Washington Fly Fishing Forum banner

Intermediate lines!

15K views 114 replies 26 participants last post by  Drifter 
#1 ·
I have fallen in love with intermediate lines. It started at cabelas today just looking around and spotted the new prestige plus clear type one sinking line, at $30 I couldn't turn it down. Went out and it casts like a dream. I fished a scud and caught some awesome fish, I love the depth control. A friend of mine always uses small nymphs and scuds on an intermediate and is constantly catching fish left and right.(part of what motivated me to buy it) But now I see why they are so popular I think anyone who doesn't want to spend the money for the SA or Rio line should pick up the the cabelas prestige intermediate. Great stuff!!!
 
#44 ·
It depends. If you're fishing for recently planted trout, your best bet is a fast strip. Real fast, as they will respond best to attractors. Most of the time I don't even use a point fly for them unless we're on the east slope where the lakes have a good insect population. The longer the cast, the more you're fishing. If you're targeting trout that have been around for awhile and have learned to feed, then distance becomes less important than retrieve and patterns.
 
#53 ·
Please explain the difference between using a floating line and a Intermediate I line.
Most often,"still water" is not completely still. Even the slightest breeze will ripple the surface enough to render a floating line ineffective in detecting subtle takes. Same with floating/sink tip lines. The intermediate line, sinking just below the surface, allows straight line contact with the fly.
 
#54 ·
My catch rate went waaaaay up when I started using a clear, intermediate sinking line (slime line).
Before slime lines were available, Cortland sold a blue thing that sank far too slowly and it didn't work worth a damn, so you want to make sure you buy a product that does sink at a fairly constant rate. The slime lines will eventually sink quite deep if you give them time.

I have Rio lines I use for saltwater fishing and I like them. I've never tried one of their clear intermediate lines but I have no doubt they are a viable option to SA and Cortland.

The birds nest factor is a bitch. While my Cortland doesn't tend to foul up as often as my SA, it still does go wacky from time to time. I can spend a half hour messing around pulling line of my reel to clear the birds nest before I have a chance to make a cast. But considering the clear, intermediate sinking line works so well for me, I put up with the occasional hassle.

If you are new to stillwater flyfishing, you will also need a very fast, full sinking line. I use a depth/fish finder to determine the depth of a lake and where the fish are holding. If the lake is deep and the fish are hugging the bottom, a slime line will not do the trick.

This is why I carry a floating, intermediate sinking and fast sinking line. There are a few lakes I fish where I don't bother trying the slime line. I go straight to the fast sinker. If I'm fishing a midge hatch, I'll use the dry line with an indicator.
 
#55 ·
My catch rate went waaaaay up when I started using a clear, intermediate sinking line (slime line).
Before slime lines were available, Cortland sold a blue thing that sank far too slowly and it didn't work worth a damn, so you want to make sure you buy a product that does sink at a fairly constant rate. The slime lines will eventually sink quite deep if you give them time.

I have Rio lines I use for saltwater fishing and I like them. I've never tried one of their clear intermediate lines but I have no doubt they are a viable option to SA and Cortland.

The birds nest factor is a bitch. While my Cortland doesn't tend to foul up as often as my SA, it still does go wacky from time to time. I can spend a half hour messing around pulling line of my reel to clear the birds nest before I have a chance to make a cast. But considering the clear, intermediate sinking line works so well for me, I put up with the occasional hassle.

If you are new to stillwater flyfishing, you will also need a very fast, full sinking line. I use a depth/fish finder to determine the depth of a lake and where the fish are holding. If the lake is deep and the fish are hugging the bottom, a slime line will not do the trick.

This is why I carry a floating, intermediate sinking and fast sinking line. There are a few lakes I fish where I don't bother trying the slime line. I go straight to the fast sinker. If I'm fishing a midge hatch, I'll use the dry line with an indicator.
By "slime line" are you referring to the Airflo by that name or are you just referring to any clear line?
If a lake is only 24' at the deepest (Henry's Lake) an intermediate will get you there, just have to count down.
 
#59 ·
It's amazing the difference between line experiences. Just about every successful stillwater fly angler I know in Oregon uses a slime line. One fishing buddy, Rocky, uses his even when I switch to a fast sinker.

Whatever works for you.
 
#60 ·
Again, it's hard to say if we do well with a line because it's most effective or because we use it more. Two trips ago I was using a Type IV with a 15 second count down and fast stripping and my friend was using a slime line, slow trolling. We caught about the same numbers.

There is one place where I will only use the slime line--Klamath Lake. Maybe I'm afraid Denny Rickards will see me with something else. He's the one who put me onto it years ago and Denny's not shy about opinions;-)
 
#61 ·
Denny certainly doesn't have a problem with expressing his opinions.

He's known to yell at clients "keep your damned rod tip in the water!" I keep mine close to the surface but not subsurface so I guess he'd yell at me too. :D

When things are slow and me and my fishing buddies are catching nothing... I'll yell at them "Keep your damned rod tip in the water!"

Never seems to help.
 
#62 ·
Denny certainly doesn't have a problem with expressing his opinions.

