Scandi style with a downstream wind??

[sms]

There was a lot of bull back in the day. One aspect was that the lines were crap. Probably for two reasons - lack of knowledge and line manufacturing handicaps. The lines were with too short tapers and way too light. Nowadays’ lines with enough mass in the rear and long tapers are really something else. It was like working a bolt with nose pliers and now we have a proper impact wrench.

To me skandi is spey with a short head that excels with kiss and go. Skagit is great with sustained anchor casts and scary with kiss and go. Scandit is something in between and my preference for fishing if long floating spey lines are not the right tool of catching fish.

XLT was one of the best long bellies of its time. Nowadays there are much better ones for both fishing and competition casting. XLT, like the old ”underhand” lines is not heavy enough in the back.

[Lasse Karlsson]

What Sakari said^

Cheers
Lasse

[Morsie]

Thanks Sakari,

Scandit is good, I like that. A practical fishing set-up. Shorter Scandi body capable of handling a range of tips. Sounds perfect.

Morsie

[Paul Arden]

Scandit is something in between and my preference for fishing if long floating spey lines are not the right tool of catching fish.

Hi Sakke, out of interest when do you choose one over the other?

I watched a video of an angler fishing a scandi head on a river, where I could have very comfortably fished such a river twice the size with a 5WT DT without any problems!

I can only assume Salmon fishing is very different to trout streamer fishing. With trout I have the objective to sink the fly to slightly above the trout’s depth and then curve it away before it reaches the fish. Occasionally (rarely) this means a slack line cast, but more often the best approach is a straight line cast (usually a downstream Reach), followed by upstream mends while the fly sinks, finished off with a downstream mend to set the curve. The flies are weighted, and the downstream curve is set in the same way that the curve is set with nymphs (ie fast current/tight curve, slow current/wide curve).

While it’s possible to make mends with shooting line, you can’t “cast” or flick the mend, just reposition by lifting and re-laying the line. There is some after-control here but much less. However I don’t see people doing that with salmon – at least not anything like to the same degree – I’ve always put that down to feeding/not feeding behaviour between the two fish, with salmon taking a more “glided” presentation, and maybe it’s the different holding water that’s being fished, but certainly the fly control/manipulation is very different.

Totally bizarre - I really can’t get my head around these fish Anyway for me that would be a major difference between fishing the two respective lines.

Cheers, Paul

[Viking Lars]

I watched a video of an angler fishing a scandi head on a river, where I could have very comfortably fished such a river twice the size with a 5WT DT without any problems!

When chhosing a DH rod for salmon fishing, several factors are at play. The size of the river is one, but always coupled with tactics, which again are closely related to season. Even on a small(er) river, I'd almost always choose a double hand rod for salmon. The fish are potentially quite big and in a typically relatively fast river, it's just so much easier, faster (and hence better for the salmon) to land one on a DH. Especially for early season, you have to be prepared to fish anything from an intermediate to a type 6 sinker, and with a big big (10+cm) fly and *that* is absolutely no fun (I'd honestly say stupid to do) with a sinlge hander. In early season on big rivers with big fish, it's just a fact that you need big reels with 150m backing (preferably more). And when that 30lbs salmon runs, you are completely dependant on the big rod to lift as much line out of the water as possible.

In any condition, it's just easier to cast 30m time-after-time-after-time-aftertime with a DH rod. And steering and mending the line on a big river is much, much more effective with the long rod.

In late season, where the rivers are often low and small flies and floating lines are the best tactic, I don't mind using a single hander if the river's not too big. In some areas (like Denmark and Southern Sweden) high banks, high vegetation, sometimes deep wading and still a potential for big fish, a DH is always my choice.

Lars

[Viking Lars]

For the rest, its just a fancy name for spey casting with shorter shootingheads. So all of the spey casts apply, but remember to use a short spey tapered shootinghead, a coated runningline (because a mono has too little friction and will cause the rod leg to overtake the fly leg and make trouble!) And a very long monofilament leader, but not too long as it will cause tailing loops, but we cant tell you how long that is, but if you get a tail, it was probably too long

I agree with everything Lasse stated above and with Sakari's views also above (although maybe the the point about too short tapers and too light lines, but that's not what I want to say here).

