I think some balanced perspective is required here.
Poor mono is **** - it knots badly, is unreliable and environmentally unfriendly (especially as you'll leave a lot of it around when it breaks all the time).
Poor fluoro is **** - it knots badly, is unreliable and environmentally unfriendly (especially as you'll lkeave a lot of it around when it breaks all the time).
Good mono works well - it knots well and won't cause so much environmental damage as you won't waste much.
Good fluoro works well - it knots well ... and ditto....
All those who say fluoro doesn't knot well have either gained their experience using poor fluoro or are using "mono knots" (or both). Yes, fluoro knots differently to mono, so if you don't adapt your knots you will be disappointed, and you will hate it.
I wish people would stop comparing the best mono with rubbish fluoro. That just makes no sense at all. There is a lot of rubbish fluoro out there, with everyone ready and willing to slag it off (justifiably). Well, we could do the same for all the rubbish mono out there too. It's just that the rubbish fluoro is not cheap, and some people use the price to judge how godd they expect the leader to be. That relationship does not work with fluoro, because it still carries a "mystical" price premium just because it is fluorocarbon.
There must be hundreds of things we should stop doing that cause far more total environmental damage than the teeny weeny piece of fishing line that we use. So when we have stopped all those other things and we get down the list to the choice of leader, then I will accept the differential environmental argument between mono and fluoro.
Fluoro as a leader material has its advantages and disadvantages against mono, so I use both - chosen to match those advantages and disadvantages, depending on the situation. To rob yourself of either is to reduce your catching options, which is why I don't think that we should be an exclusive fan of one or the other.
|