond, and if there were no other matters to be taken into consideration, this hook, so far as penetration depending on bend is concerned, would be mechanically i>erf ect. Fig. 2 represents a hook in which the converse of the above principle is illustrated.

"These principles hold good equally in the case of hooks the points of which are crooked or turned sideways, as in the Kirbys and Snecks, the penetration dimin-

Fish-hooks. 15

ishing as the point is turned from the direction of the applied force, and accordingly that is the one particular in which the Limerick is superior to the other bends. The Sproat and Round bends have also a similar advantage. In all these hooks the angle of impact, such as it is, is direct.

" The above arguments are based, it will be observed, on the assumption that in all other respects, except the bend, the hooks under comparison are equal. But in fact hooks are divided into two broad divisions, the one possessing and the other lacking an element which has an obvious bearing on the penetrative power. I refer to the shape of the shank, whether straight or 'hog-backed' (curved). The substitution of a necessarily more or less yielding and elastic curve for a perfectly straight and rigid shank, cannot but affect adversely the penetrating powers. As regards the penetration of the point itself, it is clear that, other circumstances beingequal, the smaller the hole to be made the less will be the force required to make it ; and also that a long, straightly tapered point, like that shown in Fig. 1, will penetrate more easily than a shorter and 'blunter,' or holloiced out, point of the form represented in Fig. 3. This latter principle is merely, in fact, a converse application of the mechanical truism, that what is gained in speed is lost in power. If two barbs are of the same maximum diameter, and one is twice as long as the other, the longer barb will, for practical purposes, penetrate with half the pressure required by the shorter.

" Again, with regard to the ' point side ' of the barb (c d in diagram), it is obvious that in order to insure a firm and deep penetration, this side must be of a proper length. The want of length in this part of the hook is one of the faults of the ' Sproat bend,' which is exaggerated for sake of ilhistration in Fig. 3,

^^ Holding Poicer. — To ilhistrate this I shall take a case which is both the most common in practice, and will admit of a theoretical demonstration : that of the hook having penetrated quite through the li}) of the fish, so that the point protrudes. In this case it is evident that, when once hooked, the nearer the point approaches the shank of the hook, the less chance must the fish have of escaping. This will be seen by carrying the principle to the extreme limit — and assuming that the point was so bent in after hooking as actually to touch the shank; the fish's lip would then be enclosed in a complete triangle, from Avliich, of course, there could be no possible escape.

" Strength. — It is obvious that those portions of the hook which are nearly or quite in the same line as the penetrating or holding force, have little or no strain to bear. This is the case with the shank and with the short or j^oint side of the hook shown in Fig. 1. The strain, therefore, is thrown on the top side, and more especially on the angle /, and it is precisely in this point that the common Sneck bends have hitherto failed in practice. So marked has been this failure, that I have known three salmon to be lost within an hour with Sneck hooks, all by breakages at the angle in question.

^^ Lightness and Neatness. — The lightest form of hook, other points being equal, must evidently be that in which, while retaining the requisite thickness of metal at the portion subject to strain, the jjarts not so subject — that is, the shank and ' point side' — are tapered away towards the ends. Hooks so tapered are also neater when employed for flies, and more convenient for general use.

Flsh-hoohs. 17

" The patterns of hook which at present most nearly fulfil the conditions indicated by a practical application of the foregoing theory are the Sneck and Sproat bend hooks; the former is, however, marred by two faults — the tui-ning to one side of the point, and the lack of strength above described; and the latter by the want of depth and power in the point side, the hollowed out or blunted shape of the barb, and the curved or ' hog-backed ' form of the shank. Appearance, or neatness, is of course a matter of taste, but whatever other claims the Sproat bend has upon our suffrages they can hardly, I think, be urged on the score of beauty. The Limerick hook also has the disadvantage, though in a less exaggerated form than the ' Sproat,' of being hog-backed, which, as I have shown, prevents the fly swimming straight and even, and gives it an inclination to turn in the water, like a miniature spinning-bait. The Round and Kirby bends are very deficient in penetrating power, and disproportionately short in the shank as compared to their breadth of bend, either for appearance or use, more particularly in the matter of flies.

"In the pattern of hook which is now being manufactured by Messrs. Hutchinson, of Kendal, under my name, I have endeavored to hit the medium between theoretical and practical requirements, and to combine as nearly as possible the advantages of the various bends referred to, and especially of the Sproat and Sneck bends, while avoiding what I believe to be their faults.

" Diagrams both of this hook and of the other hooks described are appended, and by applying to them the principles advocated, my readers will be able to form their own conclusions as to how far the pattern I recommend fulfils the ideal sketched out." 2

Fly-rods arid Fly-tachle.

(Four illustrations of forms familiar to American anglers have been added to those in Mr. Pennell's book.

Sproat.

O'Shaughnessy. Abeicleen.

Fig. 4.

Kiusey.