Scandi-style *is* a style, nothing else. Typically different tackle is used. What I think must be considered is that new rods, that were quite a lot different from the typical DH rod of the time, were developed and those rods *were* better suited for Scandi-style casting and tackle. A lot of bashing has been going around, but I think it would also be fair to say that when this style and the "physics" behind it, were developed and popularised, the understanding of casting physics weren't that much better in other areas.

And I don't mind saying the in the early 1990s, Göran Andersson *was* one of the very best with a double handed rod in the World. And he was an absolutely fantastic salmon fisher. I've had the pleasure watching him fish his favourite beat on River Orkla in Norway. Sometime around 1995. That was quite the epiphany.

Furthermore I think he was instrumental in getting the lines, the tackle and the popularity of the DH rod to the level it is today. Was he right? No, far from, but how many were around 1990? And did Göran "develoop" the Scandi-style? I think he did, but I'm not sure on the point. He certainly refined the style and the tackle.

[Morsie]

Thanks Lars, Your perspective is most appreciated mate, and that's what I'm after here. It's very interesting.

Does anyone think theres an ideal rod for 'Scandi' heads and an ideal rod for 'Skagit' heads - are they different animals? Its seems that broadly the Skagit rods fall into the 'switch' category, ie shorter, while the Scandi rods are longer and a bit stiffer. Clearly you can use either line on either style of rod provided you get some match up of line length and rod length, but in an ideal world, if you could have both what would each be like?

Cheers, Morsie

[Paul Arden]

Good posts Lars. I never had a problem with Goran or Loop and both have my highest respect. Where I had an issue was with the concept that Underhand Casting was not Spey Casting. And I can see and understand that viewpoint; casting a shooting head is different to casting a DT. If you consider Spey casts to be a style of casting with long belly lines that require translation for longer casts, then yes of course. But I never thought that’s the way to organise it. You would end up with Single and Double Spey casts, Single and Double Underhand casts, Single and Double Skagit casts. Etc etc.

Maybe I always saw it differently because I learned them all with a single handed rod.

As you know I am almost completely without order. I’m sure you’ve realised that when I visit you I move your cutlery around. I put forks with spoons and spoons with knives. This is my way of making your life more adventurous.

But when it comes to “Spey” casts I see them as a family of dynamic rolls with change of direction, irrespective of tackle. Whether that be single of DHD; long belly, shooting heads or bricks on strings.

And that’s all I’ve ever had an issue with. You know, flycasting can be confusing enough, but the DHD world is nuts. Someone changes a Lift and all of a sudden it’s a new cast. Why??!

So IMO it’s fabulous and it’s definitely pioneered a new style of DHD casting. I also think nowadays the casting world has moved towards the idea that it is “Spey Casting”, albeit very stylised using shooting heads. That was certainly not the case 25 years ago.

I thoroughly recognise that not everyone compartmentalises things in the same way. These casts and techniques have grown organically. It became bizarre because you could do the Underhand technique with a single handed rod, while making an overhead cast. And then EFFA were examining it saying there were no named casts in Underhand Casting! What is that about?! If you want to look for madness you don’t have to look any further than fly fishing! We are completely nuts

Cheers, Paul

[ACW]

As an O F who started speycasting with 15 footers and dt lines ,I found nitailly the shorter heads wouldnt work for me ,practice and applying the basic priciples now means I am happy with DTs, long heads ,shortheads and shooting heads .
not seen the need of Skagits as "my " rivers aint that deep and I dont like splashy presentaion ,if I can avoid!

[sms]

Paul,

I choose a long floating spey lines if: 1) the fish take relatively close to the surface and 2) I need to use a bit longer casts so that the whole head is out at least.

Now I am mostly using short and super fast sinking heads as I need to go deep. Mostly the fishing distances are not too long, but I need a DH to get deep and stay there in the downstream slow swing. If I am not bouncing the line (head) on the rocks I am not in the zone. Sometimes I need to cast upstream, do an aerial upstream kick mend to turn most of the line upstream, then strip slack line off when the line drifts and sinks. Eventually the fishing part is almost straight downstream with a very slow swing right on the salmon's face. The fish may be only 5-10m from the "bank" (flooding river so that means the tree or bushline often) in a river where the rapids are from about 80 to 400 meters wide.