He's known to yell at clients "keep your damned rod tip in the water!" I keep mine close to the surface but not subsurface so I guess he'd yell at me too. :D

When things are slow and me and my fishing buddies are catching nothing... I'll yell at them "Keep your damned rod tip in the water!"

Never seems to help.
Funny that Rickards came up in this discussion. I read his first book 10 years ago and it really got me rolling in stillwater fishing. But as I've become more focused on lakes, I've developed my own opinions that don't always line up with his. . .i.e. the Cortland Clear Camo line.
 
#63 ·
Funny that Rickards came up in this discussion. I read his first book 10 years ago and it really got me rolling in stillwater fishing. But as I've become more focused on lakes, I've developed my own opinions that don't always line up with his. . .i.e. the Cortland Clear Camo line.
Absolutely. We were at Henry's this past Sept. Got out there and saw the familiar small blue pontoon. Got a little closer and it was indeed Mr. Rickards. I love the guy and swear by his knowledge, but even they can have off days, this was one of them.....for him. I used my special flies and my style and several burst of fish every cast.
I think fish is a combination of skill and confidence. I do throw much thanks to Rickards and Galloup and Jack Gartside, as they have influenced me in my everyday fishing
 
#65 ·
Absolutely. We were at Henry's this past Sept. Got out there and saw the familiar small blue pontoon. Got a little closer and it was indeed Mr. Rickards. I love the guy and swear by his knowledge, but even they can have off days, this was one of them.....for him. I used my special flies and my style and several burst of fish every cast.
I think fish is a combination of skill and confidence. I do throw much thanks to Rickards and Galloup and Jack Gartside, as they have influenced me in my everyday fishing
Oh this is rich! I am working our ISE this year and I think Denny is going to be speaking. I cannot wait--"Hey Denny! Some Utah broad is talking about clocking you on Henry's. She said something about writing a new and improved book on stillwater fishing!"

J/K but it's sooooooo tempting;-)
 
#67 ·
While I like my intermediate line, I'm going to pick up a sink tip this spring and go old school. I can remember when I first started fly fishing lakes, it seemed everyone fished or at least had a sink tip line. I caught a lot of fish on a good old Cortland 10' sink tip. Intermediates lines at that time weren't what they are today.
I think a sink tip with a ghost tip will be as effective today as the old sink tips used to be.
SF
 
#69 ·
While I like my intermediate line, I'm going to pick up a sink tip this spring and go old school. I can remember when I first started fly fishing lakes, it seemed everyone fished or at least had a sink tip line. I caught a lot of fish on a good old Cortland 10' sink tip. Intermediates lines at that time weren't what they are today.
I think a sink tip with a ghost tip will be as effective today as the old sink tips used to be.
SF
I occasionally fish a ghost tip line and it certainly catches fish. I attended a presentation by Denny Rickards a few years ago that introduced me to the concept of "retrieve angle"; there are times when fish get dialed on nymphs that are making a slow swim up to the surface. But the nymphs don't just rise vertically like a chironomid, they swim up at closer to a 45-degree angle with frequent pauses to slowly sink before beginning to swim again. He made the argument that a ghost tip sinker allow you make a retrieve to imitate these swimming nymphs in a way that a full intermediate does not. I've encountered a few situations since then when that line has been very productive while my full intermediate and floater/indicator setup were not.
 
#73 ·
I pulled out and dusted off Rickards' Fly Fishing Stillwaters for Trophy Trout last night, and was reminded why I so prefer the east slope of the Sierra over the west. I think the Cascades may be somewhat organic on the west side; our range is granite and supports very little plant growth anywhere except for the high desert.

It was from Denny's book that I learned how to read lakes and estimate the probability of quality fish presence, especially those where natural reproduction is possible or likely, with a map. His basic fly patterns are included. Between Rickards and Jay Fair flies and materials, you really don't need any other patterns for stillwater in most cases.
 
#75 ·
Between Rickards and Jay Fair flies and materials, you really don't need any other patterns for stillwater in most cases.
For cast/retrieve fishing, I agree. Most of the patterns I strip in stillwaters are either their patterns or influenced by them. And Jay Fair materials are soooo nice for tying lake bugs.

But . . . the indicator is a powerful tool in lakes. I catch about half my fish under a bobber and many of those are during periods when my cast/retrieve tactics aren't working. The patterns I use for vertical presentation are generally different (heavily weighted, small, and sparsely dressed) than what I throw for cast/retrieve fishing, which are typically fuller patterns that "breathe" as they move. Of course exceptions apply . . .I've done well with skinny #14-16 chironomids stripped on an intermediate line and also with a large carey special under an indicator.
 
#74 ·
What made the most difference in my catching of fish in stillwaters wasn't a book but a fish/depth finder. When Bottomline was first testing fish/depth finders for float tubes, they sent two prototypes to Deke Meyer. He tried one style and I tried the other... neither ended up the Fish'n Buddy Bottomline eventually sold for small boats and float tubes, but they were the start.

You can read a river but it is difficult to read a mirror. And that's normally all you see when you first approach a lake. Flat glass. Of course you can look for vegetation and shoreline hints as to what is subsurface but you really only know for sure what is down there and where with a fish/depth finder.

