Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by Ryan Bradfield, May 27, 2013.
I haven't bought mono in years, can't think of a reason to ever buy it again.
When I posted about floro I did extensive research and came up with my favorite floro. I avoid any split shot because steelhead love snags, and it's not fun when they find one.
Since you can jump a size (say from 3x to 5x) without any significant casting difficulty, buy odd sizes of one and even sizes of the other. So, if you commonly use 6x for small dries, go with 2x, 4x and 6x spools of mono and 1x, 3x and 5x spools of flourocarbon. Cuts down on bulk in the vest.
I haven't either but I thought I'd get jumped on if I mentioned that fact
Does anyone have an answer to the original question?
Sorry if this topic has been repeated,could you please point me to some good links regarding my topic title.
Is there scientific evidence that fluoro catches more fish than mono?
I think that the best thing you can do is try it your self. Find some spooky fish, and give it a shot. When I did my research I used a bunch of well known brands of both mono and floro and went fishing. Between me and my buddy, It was clear by the end of the day seagaur floro out preformed the all of them. And we did this with trout, steelhead, salmon. The big winner was Seagaur by far. We did this because of the knot breakage and lost fish. We fished 200 days a year fishing when I lived on the coast. Lots of secret spot's with lot's of big spooky fish. I am not a scientist but It was beyond clear result's to me. And I trust me.
I think you're asking for something that doesn't exist. I can think of no valid, non partial scientific test of anything in the sport of angling that shows one product works better at catching fish than another. Manufactures attempt to give the impression their products are better by virtue of "scientific tests" but those tests are biased.
What independent scientist would bother with such a study and why?
There is absolutely no demand for scientific proof of anything in the way of fishing. There are lots of theories and field tests but when it comes down to actual scientific study... naaaaahhhh... who the devil would pay for it?
Fishing preference of this and that is dictated by personal experience, not the result of lab tests done by some guy in a white coat and a microscope.
Guess what... even if some scientist did waste his time and someone's money proving that there is no difference between the catch rate using mono or fluoro, I'd still use the fluoro because of my personal experience.
Scientific evidence? Not that I've ever seen.
But, to borrow heavily from an old philosophy class, Blaise Pascal had the following to say about religion. There either IS a god, or there is NOT a god. And, you either BELIEVE in god, or you don't. Furthermore, if you believe in God and there is a God, good for you. If you don't believe in God, and there is a God, bad for you. If there is not a God it doesn't matter what you believe. So, if you'll pardon the extrapolation, I believe in flourocarbon. Like marriage, it can only bring you happiness. Oh, and cost you a bit more.
While fly fishing, every fish I have ever caught has been on a mono leader. That my friends is a fact or is it a factoid. So in response to the original question, I catch more fish on mono.
"The word factoid is now sometimes also used to mean a small piece of true but valueless or insignificant information"
So... if you have caught every fish on mono, thus no fish on fluoro. One can conclude then, from your personal scientific experience, that you won't catch any fish using fluoro.
Hmm... that was helpful.
Kent, I have scientific proof: I fish fluoro 100% and I always out-fish you. Therefore fluoro is superior. (We can throw out the effect of fisherman skill since you are cagier than me and should therefore ouitfish me, all else equal).
Correct, and the fact that I haven't used fluoro in no way diminishes my opinion of it but because all my fish have been caught on mono I see no reason to use fluoro.
I prefer to find something that works and works well (like mono) and move on to more important aspects of fishing such as further development of my fish chant which is intended to draw the fish towards my fly.
Hoh Queets Hoh
Hoko Sitkum Satsop Hoh
Calawah Sekiu Soleduck Hoh
Hoquiam Dungeness Bogachiel Hoh
Hamma Hamma Duckabush Dosewallips Hoh
Humptulips Whiskah Lilliwap Hoh
Elwah Quilcene Moclips Hoh
Hoooh Pysht Hoooh
This is worthless without a photo.
Will this chant work with floro, kinda a catchy tune.
So that's a MONOtheist chant?
To add to that: When I use Seaguar, I have the ability to lift cars with one hand and ace the SAT's in my second language. It's crazy stuff.
I just shot coffee out of my nose! But it's true!
Tim, I don't think anyone here is "looking down" on anyone that doesn't use fluro. Heck, I didn't believe in it either at first. Some might believe it works better (in some cases), and not buy it. Who cares? I don't
I just wanted to share my experiences with the stuff, and eliminate the myth that it is so expensive. It isn't if you buy it @ 250 yrds a pop. Maybe there are some new guys on here that only see the 30 yrd spools for $20 at the pro shops.
Use steel cable if it works for you, I don't care...
That would be Maxima....