What? A major fishing writer and renowned flycaster,tyer,connoisseur fishes with a reel under $40? Thanks for the reality check. My $100 fly rig sometimes gets some uppity looks on the Little Red in Arkansas. I say if you can't afford to play with the big dogs, buy something you can afford and show them they aren't as big as they thought while you catch just as many as them.

I've always figured reels were for nothing but holding your line unless you required a good drag. I think rods on the other hand are different. A good rod with the proper line is a pleasure to cast where a cheap rod with the proper line may not load as well and lack the sensitivity or light weight. It's like comparing a Cross Pen to a crayon. They both do the same thing but one does it a little better.

Buck got it exactly, untill I was given a G Loomis from Deeter, I thought the only people that used a 400 dollar fly rod were complete snobs, and I could outcast them with a 40 dollar pfluger outfit. It makes a major difference, I can shoot farther, cast more accurately, and feel it load better, its great.

I think you just opened the door for the angler that hasn't whet his appetite on the whole fly-fishing experience.

I started out on the 'ol bait caster as a kid, then went to the casting reels,then back to bait casters rather reluctantly, and spent a ton of money only to find out ... casting reels are my true love.

But after reading this article, one may take the bite and venture straight into the fly-fishing philosophy, and not be too worried about about the expenditure, even in today's economy.

Good read ... two thumbs up!

When I saw the title of the post, I almost didn't read it. I don't mind features about top of the line gear, but if I read another piece about an "inexpensive" pair of $1,500 binoculars or an "inexpensive" $1,000 scope, I may retch. Fishing gear is just as bad, with the "inexpensive" $150 bass rod or "inexpensive" $200 baitcasting reel.

I'm glad I read further on this occasion. Thanks for the tip, and Bean will probably be selling me one of those reels sooner rather than later. A $39 dollar reel may not stand comparison with a $300 reel, but the $39 dollar reel with which you fish is always better than the $300 reel about which you can only dream.

It is always nice to hear that one can get into fly-fishing without having to take out a loan. This does bring up a good point... although sometimes true, most of the times you can find a product that is not that expensive and it would work as well as the expensive one. The most expensive gear is not always the best.

This is just wrong.

Isn't the way this is supposed to work is: rod/reel/line manufacturer gives editor/writer demonstrator of said $500 rod/reel/line for 40-50 years of testing and editor/writer then writes glowing review of said equipment about how it just can't be done without in their column?