while speaking to a customer today about fluro ,it made me think about catch rates.
the question I asked myself was that before flurocarbon, using mono leader,then switching to the new fluro when it came in,has it helped me to catch anymore fish than before?

In all honesty, I can say no it hasnt.So what do you think, is it just an illusion of a gimmick or does it,or has it helped you increase your catch rates by changing over.?

__________________
Kevin

I am very firmly of the opinion that the main catching potential of Fluorocarbon has been
in innocent flyfishermen by the tackle trade .

After initial experiments I concluded it was pretty much like all prestressed nylons before it - dangerously unstable on a fair few knots and in a droppering situation .
I have since lost count of the numbers of customers who have come into my place with the woeful and wholly typical tale ' I don't know exactly how big it was but the line broke just as I was getting on top of it ! '

I am still looking for a Fluorocarbon I would cheerfully sell under my own brand .

At this point in time I will not have the stuff on my premises and do not trade it .

And , being given to cynicism and owning micrometers I have noticed odd things happening - a sample from a well known magazine at alleged 6lb mikes up at .25mm exactly the same outside diameter as the Standard Bayer Clear Nylon I sell which is actually 8lb linear and just over 6lb knotted - on breaking strains .
In other words some of the stuff being traded may not be as fluorocarbon as you might think !

This last year Cliff Fox gave me some very heavy stuff ( he wants to know if I can weld loops in it for him )( I can't and guarantee the result ! ) so I have given that a thorough go fishing deep off of the rudder . I had no problem with 30lb Seaguar ! ( Actually just thicker than 20lb Bayer .)

In less aggressive sizes I have not used the stuff since the first year of its emergence - I suspect this has actually cost me no trout whatsoever .

I have no need of leaders that sink of their own accord and am not a Competition Fly Fishermen - most of whom are firmly of the belief that they would catch nothing without
it ( but they always were a fairly paranoid lot ! )

The Emperor's New Nylon from where I come from

Best wishes

Steve P

Moot point.
Must admit, I am using mono more and more these days. Concientios reasons really, as I tend to lose a fair share of tippet due to the rivers I fish being full of traps. Mono may one day rot and weaken etc when left behind.
Can't say its affected my catch rates that much, probably because I'm not catching that much

__________________
Don't care what your name is. No-one walks on the water where I'm fishing!
http://pedrosonthefly.blogspot.com/

Tend to agree with Steve. I bought into the claims of flouro' but to be honest I really dont think it has made any great difference to me.
Not noticed any problems with knots though?
Think I will just stick with he tried and tested mono this season.

__________________
It is in truth not glory,nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting,but for freedom - for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with his life.(Declaration of Arbroath, 1320)

I am a big fan of fluro and it has helped me catch more fish especially on Corrib
when buzzer fishing.Its the way it sinks that I find most usefull.Fish feeding a couple
of feet down will not be caught on normal mono because im not sure it sinks that well.

Even pulling wets in a wave on a floating line.Its nice just to get the flies down a few
inches with fluro.

I even fish dries with fluro.Leader sinks slightly in a moderate wave and flies stay up
long enough before you need to make your next cast.Lots of other reasons I like it but
im too lazy to type them!!!

I've used several brands of fluro in sizes X2 - X6 and have never noticed a lot of difference in their sink rate compared to mono

mmm from those few replys i find it interesting and thought there would be a barage of fluro fluro and its the opposite.fully understand the thoughts about it sinking,but there again mono does sink also and what did we do before it with a wet and drys,?Bit of leedasink on it would certainly get it to go below the film on the water.
I am very tempted myself to revert back to mono and see what happens ,just to convince myself as a test to see if it does really change anything at all or if it is a gimmick.Why pay more if something does the same cheaper.

__________________
Kevin

Can't say that I noticed any difference in catch rates when I did use it. I don't any longer, had too many breakages. I know it was not my knot tying.

__________________
Eddie
"We look to Scotland for all our ideas of civilisation."
Voltaire

I have given several different brands of fluorocarbon a thorough work-out and my conclusions are that, it's absolute $hite and the cost of some is obscene. The expensive spools I had left over, from my "trials," I gave away.

It is intended to catch gullible anglers, not fish, it was designed to make nets, not knots.

If it was half as good as they say it is, "invisible to fish," and all that cr@p, then why haven't coarse-fishing matchmen taken it it up, en masse?

I'll stick to Maxima Ultragreen it's cheap and it's totally reliable.

P.S. and it's sinks readily.

__________________
*
How poor a thing, sometimes I find,
Will captivate a greedy mind - Isaac Walton.

~~*~~~~~
*****©(

Im just getting out of the flouro phase. Used to use stroft for dries and flouro for everything else, then started using stroft for wet/lure fishing, catchrate not affected. This year ill be fishing stroft more for buzzer/nymph fishing and if it serves well enough for that, the flouro's binned.

__________________
i was walking far from home, where the names are not burned along the wall, saw a building, high as heaven, but the door was so small