responsible flyfisherman?

"steve" wrote in message
...
In article ,
rw wrote:

steve wrote:
Fly fisherman usually pride themselves on their environmental
responsibility. Yet flourocarbin will basically NEVER decompose. It
seems preety environmentally irresponsible to use.

What are people's opinions on this?

But ... it's INVISIBLE! :-)

Which makes things WORSE. all that invisible line for fish to get
snapped up in

It'd be pretty hard for a fish to get 'snapped up in' little 1/2 to 1-inch
pieces of mono. I haul out lots more mono from spincasters's birdsnests than
I ever leave behind.

--riverman

"riverman" wrote in message
It'd be pretty hard for a fish to get 'snapped up in' little 1/2 to 1-inch
pieces of mono. I haul out lots more mono from spincasters's birdsnests
than
I ever leave behind.

Likewise. Sure, I break off a few fish, but very, very rarely lose a
significant length of tippet (the Salmon River notwithstanding). Like
Myron, I recover far more mono, hooks, lead, and just plain garbage than I
lose on a typical trip.

On the Salmon River (NY), I do frequently lose 18-24" of FC tippet on
larger fish, but just as my negative environmental impact is greater, so is
my net positive. I guarantee I've pulled more spin casting bull**** out of
that river than every other place I've fished combined. Between the
incredible fishing pressure that place receives and the similarly incredible
disregard for the river, the amount of discarded 30# mono in the bottom of
that river must be amazing. I regret my small contributions, but it's a
small drop in a very big bucket.

Joe F.

In article ,
"riverman" wrote:

Which makes things WORSE. all that invisible line for fish to get
snapped up in

It'd be pretty hard for a fish to get 'snapped up in' little 1/2 to 1-inch
pieces of mono. I haul out lots more mono from spincasters's birdsnests than
I ever leave behind.

Again you are forgetting about the line that you lose from a snag or
from a fish. If you loose it to a rock you could easily have 4 feet of
line. If its mono it will break down and disintegrate. If its
polycarbin it will stay in tact for life.

On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 17:31:17 GMT, steve wrote:

In article ,
"riverman" wrote:

Which makes things WORSE. all that invisible line for fish to get
snapped up in

It'd be pretty hard for a fish to get 'snapped up in' little 1/2 to 1-inch
pieces of mono. I haul out lots more mono from spincasters's birdsnests than
I ever leave behind.

Again you are forgetting about the line that you lose from a snag or
from a fish. If you loose it to a rock you could easily have 4 feet of
line. If its mono it will break down and disintegrate. If its
polycarbin it will stay in tact for life.

Is that true? Does FC resist all forms of degradation or just UV degradation? I
don't know and don't use it anyway (too cheap) but it would be interesting to
see how long it lasts in the stream. Any studies done on it?

g.c.

By the way, ice fishermen love the stuff and I'm sure there is lots more
discarded from their tip ups and jigging reels than from flyfishermen's tippets.

"steve" wrote in message
...

Again you are forgetting about the line that you lose from a snag or
from a fish. If you loose it to a rock you could easily have 4 feet
of
line.

LOSE! The word is LOSE, fool.

If its mono it will break down and disintegrate. If its
polycarbin it will stay in tact for life.

INTACT is one word. And what the hell does "for life" mean? Whose
life? The life of the line? I should hope so. As a matter of fact I
strongly suspect that fluorocarbon* line (which, by the way, is by no
means necessarily distinct from "monofilament") enjoys the same
guarantee as most manufactured products today. That is to say, the
product is guaranteed for the life of the product. I will be happy to
furnish a translation in English for anyone who doesn't quite see the
implications.

Meanwhile, fluorocarbon line shares one other important feature with
every other manufactured product. In time, it WILL disintegrate, if
not to its constituent atoms, then at least to microscopically small
bits of inert gunk. It just takes a bit longer than some other
materials.

Wolfgang
then too, while fools may or may not take as long to disintegrate as
fluorocarbon line (depending on specific local conditions), they
certainly do a great deal more damage for the life of the product.

*There is a wide range of polymers that include chlorine and/or
fluorine. That a particular polymer or class of polymers currently
used in the making of fishing lines and containing one or both of
these elements goes by the name of "fluorocarbon" should not be
construed as suggesting that older and more familiar products lack
them.

"Wolfgang" wrote
*There is a wide range of polymers that include chlorine and/or
fluorine. That a particular polymer or class of polymers currently
used in the making of fishing lines and containing one or both of
these elements goes by the name of "fluorocarbon" should not be
construed as suggesting that older and more familiar products lack
them.


Looks like we better go back to Silk Worm Gut.
Ernie

"Ernie" wrote in message
om...

"Wolfgang" wrote
*There is a wide range of polymers that include chlorine and/or
fluorine. That a particular polymer or class of polymers
currently
used in the making of fishing lines and containing one or both of
these elements goes by the name of "fluorocarbon" should not be
construed as suggesting that older and more familiar products lack
them.


Looks like we better go back to Silk Worm Gut.
Ernie

Well, looked at from a geological perspective, or compared to other
ecologically questionable products like plutonium, petroleum and
mercury, or practices such as strip mining or clear cutting, dumping
uncounted centimeter long pieces of long chain polymers in the world's
streams, lakes, and oceans looks a wee bit less horrific.

On the other hand, I've got a mulberry tree!

Wolfgang

In article ,
says...

"steve" wrote in message
...

Again you are forgetting about the line that you lose from a snag or
from a fish. If you loose it to a rock you could easily have 4 feet
of
line.

LOSE! The word is LOSE, fool.

[TWEET!] Usenet foul, spelling flame, 20 yard penalty, repeat
first down.

Come on Cyli, your moderator job is on the line here, slap
Wolfie around a bit. :-)
- Ken

Greg writes:

It's Someone Else's Problem, eh ?

Where did I say that, Greg? If I'm on a stream and I see something, I will
pick it up. If I go to a bait chucker's stream (Burrell's Ford on the Chatauga
in N. Georgia), I will need a large dump truck to remove everything. I *did*
take out a small trash bag full of bait containers (looked like a Chinese Food
orgy) and other crap.

So, please, get off your high horse before you fall and hurt yourself.
Dave

http://hometown.aol.com/davplac/myhomepage/index.html

On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 13:22:52 -0800, wrote:

In article ,
says...

"steve" wrote in message
...

Again you are forgetting about the line that you lose from a snag or
from a fish. If you loose it to a rock you could easily have 4 feet
of
line.

LOSE! The word is LOSE, fool.

[TWEET!] Usenet foul, spelling flame, 20 yard penalty, repeat
first down.

Come on Cyli, your moderator job is on the line here, slap
Wolfie around a bit. :-)
- Ken

Sorry. I don't moderate spelling flames, even when I'm the loser. I
tend to really flippin' hate 'looser' for loser myself. And I'm not
a moderator. I'm a bouncer. Oh, damn. I just admitted it.
--

rbc:vixen,Minnow Goddess,Willow Watcher,and all that sort of thing.
Often taunted by trout.
Only a fool would refuse to believe in luck. Only a damn fool would rely on it.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli