Fluorocarbon

[tennjed]

I just came across this article. I'm not sure if it has been posted before, but I thought it would be worth another read. It applies to us as sportsmen. Really interesting.

http://www.wrflyfisher.com/articles-detail.php3?id=5df114847b1f97dd97e4aa8a43d8fbc9

 

[jdaddy]

I find it very hard to fathom the impact of fluorocarbon line hundreds of years from now. Frankly the production of materials, gear, the transportation and distribution, the packaging is of much greater and much more immediate concern. The carbon footprint associated with those activities, along with our driving to fishing locations, etc are much greater than the impact of some lost line. Do I want to kick people in the balls who intentionally throw things into a stream? Absolutely. However, if we are going to drill down to this level of concern, then I firmly believe it would be best if everyone would just stay at home. Of course I mean in a very small home with no heat or a/c, running water, etc because those things are most detrimental to the environment.

 

[tennjed]

So you feel that flouro that doesn't break down or deteriorate like nylon is of no concern?

It seems like everyone is using it more these days and it is being pushed as the best thing since sliced bread. I have tried it, really didn't notice that much of difference. Yeah, the knots seat a little better and it may be more resistant to getting nicked, but if you moisten your knots and check your leaders, is it really worth it? Especially at its price and degradation rate.

Nylon has worked for me since I started this game over 25 years ago.

Just sayin.....thought it made some sense.

 

[WildTigerTrout]

I like fluorocarbon. I think I catch more fish with it. That's all I use now. No matter how long it sets on the dealers shelves it does'nt break down like mono.I think it's worth the extra money.

 

[jayL]

Here's a vote against fluoro. I don't think it's necessary at all, particularly for dry fly fishing. For subsurface, there are arguments for it, but they don't offset the prohibitive cost, as well as the fact that it's in the stream forever.

I do use it for salmon and steelheading for the added abrasion resistance, but that's unnecessary for most trout fishing.

I go through enough tippet that age is never a problem.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

I agree with Jdaddy on this. The amount of flouro Ive lost over the years has been minimal. The gas Ive used has been great.

As far as its applications on limestone spring creeks:
+ 1 for flouro.

 

[MKern]

I use floro and see an advantage to it over mono.

Mono takes how many years to breakdown completely?

I too think there are bigger environmental risks/hazzards out there; many of them illeagle actions and deliberate.


Another huge misconception is that floro isn't for dry fly fishing. The fact that it sinks (slightly) is the idea behind it for dries. It sinks as to not create a wiggly line leading to the head of the dry.


However, I do agree with Jay in the fact that it's not neccesary for trout fishing.

 

[RLeep2]

I don't believe in fluorocarbon, but I am skeptical, other than in very highly pressured fisheries, of the magnitude of its likely long-term deleterious impact overall on birds, etc. in the surrounding environs.

Nature is a cruel mistress in her own right with or without our direct assistance. There are many species of birds where over winter mortality takes the majority of individuals. This is also true (or nearly true) of various species of fish. It's why the mourning dove produces up to 3 broods annually and why the female brook trout routinely lays however may hundred eggs she does in order to eventually produce a handful of adults to perpetuate the species.
And while it is true that our impacts on these systems can therefore be seen as additive to overall mortality, it can also be argued that, with a limited number of exceptions, our impact is like a 20 second timed drip being added to a waterfall. More indistinguishable than additive in a real world sense.

I feel basically the same way about lead, although I'd certainly agree that it is a much greater potential danger than fluorocarbon in more heavily pressured fisheries. So, I wouldn't really be against banning lead, but it would (in some cases) strike me as a bit PC.

In the end, we have to accept that our sport by nature is intrusive and potentially disruptive to nature. It is a blood sport that only recently has been given a new paint job of propriety and hyper environmental sensitivity. This is not a bad thing, not at all. But it is a school of thought in need of rational limits.

Wake me up when we get around to prohibiting wading other than in shoes with built in jet packs to allow us to hover a few inches above the substrate so that we do not disturb the balance of aquatic invertebrates...

 

[jayL]

MKern wrote:
It sinks as to not create a wiggly line leading to the head of the dry.

To me, that sounds like a perfect recipe for drag.

 

[tennjed]

Monomaster is the best tool I have found for excess tippet.

The only problem is it fills up quickly when removing the large quantities of line left by gear anglers. I use furled leaders and very rarely have the thicker butt sections of tapered leaders to dispose of. So, I can't comment on how it works for those.



http://www.grasshopperproducts.com/products.php

I think Fishpond makes something similar. Too bad not everyone believes in packing out the mono/fluoro they leave behind. Nothing sucks worse than snagging someones broken off line right in the middle of perfect run.

 

[osprey]

It takes me a long time to say things have "proven" themselves seriously , i have some fluorocarbon tippet material but the old reliable Maxima when stored in air tight containers will last long enoughfor me not to have to worry about breakdown , like beadheads it wasn't till this past jam on Penns that beadheads really proved themselves to me and they've been around a long time.......Thanks again JayL.

 

[MKern]

jay,

I would imagine that the same drag forces would be applied a milimeter under the surface as on the surface; if not just less, plus the disapearing act is to keep those fish from turning away that are leader shy (if there is such a thing).

 

[tennjed]

Or stick with mono and go to a .5 x smaller and don't fish a broomstick...haha

 

[jayL]

MKern wrote:
jay,

I would imagine that the same drag forces would be applied a milimeter under the surface as on the surface; if not just less, plus the disapearing act is to keep those fish from turning away that are leader shy (if there is such a thing).

Could be, but my thinking is that a decent amount of the mono tippet is on and *above* the surface, as opposed to on and under. When it's on or above the surface, water can pass under it. When it's stuck in the film, it can't. Just compare the drag on two boats, where one is floating higher than the other.

/shrug. I don't know how it works... but as is the case with everything, I think it through and convince myself one way or another. I'm currently convinced.

 

[jdaddy]

Or stick with mono and go to a .5 x smaller and don't fish a broomstick...haha

Seriously, if folks think it is a big problem then I would move to the biodegradable mono tippet. It apparantly works pretty well.

 

[CodorusTUTom]

I think MKern makes some good points. I’m not really on board with the concept of “leader shy” trout. Consider the experiments by George Harvey and John Crowe where they threaded beetles onto short sections of mono up to .015 which were not attached to anything. Trout took the beetles anyway simply because the drifts were natural. I think many anglers only increase their success with longer, finer leaders because they compensate for: a) improper tippet construction to match the wind residence of the fly and; b) the ability to make the proper, complimentary cast and check to introduce slack in the tippet. A 14’ 7x leader is likely to collapse the tippet properly no matter what, so of course its going to work more consistently. Only problem is now you often prolong the fight and stress the fish that much more. Plus you have that much more leader that can tangle or become nicked or frayed.

All that being said, I simply can’t justify switching to a material that lingers forever. To me, its like the difference between a discarded paper cup vs. a plastic water bottle (not that tossing either one is OK, but at least one I know of them will disappear someday). At least I know that any nylon I accidentally drop won’t be strangling a bird 5 or 10 years from now.