eagle claw featherlight rods

[Crippled Caddis]

I am considering getting a VERY short fly rod for the small streams and creeks in my area, as well as for stream smallies (well creek fish), and for capps and crane creek trout. What do you all think about the Eagle Claw Featherlight 6'6" 5wt fiberglass rods for this purpose? Let me know please, as I will be trying to hold to a strict budget.

Perfect! For the following reasons:

1. Due to the mass of the material itself fiberglass loads better for short, precise casts.

2. Fiberglass is 'tougher', allowing you to buck brush in places you'd never dare to take your expensive toys without a worry penalty.

3. Fish are more fun on the more responsive medium.

4. The peace of mind and enhanced pleasure of the fishing experience just knowing that you aren't going to be out a significant chunk of change if you do destroy the gear.

5. The more 'laid-back', less demanding timing of the rod, allowing you to slow down and get into the rhythm of the natural world around you.

[Gavin]

The eagle claw feather lights (FL300) arent half bad. I had one as my first fly rod 25+ years ago, and still fish with one occasionally. They can benefit from the addition of a few more snake guides though. Cheers.

[Danoinark]

CC and I have been discussing Fiberglass for some time now and in this exchange he answers my question,

since fiberglass is heavier than graphite why do I feell less tired and fore after a day of casting / fishing glass than I do with a graphite rod?

CC said:

That shouldn't even be a factor if you balance them well with the proper reel and line weights. And then allow them to cast the way THEY want to rather than trying to force them. That's the whole secret right there. Even graphite will be much less tiring if the rod is well balanced with the right reel. But the best thing you can do for any rod is put enough line on it to make it get down and work. Virtually all graphites are rated for a one or two weight lighter line than what they need to fish comfortably. The manufacturer rates them for the line that will give them the best odds in the 'parking lot wars' of casting for distance when choosing a rod. That is almost always a line too light for bringing out the best in the rod under actual fishing conditions. A line that is one or two weights too light to fish well will allow the prospective buyer to carry more line in the air and cast further simply because it will load the rod properly under those conditions. And ALWAYS bear in mind that the maker is concerned with selling, not with fishing.

A rod that is properly balanced with the right line will be slower and require less of the actual work of each cast to be done by the caster. I think that is one of the primary causes of graphite being indicted for being harder on the human body than cane and glass. The other factor lies with the weight of the materials themselves. Cane and fiberglass have more mass that actually assists with loading the rod for the cast. The lighter weight of the graphite actually is a deterrant in that instance, requiring YOU to take up the slack by doing more of the work.

The other factor involved in placing more stress on the body comes from the higher modulus of the material itself. Graphite is faster as we all know. Faster implies that reduced timing factors are demanded of the caster by the inherant nature of the material and reversing muscles groups abruptly simply puts additional demands on them that the average sedentary fisherman isn't 'tuned up' to do without noticing it at the end of the day. The slower, less demanding and more rhythmic timing of cane and fiberglass matches the abilities of the average, slightly out-of-shape (whether from simple lack of muscle tone brought on by reduced work requirements of the current era or advancing years) flyfisherman. In simplistic terms cane and 'glass are a better 'fit' to the abilities of our own physical infrastructure than graphite. If we will only allow them to do so they will make of our day a more enjoyable and less stressful experience. And when you get right down to the nut cutting isn't that what we seek? Stress reduction through fitting into the natural cycles of a non-artificial world?

[mhall02]

Wow, this discussion takes me back. I had a 7' six weight for years ('85 to 2000), what a rod!! I had a lot of fun with it till it snapped. Went to a 8' six wt. Dogwood Canyon, which broke w/in 2 years and now have a 4 wt 7' St. Croix that I love. I haven't seen these fly rods in years on the shelf, I bough mine from Consumers grocery store back when they were in business for around $15 or $20. I wouldn't mind getting one again for fun, may have to try that link above and track on down.

[drew03cmc]

The reason I was going to use 5wt was because I already have a reel with WF5F line on it, and I could just switch reels between rods. To use the 5wt, I would go with the 6'6" 5wt model. Do you think I could cast small sz 6 hair bugs on it, or small size 6 poppers? I know a WF5F will throw BH buggers and the sort, but I was just curious if it would cast poppers and hair bugs well. If not, I will get another spool, and use WF6F. I am just trying to minimize cost as I am looking for a rod to chase trout and smallies on Capps, Hickory, Crane, Big Buffalo, Little Niangua and the other brushy creeks and streams in MO.

[Crippled Caddis]

While it will certainly cast small, wind-resistant flies the real question is will it do so within the parameters you impose well enough to suit YOU. Your description of the terrain in which it will be used implies relatively short casts. <brushy creeks and streams in MO> When I review that scenario in my own mind I get the impression of short-range, precision placement casts. I think it would do that well enough to suit ME if I chose the flies well. Slimmer, lighter, less bulky profiles such as Sneaky Petes, foam spiders and the ilk would be more practical than big, hulking foam poppers. Casts of medium range, say 35' ot less under such conditions are normal in my understanding of the scenario and should be within the capabilities of the rod so long as you understand that you are pushing the limits of both rod and line in bulk and weight. An extreme weight-forward line such as a bass-bug taper would certainly be the best tool with which to arm the rod for such duty.

[Flysmallie]

I got my hands on both of these rods last night. Very interesting and I'm sure they are going to be a blast to fish. I did notice two odd things, well they seem odd to me anyway.

The 5wt has the line weight right on the rod like it should, but it says it's rated for 2-6lb test and has recommended lure sizes???

The 5/6 wt says 5/6 wt on the rod. Perfect. But it doesn't have any snake guides??? They are just "normal" guides. Will this be a problem with casting??

Of course I am going to put a 7wt line on it and my casting is horrible anyway so I probably won't notice. It just seemed odd to me.

[Crippled Caddis]

Sounds like they're working both sides of the fence, trying to sell to both spinfishers and flyfishers. And they may in fact be spinning tapers since I built a flyrod on a 'mystery' spinning blank given to me that appears to be one of the older W-M blanks. Once I found the line it liked it has became my preferred fishing tool when conditions allow.

Also, as noted in other threads, there has been several on-going threads on the fiberglass flyrod board for @ a year extolling the virtues of a couple of under $10 on sale FG spinning blanks for building some very acceptable flyrods. Using one of those blanks and an inexpensive grip/seat a rod can be put together for a very modest sum indeed.

[Terry Beeson]

I know several fly fishermen who are beginning to prefer standard ring guides vs. snake guides... One theory is that snake guides allow two friction points during the cast as opposed to only one friction point with the ring guides...

[Danoinark]

[

I got my hands on both of these rods last night. Very interesting and I'm sure they are going to be a blast to fish. I did notice two odd things, well they seem odd to me anyway.

The 5wt has the line weight right on the rod like it should, but it says it's rated for 2-6lb test and has recommended lure sizes???

Mine too Flysmallie. I think they use the blank also for their matching ul spinning rod.

Dano