Wayne Knight wrote:
rw wrote:


There MAY be a case for fluorocarbon tippet, but I'm skeptical. I've
compared FC and ordinary mono in water, and I don't see any difference.



Like I said, I think they're great for nymphing in certain situations
but that's not my reason for posting.

I don't care that YOU don't see anydifference, the question is.....do
THE FISH *see* a difference?

That's precisely right, Wayne. Unfortunately, I don't see like a fish,
so I have to go with what I've got.

I have the strong suspicion that people who swear by FC have fallen for
a seductive fallacy: Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc, or "With this, therefore
because of this."

Maybe the fishing was slow, so they tried changing tactics, changing
flies, and finally changing to FC. Suddenly, the fishing got hot, but it
wasn't due to the FC. Sometimes the fishing just gets hot. But it's
fixed in their minds that the FC was the cause, and the selling point
about the index of refraction is at least plausible.

It would be possible to test the effectiveness of FC objectively, with
blind tests in actual fishing conditions. It would be time consuming
because you'd need lots of trials to make a confident conclusion. AFAIK,
it's never been done.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.