When fishing new stillwaters, I use my finder to map the bottom of the lake and see where the fish are holding -- it doesn't mean I can catch the fish but at least I'll know it will do me no good to use a dry fly when the fish are holding six inches off the bottom.

However, the danged thing can also be frustrating if you're marking a ton of fish and can't catch them! Sometimes it's better to believe there aren't any fish in the lake and that's why you're not catching any... the finder shoots down that rationalization.
 
#76 ·
I've had the fishing buddy since they first came out also GAT. you should see how they work with the side finder looking under brush in tide water for chinook while bobber and egg fishing! great tools, but now I need the new gps tracking and down imaging, finders have come a long - long way. Santa are you reading this????
 
#77 ·
Mark, I'm getting off topic here but suffice it to say I've had a lot of different Fish'n Buddies. Two were before Hummin (or however you spell it) Bird bought out Bottomline. My first H-Bird finally died so I bought a new one.

You DO NOT need the color model but all of mine have included the side finder feature... THAT you want. I own the 120 and it will do everything you need. The color feature is a waste of money and burns up batteries much quicker than the 120.

Now, enough of that. Maybe I'll start a thread in regards to fish/depth finders.
 
#79 ·
LC, yes, the Hummbird model is an improved design. It has plenty of detail. If you want more detail, you may be interested in the color model.

I hate using indicators. I get bored too easily when I use them. Too bad the system works so damned well. I'll switch to using an indicator with midge emerger patterns if nothing else is working but I won't like it :)
 
#80 ·
I have a $1000 Raymarine in the skiff that was part of the deal. If you like detail, you'd love this one. I'd just as soon have a $500 unit I can actually understand;-) If you remember the old FBs they were about 5 pixels to the inch. The pics do look much better. I don't care about color on a portable--sidefinder is very handy.
 
#81 ·
I have a $1000 Raymarine in the skiff that was part of the deal. If you like detail, you'd love this one. I'd just as soon have a $500 unit I can actually understand;-) If you remember the old FBs they were about 5 pixels to the inch. The pics do look much better. I don't care about color on a portable--sidefinder is very handy.
Well, hell. If you're using a thousand dollar depth finder the FB can't compare to that!

The detail is good enough for me with the FB. I just want to know the depth and possible structure and if there are any fish around or if I'm just fishing in a bathtub. If the lake is deep and the fish are holding on the bottom, I know to use my full fast sinking line... I'm wasting my time if I'm trying an intermidiate sinking or dry line.
 
#84 ·
I posted last week or so about a new fly line needed. I did some research and read old threads. I still have questions for 6wt lines?

I have a floating line and a type 2 sinking line. Should i get a deep sinking line type VI? It sounds like the type 2 sinking line is really close to an intermediate line... i dont need two lines close in range, so i was thinking about the deep sink line.
Is the intermediate line better because its clear and the type 2 is solid green?

thanks for the input again guys... it really helps getting info from good sources.
 
#85 ·
I have been itching to get the new line, just dont know which way to go. I will be using the new line for trolling lakes for trout, and anchor fishing( cast and strip). So..... let me hear the reasoning behind the line you think i need.:D
 
#86 ·
Well, if you read up on the old threads, you saw that most lake guys carry a floater, intermediate (or type 2), and a fast sinker. Fish that green type 2 until you decide it's not meeting your needs.

Of the popular "intermediate" lines on the market, the SA stillwater and Rio Aqualux are essentially type 2 sinkers. The cortland clear camo and Rio Hover are "true" intermediates that sink <1" per second. Is there a difference? Yup. Does it matter? Depends who you ask :)

You certainly should get a fast sinker. I started carrying one 4 years ago . . . whole new game.
 
#87 ·
For trout, I have an intermediate slime line (Type I), a Type II, and a Type IV and a Deep Water Express. If I were to do it over again I'd eliminate the Type II and IV and get a III. This last year I've gone to using the slime line or IV almost exclusively in lakes. I control the depth by the amount of line I have out and the speed of stripping. I don't think you need much more. A type I, III, and VI would be a great setup.

The Deep Water Express is handy for inflows or a few situations where you need to get down to 30' or so. For me that's either when there's a deep inflow with current, or kokanee. I hate the stuff but need it a couple of times a year. A Type VI would do it with lead added.
 
#88 ·
I don't think Intermediate is close to Type II, but may be just me. If I fish lakes where the fish are cruising more shallow, I will use Intermediate, however, if there is wind and I am being moved or even chop on the surface, I will switch to the Type II. Also, how much line you have out will make a difference. I generally cast 60 or so feet, then peel line off while kicking backwards. When I get to where I am seeing backing then I start stripping.
I feel during warmer months a faster sinking line is the game changer. I am a firm believer in a Deep 6 or 7. I use knot sense and put a dot on the line at 20', 30', 45' 60'. Type 7 is great for stripping streamers when fish are deep and also for Chironomiding (the reason I mark the line)
I say your floating can cover the Intermediate needs, just use longer leaders and heavy flies. Type II all around great. Try counting down as well.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top