cv,
Sometimes it's hard to see "facts" and truth through the fog of marketing hype. I have however watched as a person using Fluro was getting bit much more often than those using mono.

Fluro is just another "tool" to help us catch fish.

I never go fishing without it - if the bites tough I use it, and it does make a difference. Came back from a day and a half tough bite, most people got skunked - I got 3, yea it works.

I use that stuff and have fewer cavities and brighter smiles, I thought that flourocarbon was best described as something an Idiot would use, because I am a total fool and I can't tell the difference between morons and fat slobs who cut fish off at the troll !!! I want to learn how to tie that knot that keeps the line from getting all tangled when I push open that lever and the reel starts spinning and I don't enen have a hook tied on the end!!!

quote:

when I push open that lever and the reel starts spinning and I don't enen have a hook tied on the end!!!

Sounds like my Avets!

Bait, by definition, is not natural.

quote:

Originally posted by Tommy:
Bait, by definition, is not natural.

Actually, the definition doesn't make that distinction at all. It states simply that bait is something used to attract animals.

You can argue that putting a piece of fish on a hook in the water doesn't appear "natural". Throw it out in the middle of a feeding frenzy and then it most certainly will.

I wonder if the water is too murky or did we already discover this phenomenom yet ? Dealing with various degrees of fishes personalities and socio-economic traits, I feel the Tiger sharks are adapting quite well to large buckets of chum, however disspersed, yet seemingly as natural as a bunch of rotten fish heads and fins would appear to a juevenile tiger shark, Yes, you are absolutely being the best by far !!1

bladeduffer,

quote:

Originally posted by bladeduffer:

quote:

Originally posted by Tommy:
Bait, by definition, is not natural.

Actually, the definition doesn't make that distinction at all. It states simply that bait is something used to attract animals.

You can argue that putting a piece of fish on a hook in the water doesn't appear "natural". Throw it out in the middle of a feeding frenzy and then it most certainly will.

Does "bait" occur naturally or is it a human introduction?


Thanks,

Tommy

If something can eat it its called bait, lunch, dinner, desert or just fish crap. As for the question...... does fluoro carbon makes a differance. After exstensive testing with all my guinea pigs (family, friends and fellow fisherman) over the last 5 years I have to say it does work. Anecdotal evidence is more than enough for me, its the same crap they are using to claim global warming. 20 guys on a boat with 1 guy using 17# fluoro catches 11 of the 66 fish something has to be working for him even I understand he is not the best fisherman on the boat. He is an AVErageJOE. Fishing is not rocket science its just fishing. If using a specific rod, reel, lure or line helps in your ability to catch fish then use it. If the nay sayers have the science to back up ther claims then let em lay it out to convince us it does not work. Until then use fluoro, I know I will.

AVErageJOE,

When fish feed on prey, it is a natural function of nature. When bait in introduced by humans to trick fish into doing something, in this case, striking, it is not natural. Therefore, bait, as used in fishing, is an artificial inducement designed to get fish to strike. Bait causes the demise of fish. Prey sustains the life of one party in the equation. Thank God, fish are not smart enough to know the difference between bait and prey.

As far as fluorocarbon goes, I know many fishermen swear by it. And I have absolutely no problem with fishermen using whatever they believe will help them catch fish. I am, however, more than skeptical when fishermen proclaim that IT IS THE ONLY FACTOR OF SUCCESS.

I was recently exposed to the concept that fluoro does not transmit light like mono does. And because fluoro does not transmit light, fish does not shy away from it, the implication being fish shy away from light transmitted by mono. I do not believe this, because if it is true, why have fishermen been so damned successful before the intro of fluoro? Why do fishermen bring home bacon using only mono???

Furthering obfuscating the debate is the defensive attitude of fluoro supporters when others pose legitimate questions about the validity of their assumptions.

Moreover, some fishermen are sold on a mystical intelligence of fish. Fish are just plain dumb animals. I have caught the same trout in a Sierra creek three times within an hour using the same bait!

Schooled fish will watch they buddies fighting for their lives as they're pulled to a 10 ton boat, and they'll continue to bite, even after the sea turns crimson with the blood of their buddies. And fishermen think fish are smart.



Good fishin',

Tommy

Fluorocarbon transmits light just fine , but the continuity of flow of light transmission is stopped cold by the joining knot between the fluoro and mono giving the false impression that Fluorocarbon does not transmit light.

Water has a refractive index of 1.33,
Fluorocarbon has a refractive indes of
1.42 , mono has a refractive indes of about 1.57. Fluoro's refractive index is closer then mono to that of water making it Less Visible not Invisible. Consequently it reduces on of the components that makes the bait unnatural. The more of these components that can be reduced, such as using smaller hooks, and using Fluorocarbon the more natural it "APPEARS". As fishermen that is all we can do, keep striving towards the difficult goal of catching fish using bait which mimics prey as close as possibe. Fluorocarbon "Helps" us do that.

Walt

Walt,

You pose an interesting question. I do believe you're correct that it is not fluoro that interrupts light but the knot linking it to mono. Therefore, if one were to tie a knot in mono would the same occur?

It seems the more I delve into fluoro the more I am convinced that it is of little use in catching fish. How in God's name were fishermen successful before it came along???

Thanks, Walt,

Tommy

I recently had a conversation with a tuna OPTRICIAN and she atated that Flouerocarbon was indeed as invivible with or wothout zero light in absolute darkness, so therfore tun out the lights and go fishing or else poke out the sardines eyeballs and the tuna will feel as if it is a blind bait and therefore begin wondering is it reel or just fantasy ?

I just returned from a five day trip. I did not use fluorocarbon. About half the boat did. I was right about the mean in terms of fish caught in spite of the fact that I was not committed to catching yellowtail. I do not get excited about this species. I was above mean in dorado. In fact, I may have caught the greatest number of dorado, a species that does excite me.

Line diameter seemed to not matter. On our last stop I used 40lb mono, and I was one of maybe three that hooked up.

The crucial factor in success was getting bait far away from the boat.

I am even more convinced that fluorocarbon is inconsequential in catching fish. If other fishermen feel it's crucial, I would suggest they continue to use it.



Good fishing,

Tommy

I hear you Tommy. The one thing I've noticed is FL line makes more of a difference when you fish in more traveled areas than those further away. I could be projecting, but I think the more fishing pressure, the more lines fish see, the more of a difference the FL lines can indeed make. At Guadalupe Island, for instance, I've been on trips where FL made a significant difference. If you didn't use it, you wouldn't get bit. I've also been on trips further south where FL line made no difference at all, the fish would eat baits attached to a hook off of rope...or even just a sardine on a gaff hook. The more line shy the fish, the more line diameter and use of FL lines seem to me to make a difference. Inshore locally I've seen this fishing for yellowtail (certainly a sight oriented fish). If I trolled 20 and 30# lines, the 20# consitently got bit. These were fish off Huntington, they'd been worked by many anglers/boaters and learned to be picky. When things are wide open, the fish are chewing, there's no need for FL. But, when things are picky I firmly believe that stuff can indeed make a difference. It's less visible. You can easily take some mono and the same length/test of Fl line and stick it down into an aquarium or bowl of water. Look at it, it is less visible. With 30 lines in the water off a big boat, a picky bite where the fish have plenty of options about which line to hit...or not hit, I'll tie on the FL.

GS<
MS