The more acute the angle a [Fig. 4], the more certainly the hook will fasten according to Mr. Pennell's theory.) In the following illustration A represents a hook in the position it will assume in response to the pull of the

Fish-hoohs. li)

line, as shown by our former experiment ; B C will then represent the " draft-line." That side of the barb marked a I have termed the "inner" or "advancing side;" that marked d is intended when the " outer " or " following " side is mentioned.

It is hoped that the form of this diagram and the nomenclature of its parts will be well fixed in the mind, since then what follows will be easily understood.

Fig. 5.

It will be noticed that Mr. Pennell has determined the penetrating angle from the o^lter line of the barb. I cannot but think this an oversight on his part, and one which affects his results. It is not the '■''following " (c?) but the "advancing'''' side (a) of such a cutting edge or penetrating point which determines its promptness to engage, as well as the direction which it will follow.

I say such a penetrating point, for if the " following " side {d) of the point or edge is in actual contact with the surface to be penetrated (as shown in Mr. Pennell's first figure, page 14), it guides the edge in its own direction, since that is the line of least resistance. It is clear that this is not the case with a fish-hook, since there the " following edge {d) is raised above, and is not in contact with the surface to be penetrated.

But an illustration familiar to all will serve to make this clearer than pages of theory.

Take the common carpenter's chisel, and ajDply it to a board, with the bevel down and in contact with the board. The bevel here guides the edge, and forces it to advance parallel with the surface upon which the bevel rests ; there is not the slightest tendency to bury. It would seem to follow from this that the hook shown in the first of Mr. Pennell's figures is by no means theoretically perfect as to penetration (or promptness " to bite," which is the idea I understand Mr. Pennell intends to convey), but on the contrary it is both theoretically and practically imperfect in this respect.

Now let us reverse the chisel and apply it to the board with the bevelled side uppermost, and at such an angle that the flat side (which will then become what we have termed the " following " side) does not touch the board. Here we have an exact reproduction of the penetrating point of a fish-hook, one governed by exactly the same laws. Attempt to cut with the chisel held in this position ! It buries at once in the board and comes to a halt. The " advancing " edge, the bevel, guides and forces it downward.

In considering the penetration of a fish-hook, it must not be forgotten that the problem is not to pierce an obstacle squarely across the path of the hook ; but its point is to engage with an oblique surface, and when so engaged it should turn at once from its former path and bury downward.

If the foregoing is true, then it again follows that the " outer line " of the barb should not point to the shank of the hook, since then the " following " side of the penetrating edge is in contact with the surface to be penetrated, and must guide the point in its own line ; and thus any tendency to deviate therefrom — in other words, to bui-y — is checked.

Fish-hoohs. 21

It is hoped it will now be conceded that the " inner,'''' and not the '" outer," profile of the barb determines the direction in which the hook will respond to a pnll npon the line. It also results from these considerations that the greater the angle which the "inner" profile of the barb makes with the "draft-line," the deeper the hook will bury, if it penetrates at all.

If it penetrates at all, and here, practically, is the pith of the whole matter. For if the hook does not penetrate at all, the thought of what might have haj^pened had this been otherwise will afford but cold comfort to him who uses it.

Now if we place any hook bought at random in the market, in the position shown in the following figure, it is at once apparent that the " advancing " side of the barb a makes a sufticient angle with the " draft-line," to insure that if the barb enters at all it must bury. So we may dismiss this requirement from our minds as being sufficiently satisfied in any hook which has a barb.

We may then turn our undivided attention to the jiroblem how to secure this all-important first engagement. This appears to admit of solution by an easy method, one having, it would seem, the merit that it permits of practical application at a glance, and under almost any circumstances.

Let A (Fig. 6) be a hook placed in the position shown upon any flat surface, B C (the glass of the dealer's

Fig. 6.

Fly-rods and Fly-tackle.

show-case, for example). B C (the level of the glass) will then represent the " draft-line " of the hook; and as the line a of the inner side of the barb approaches this line, short of actual coincidence, so will the sureness of the hook increase, since then it will penetrate easily, yet bury sufficiently.

The demonstration of this principle, and the statement of how it may be used to discriminate between hooks of all forms, may be made in one breath. Let Fig, 7 represent the barbs of two hooks so placed; the line Ji C is the flat surface, and a a the line of the inner side of the barb, as before. Now let us construct the parallelogram b c d e, oi which the line a of the inner side of the barb is the diagonal.

This is the well-known "parallelogram of forces" of the books, and its well-settled principles teach us at a glance that the side 6 c of the parallelogram (or that parallel to the flat surface B G) represents correctly the penetrating power of the hook ; while the side c e (that perpendicular to the flat surface) will show the relative tendency of the hook to rake its way out of the fish's mouth. Of course the intending purchaser, when he places any hook upon the glass show-case of the dealer in the position shown, can at once construct this paral-

Fish-hoohs. 23

lelogram in his mind, and at once determine siiflEiciently for all practical purposes the relative length of the side parallel with the flat surface to that perpendicular to it. To sum up : any hook in which the side parallel to the flat surface is not longer than that perpendicular to it, is of vicious construction and should be rejected.