So far I have not been able to get to the right zone with a single hander. Head made out of T14 didn't sink fast enough.

Mostly the reasons why I salmon fish with a DH are:
1. you cast cast cast
2. often quite long too
3. flies can be large and/or heavy
4. the lines go deep and lifting a very fast sinker is not fun with a short rod

From fish fighting point of view, the advantages of a DH are: you can keep a bit more line off the water and you can try to lift/guide it around boulders and stuff. Otherwise I think SH beats DH's ass when it comes to fish fighting. I've fought big salmon in BC with a SH. I fight tuna with single hander. But, I use FG to make my SH rods fish demolishers of course. With a CF rod it is all about rod angles. The weak point is the hook or the tippet (in my case leader as it is the tippet mostly as a long leader delays fly being pulled down by the head/line).


Lars,
In my opinion the Loop custom lines were/are horrible. I did not know it before I really learnt to cast and started understanding lines.
I have LCT12SI (Loop Custom Two handed 12 Slow Intermediate). It has about 1,75m front taper and the rest is level. The level part is roughly 3,3g/m (35,8g and 11,3m and assuming no change in density with different diameters which is not very accurate but enough for this purpose).
So, essentially you were casting a very light line with almost level mass distribution. To make it come off the water on the FC you could not anchor the tip too much since the front taper was short. And the line was still quite thick in the tip. And if you didn't, you needed a long leader to prevent the anchor from breaking/kicking. And that does not work well if you want to have short leader from fishing point of view.

Nowadays pretty much all manufacturers have good tapers (long front taper and heavy rear). You can use short or long leaders etc. I nowadays cut almost oll of my heads to tip lines btw (the ones that I haven't cut for "Lego" lines where I have the tip, the front belly and and then rear belly section or two). I think one of the, if not the, first proper head was Rio AFS. I have one 10/11 S1 (really a slomo as it often floats at the start of the fishing session). The front taper is about 10m. It is thinner at the tip than the LCT12SI. And it is much heavier in the rear, about 5,2g/m. Overall it is 12,8m and 42,1g. The part that is being cast is much higher and the weight distribution is much better than in the almost level lines of the back old days.

With the old lines your casting had to be accurate as healing diarrhea by farting. A small error and the result is not nice. Modern lines are much much more forgiving, give you more options in the leader department and even fly a bit better. This applies of course to water borne casts, not overhead.

A friend of mine had bought a Guideline PT S6/S7 in 9/10 (which is ok, but not good line to cast, but sinks quite ok). It of course did not work too well in his big rod (I believe 15' 10wt). So he wanted to have it a bit shorter (from fishing point of view) and have more mass in the D-loop part that moves during the FC. He simply turned the rear part double, whipped it and it, of course, worked.

Many old rods that felt bad at that time come alive with modern (rear heavy) lines.


Morsie,

With short and relatively light rods I see the use of real skagit. You need to move heavy tips and big flies from small spaces. With big rods the scandis are already so heavy that they can do it, so real skagit is not needed. Some use them, but personally I do not understand using a 725gr line with a 15' rod for example. There is no payload used that a 525gr head would not deliver with ease.

Now, the most common scandi tip head is actually Rio Gamechanger skagit head - it has a good taper (like scandi heads nowadays). People just choose the weight according to what they are after (scandi, scandit or skagit).
For example some 12'6"#7/8 might work with Skagit 525gr and for Scandi 375gr. Scandit might be something like 450gr.

I use skandit weights since they work with even the heaviest and longest 18+ express tips, I can easily use sustained anchor casts (sometimes I need to make them from wind side since the only slot in the trees doesn't enable anything else and then a line that can rip the anchor without fearing leader slippage is the only solution I can go with without fearing of hooking myself) and I can use kiss and go if I want to. I do use mostly sustained anchor casts thou. And I like deep bend in the rod. Gives me easier window in the early release ("cast & release" that Rasmus talked about).

I also like rods that are not of the traditional tip action scandi rods - that's because I like that deep bend feel.