Fluorocarbon leaders, anyone use them?

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?

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.

"rw" wrote in message
ink.net...
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.

Done lots of time in sal****er. Days when you have to have FC leader to get
a tuna to bite. Same rig next to you with mono leader, no bites.

"rw" wrote


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.



I did test it, semi-scientifically .... at Davis Lake, Ca.

I changed at regular intervals, 1/2 hour as I remember, maybe an hour, over
several days ( nearly a week ) of fishing. This was all sub-surface work
where FC should have it's biggest advantage. This was damsel time and I
have a pattern of my own that I have great confidence in, so I fished the
same pattern constantly, just the tippet was changed.

At the end of the time, there was NO significant difference in catch rate
between FC and mono. I DID catch one or two fish more with FC ( over
several day period ), BUT, that was clearly because FC happened ( pure
luck ) to be on the time a big, hungry, school of fish worked near me and
you couldn't keep em off the hook for a few minutes. I've had the exact
same experience with mono, on other trips, and I'm certain the mono would
have ended up with the 'one or two' edge if it had happened to be on at that
special period.

My buddy, that runs a fly shop, says he believes that fly fishers are
'looking for a magic bullet" and long for their fishing ability to be in
proportion to their buying power, or, at least, long to be able to buy
fishing ability. I think he is right, if FC was cheaper I bet it would
have LESS "true believers" running around. If I ran a shop, I'd be sorely
tempted to greatly raise the prices on a variety of 'secret products,
available only here' to increase my ability to "separate gullible, desperate
flyfishermen from the contents of their wallets." .... hell they seem to
actually enjoy the separation



That said, I don't nymph enough to comment, but I CAN see an advantage to
abrasion resistence, in that use.

"Larry L" wrote in message
...

SNIP
My buddy, that runs a fly shop, says he believes that fly fishers are
'looking for a magic bullet" and long for their fishing ability to be in
proportion to their buying power, or, at least, long to be able to buy
fishing ability. SNIP

That's what keeps the manufacturers afloat. As long as they keep thinking up
stuff, good or bad doesn't matter, fishermen will buy it. I've been
flyfishing for over 50 years and there have been only a very few
improvements in equipment/materials, but there have been tens of thousands
of "new and improved" stuff put on the market. And, yes, I've been sucked
into buying a few more than I'm ready to admit to.

Gene

Gene Cottrell wrote:

That's what keeps the manufacturers afloat. As long as they keep thinking up
stuff, good or bad doesn't matter, fishermen will buy it. I've been
flyfishing for over 50 years and there have been only a very few
improvements in equipment/materials, but there have been tens of thousands
of "new and improved" stuff put on the market. And, yes, I've been sucked
into buying a few more than I'm ready to admit to.

Gene



I agree with you that there is an industry to support and that there has
been alot of junk pawned off on us but there are a number of things that
have significantly improved in the last 50 years. IMO, tippet material
is probably #1, Waders are number 2 - 50 years ago waders SUCKED!, a
cheap rod today casts better than the most expensive of 50 years ago (I
know the bamboo/glass guys will disagree), Hooks are better quality, Dry
fly hackles have improved GREATLY, raingear is better and sporting
clothing as a whole is better, I'm sure I'm forgetting a number of
things....

Willi

"Gene Cottrell" wrote in message
...


t. And, yes, I've been sucked
into buying a few more than I'm ready to admit to.



Since I've fallen victim to hype for nearly every product introduced since
1971, I understand the "Maybe I can buy some skill." thing from watching
myself, not just others. :-(

At this point, I giggle when I see a new 'atomic submarine material rod that
casts itself" each, and EVERY, new catalog, but that is after collecting a
closet full of rods and still being a crappy caster :-(

I just got a catalog with new dubbing "blended to perfectly to match the
important Glossosoma caddis" and it's all I can do to force myself away from
my credit card and the phone ... Glossosoma, btw are black and I fish them
every year successfully with plain old black dubbing, but maybe, just maybe
"special blended black" would catch more ????? Be strong Larry ... drop
that credit card ... DROP IT !!

But I agree with Willi, many things are really greatly improved, although
his ranking is wrong G .... I'd rather go back to old "breaks when you
look at it wrong" tippet, than back to old "weigh 24 pounds and you're still
wet" waders.

I make a lot of noise about stupid spending on fly fishing, but in reality
shopping and trying new things is part of the fun.

However, I have a STRONG personal distaste for the 'beautiful person
syndrome" that is so very common and getting more so in our culture. They
just divided some rice land, one property away from me, into 40 acre pieces
and are building some of those obscene super sized homes common now on them.
The new owners are busy as hell trying to outdo each other parking $250,000
motor homes and Hummers next to them, building security fences and ponds
that are going to breed mosquitoes, lots of mosquitoes ( we had two horses
on this 'block' with West Nile last summer) but ponds clearly co$t to build,
so we need a pond.

Fly fishers ( and the number, thankfully, is decreasing from a high a few
years back ) that are in the sport, mainly, to spend and be seen wearing the
right gear, carrying the right rod and being told to "set the hook" by the
right fish pimp, make me sick to my stomach. But, they are part of the
same, spiritually bankrupt, phenomenon as the super sized houses ( I know a
guy that has a 10,000 square foot TWO bedroom home ... when he gave me the
tour, all I could say was "it's not too cozy is it?" ( I've never been
invited back G ) We have an entire culture that has been raised on TV
and subjected to constant bombardment from the ADman ... they have come to
believe, honestly believe, "You are what you own." and sadly, many that I
meet really don't have any more depth, as humans, than their bank account.


um, how did I get here? .... oh, yeah ... tippet

"Larry L" wrote in message
...

...I've never been invited back G...

No kidding? You insult them to their faces, as well as behind their backs,
you threaten to beat them up, shoot, bludgeon or otherwise kill their dogs,
use pepper spray on those dogs, lecture them on responsibility, threaten
citizens arrest, promise citations, threaten lawsuits, AND are prepared to
go further.......and they STILL don't invite you back!?!?

Tsk, tsk.

Wolfgang
who, were he ever to find himself in a similar position, would be sorely
tempted to shorten his christmas card mailing list.

"Wolfgang" wrote

You insult them to their faces,

g

Yeah, but my face is pretty much the only one I have.

I find that I'm capable of silly maudlin sentiment about "the concept of
humanity"

And I know a FEW individuals I would defend at any cost, so dear are they to
me.

Yet truth told, I find very little to like in most "people" and that may
well be reciprocal.

..............................................

But, within that small group of my family and few friends that actually
know me, I'm willing to bet that the appraisal of my character would be
significantly more positive than, "Not really that bad of an asshole ... in
person." G

Larry ( who don't send no fricken x-mas cards to nobody )

"Larry L" wrote ...


much snippage

We have an entire culture that has been raised on TV and subjected to
constant bombardment from the ADman ...

Speaking (reading?) of admen, I just picked up a book one of my former profs
wrote: _The Man Everybody Knew_, a bio of Bruce Barton, considered by many
to be the "father" of modern advertising. As an undergrad, in Prof. Fried's
class, we read _The Man Noboby Knows_, by Barton, wherein Jesus is cast as a
salesman. Great read. This book ought to be interesting as well.

...so tippet leads to Jesus as salesman....

Dan