saltwater fly-rodder wants to try the fresh

[Homebuilt]

A recent move has me in Western Mass. I've thinking about picking up a rod to experiment with the Deerfield and a few smaller streams (maybe the Mill around Northampton). Is an 8.5' 5-weight a good place to start? I'm not looking for the magic rod that will do everything. I'm expecting to dabble around and find out what I like before I put any serious money into gear.

[Bob Parsons]

8.5' 5-weight a good place to start? I would say yes.

[dlangan]

Being a fresh water guy who dabbles in salt - I'm w/ Bob ;) I have a trailer on the Delaware and regularly play with a few rods of different lengthes and weights. An 8 1/2' 5 wgt. is the all around go to rod. When selecting, remember wind and distance are scaled way down on streams relative to the surf. So consider rod action accordingly...

[Homebuilt]

I feel better about this. I'm sure looking forward to exploring some new water.

[teflon_jones]

I fish the Deerfield regularly and a 8.5 ft 5 wt will do very nicely on that river. It's pretty heavily fished so I wouldn't get discouraged if you don't hook up a ton at first. If you have access to a canoe, that's your best bet for fishing it. You can drift it from north of the Mohawk State Forest all the way down to the paper mill and there's good fishing the whole way!

[Pauper Piscator]

My pet trout rod is an Orvis 3wt. VERY good small stream rod.

For the Deerfield I might consider an 8.5 or 9' 4 weight.

More delicate pres, and lots of length for distance and control.

[Strat]

If you are going to fish the big freestone rivers in western MA your best bet will be very large and heavy nymphs. Often times a sinking line is used to get these to the bottom of fast runs and between boulders. A 9 ft 6wt rod is ideal for this.

You will also be able to easily cast large stimulators and other big dries in the event of a stonefly/caddis hatch. A big fish that gets downcurrent of you is also easier to handle with a 6.

5wt is probably a more versatile rod. However, you may want to consider a 9ft rod which is a better tool for high-sticking nymphs and mending line. I don't see the advantage of an 8.5 foot length. If you want to bushwhack small streams and spooky fish, a 7.5 foot 3 or 4 wt would be more appropriate.

[teflon_jones]

If you're only going to have one rod to fish the Deerfield, plus some smaller streams with, then a 9 footer is too long IMHO. There's too many overhanging trees and casting space is too tight for a 9 footer. I'd even go down to recommending an 8 ft rod if the primary focus was going to be small streams or the upper Deerfield (pretty much everything above the Cold River). So if you're planning on doing most of your fishing in smaller streams like this, then I'd change my recommendation to an 8 ft 4 or 5 wt. I've used a 7.5 ft 4 wt up there for years and it's plenty of rod. If I was going to focus on fishing below the Cold River, then I'd probably go for the 5 wt since the stream gets a lot bigger and you need a boat to really fish it, which means having a longer rod will help you out a lot. You could even go to a 9 footer down there, but it'll limit you on the smaller streams.

[capemike88]

All I fish on the Cape for trout in the spring is my 7ft 3/4wt, you don't have to make long lasts, 30 or 40ft is more then enough and I'm fishing ponds, strreams should call for even shorter casts, right?

[capemike88]

Mine acually might be 7 1/2dt I have to check...and I fish a type 3

[Labrax]

I have fished Western MA quite a bit, especially when I lived out there. I would recommend getting a 4 or 5wt for fishing the deerfield and other rivers out there (Millers & Westfield). I think the 6wt is too heavy for the size of the fish, rivers, and flies that you will encounter, or be using out there. For the past 5 years I used a 8.5' 5wt for the bigger rivers and for the real small streams I use a 7' 4wt, or a 7.5' 3wt - before that I used a 8.5 6wt. This year I actually went out and got a 4wt 8.5' TFO Series 1 rod for fishing the Millers and the Deerfield (when the flows aren't too screwed up). I believe this rod is going to be good compromise for nymphing and dry fly fishing, and will allow me to cast fairly long if I need it.

I don't think you need to spend a lot of money on a reel or rod, so don't bust the bank on one rod unless you have your heart set on something. I think the Series 1 from TFO is a fine rod, especially when you look at the cost. Maybe you can buy 2 of their rods for $180 and get both a 3wt and 5wt ;) - covering the two sizes that I think are best for the small streams and bigger rivers you will run across in a lot of New England.

[Jed]

I usually fish an 8' 4wt and sometimes a 9' 6wt. You split the difference. I think it is the perfect choice.

jed

[Strat]

Go with the rod that you like and fish well with. To each his own.

However, I will say that when you encounter high water on the Deerfield (which is more often than not) you will be SOL with a 4 wt in your hand. It's no fun casting a size 4 weighted stone on that outfit, beleive me.

I think the 9' 5wt would be a good all around rod that will allow you to do a bit of everything. More of it has to do with the skill of the angler than the rod he's holding anyway.