It was my purpose to prepare a table from actual trial, giving the number of pounds and ounces which each variety of hook shown in Fig. 4 required to bury it to the barb by a direct pull on its shank. But delay in gathering together all the varieties, and of uniform size so as to admit of fair comparison, together with further reflection on the subject, have convinced me that such a table would not be worth the space it would occupy. Each can determine the matter for himself, as far as it can be of any practical importance, by the application of the preceding simple rule.

Any of the forms of hook shown will take fish at times, nor will the general average of the catch of one so greatly exceed that of the other — provided ahvays the fish are rising boldly. But if they are timid and take the fly gingerly, or if they are rising but seldom and the prospect of sport is poor, then, when the discouraged angler is apt to allow his attention to be distracted from his flies and be backward in responding to an offer, heed of this point will make a marked difference in result. And this brings me to the point which was the prime impelling cause of this inoi-dinately long preamble.

It is not my purpose, and I beg in no part of this book to be understood to play the Sir Oracle — for that is at the same time to play the fool. I recognize the wide divergence of opinion as to many points entertained by my confessed superiors in the art of fly-fishing and its appliances. Somebody must be wrong, and it would be absurd for me to intimate or suppose that I alone was exempt from mistake. Therefore, when an opinion is stated its foundation is also given, trusting to that tribunal, the great fraternity of anglers — from whose judgment in these matters there is no appeal — to sustain me when in the right, and to consign me to merited oblivion when in the wrong. This course I have followed, and shall continue as far as permitted by the consideration that man is not immortal, and that the sole occupation of this life is not to read books on angling.

But to come back to the point.

I would warn my brother anglers, novice and expert alike, against those small hooks (so tempting when embodied in a small fly, because the hook is so well concealed) in Avhich the distance across the bend, from the barb to the shank, is but little exceeded by the length of the shank itself.

Apply one of these hooks to a flat surface, as shown in Fig. 6, on page 21. At once it is apparent that the angle of penetration may be made to depend altogether on the length of the shank {h c in that figure); and that if the shank of the hook there shown terminated at/" (it would then show about the proportions of the hooks referred to), the forward edge of the barb a would be nearly perpendicular, and its tendency to penetrate, or in other words to take hold, very slight. If we add to this the fact that these hooks are made of very thin wire, and consequently must spring some, thus enlarging the distance across the curve still more, we obtain a result even more vicious than that shown at the left hand of Fig. 7.

No form of bend, be it never so excellent, can remedy

Fish-hoohs. 25

this fatal error of construction. Such hooks reverse the proprieties, for they are a delusion and a snare, not to the fish, but" to the fishernjan; and this assertion is made with the more emphasis since, at the first glance, they so seem to present the efficiency of a large hook with the unobtrusiveness of a smaller one, that they are calculated to deceive even the elect.

The writer in his own fishing has usually employed the Sproat-bend hook, and believes it, when made with suflicient barb, as it sometimes is, not only the best obtainable, but very nearly perfect. In slightliness to our eye it seems the most graceful of any form. The shortness between the point of the hook a^nd the bottom of the bend, of . which Mr. Pennell complains, is not universal in all makes of that form of hook. The " hog-back " form is justly open to criticism. Some of these hooks are made with a very small barb, on the theory that the wound made by the hook is smaller, and that therefore the probability of disengagement is lessened, while ease of penetration is increased. The latter is undoubtedly true, but the former w^ould seem to be an error sufficiently grave to more than over-balance the conceded advantage. For the integument into which the hook is intended to be driven is not brittle like glass, but elastic like rubber ; and the barb of the hook does not cut its way before it as does a knife, but separates the tissue and distends the opening so made; and this closes again close around the hook the moment the passage of the barb will permit. Who ever saw a trout of any size taken from the water in Avhich the wound of the hook had not been enlarged by its struggles ? The importance, then, of a fairly prominent barb is apparent, and its just proportions will be a compromise, determined by

26 Fly-rods and Fly-tacJde.

a due and combined consideration both of holding power and ease of penetration.

By the preceding simple method the angler can determine the efficiency of any form of hook at once. One other word of caution and I have done. Beware of short angular bends in the curvature of a hook, particularly on the shank side, of which some of the " Sneck" bends will serve as an example. For a moment's consideration will show that such a hook must be far better in material and temper than a hook in which the curves are softened off, before it will bear an equal strain.

That the side rake of the " Sneck " is an evil when used in fly-fishing, is not by any means beyond question. A fish-hook is a creature of compromise — an article formed by the union of several discordant elements, each opposed to the othei-. What concession each shall make is a matter for sound judgment. A hook theoretically perfect in all respects cannot be, from the nature of the case.

The side rake undoubtedly somewhat augments the power required to bury the hook over the barb, but I am by no means certain that this loss is not more than made good by an increased certainty in that most essential quality of all — promptness of initial engagement in all positions. It will be generally conceded that the demonstration on the part of the angler which answers a rise, leaves a wide margin of power to meet this demand many times multiplied.