Some of the other discussions here on rods lead me to pose this topic.

Sensitivity to winter steelhead bites is a matter of some interest to those of us sick enough to freeze our butts off every winter trying for these elusive beauties. A lot of folks think that a long, light rod is likely to be the most sensitive choice. I suggest that a short, stiff rod will do a better job for detecting bites. There may be other reasons to use a longer rod, such as casting and mending. There may be reasons for using a light rod, such as being able to cast a light lure. But a long, light rod, HAS to be less sensitive than a shorter, stiffer rod. Here's why.

Consider what has to happen when a fish bites. Some motion of the lure has to be translated into movement of the rod in the handle area, so that your hand can feel it. Let's say that the movement of the lure causes the tip of the rod to move 1 inch. If the rod is 10 feet long, that tip movement would cause the handle to move a certain amount. If the rod is five feet long, the movement of the handle for the same tip movement will be much greater. Not twice as much, and I can't remember the trigonometry, but the shorter rod will translate more bite movement into felt motion for the fisherman.

The same argument applies for stiffness. For two rods of the same length, the stiffer rod is going to translate more bite motion into felt motion for the fisherman. So, logically, one should use the shortest, stiffest rod you can for drift fishing, within the other concerns of casting and controlling the line.

Something to think about in your rod selection process. Again, there are other reasons for using the long, light rods that we like. I think it's a mistake, however, to think that sensitivity to bites is a valid one.

Just a thought to provoke some discussion while we wait for the rivers to come into shape.