Discussion in 'Fly Tying' started by dryflylarry, Jan 10, 2012.
and roll cast...........
Right on! or is that right arm? The Gob Shop was still there when I first started fishing Golden Gardens and drove past it but I deny any connection. At least at this point in time I can't remember any. Thats my plausable deniability.
I just know of both stores. Of course I never visited either in my youth......
"Under the Bridge" in Astoria! Myself, I fantasize that Larry's flies look more Pink Floyd inspired than Grateful Deadish. I may have been a longhaired surf bum at one time, but never have I considered myself to be a hippie!
Very cool and outrageously freaky looking flies, Larry!
Jim you might want to consider professional help
OK, I edited my post and fixed that "split infinitive" or whatever they used to call that sort of thing. I don't need no pro editor.
OK, how 'bout Joni Mitchell's "Pink Hotel?" That's even right on the beach! Oops, did I say, "right on?" My bad.
Did not know that fish see UV light spectrum...and here I thought it was just the sales and marketing guys finding another way into our pockets for nothing
Yes, some fish species (see http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2010/02/25/forget-x-ray-vision-these-fish-have-uv-vision/), most bird species (see http://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/the-artful-brain/alternate_realities), and many invertebrate species (at least among the arthropods, see http://photographyoftheinvisibleworld.blogspot.com/2007/10/simulated-bee-vision-ii.html) can see light in the UV range.
Humans cannot see light in UV wavelengths; the emperor has no clothes. Ignore marketing hype that makes this claim. So, if someone claims that they can see the UV reflection off their flies or material, walk away very slowly; that person is either 1) lying or 2) not human but probably an alien disguised as a human. What a normal person can see is the UV light being absorbed by the materials and that energy being re-emitted (fluoresced) as a lower energy wavelength that falls in the visible range (see http://www.naturfotograf.com/UV_ANGE_SYL.html). Might this add to the effectiveness of flies? Yes, but in nature it is limited to those places where UV light is available, typically shallow water because UV wavelengths are quickly absorbed in water. No UV light available = no fluorescence. Pictures from UV sensitive cameras shift the wavelengths into the visible wavelengths to show them to humans; your parrot (or trout) wouldn't need to have the wavelengths shifted.
Thanks, Steve. So, since the UV materials only work when fishing closer to the surface, it would be a waste to use them for bottom fish, like lings.
I'll sometimes use glow-in-the-dark jigs, though.
Thank you, Jim. Glow-in-the-dark materials, like glow-balls, your jigs, etc. are demonstrating phosphorescence. Similar to fluorescence (but over a longer time-frame), the material is absorbing energy - either from sunlight or a flash, storing that energy for seconds to hours, and releasing that energy as visible light. I have some phosphorescent paints and flash materials that I have added to flies. I can't say if they have made a difference yet.
Here's a few interesting links:
Sorry Larry, but several of these links are pure B.S. [Larry, my comments are not directed at you, but at the authors of those links, especially the first and the third.]
"Because fish see ultraviolet light, (UVA) which is just beyond the violet frequency at 400nm to 320 nm, it can penetrate to depths greater than 500 feet. Scientists have proven that many species of fish, especially salmonoids, use UVA light to find their prey." First, see the discussion below on how far UV penetrates. Second, while there have been studies that have shown that salmonids have UV sensitive cones during part of their life cycle, NO studies have demonstrated that these UV sensitive cones are used when feeding. That is an untested hypothesis and may be true, but there is not scientific evidence. The only studies that have demonstrated that a fish species can use UV light to improve feeding is for centrarchids (see Leech, D.M. and S. Johnsen. 2006. UV vision and the feeding ecology of bluegill sunfish, Lepomis macrochirus. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 63: 2183-
Not a peer-reviewed article, lacking in references and confusing several issues: light polarization, light penetration, in one article.
Crap, crap, crap. The authors say "When skin diving I noticed that at 40 feet of depth and beyond, there is no visible light, it is absolutely black." I have been a scuba diver since 1977 and have thousands of hours under water. Most of my diving has been deeper than 40 feet and it is is NOT black at 40 feet; it isn't even black at 130', the deepest that I have ever been in the Pacific Northwest. And I never bring a light..... Yes, there is only one-tenth the total light at 90 feet as there is at the surface, but it is not black. Yes, wavelengths are preferentially absorbed; blue wavelengths penetrate farther than red. I have cut myself at 60' on barnacles and I bled green; why?, not because I'm a martian, but because there was no red light available to reflect off hemoglobin, but there is still some green wavelengths.
Another quote: "The blue and violet wavelengths of light penetrate water only about 40 feet at which time those wavelengths are completely absorbed." BS, BS, BS, BS. Blue and violet penetrate much farther than any other wavelengths in water.
A third quote: "The first part of the answer came in a scientific article published by Duke University researchers under the authority of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. That article states, “it has been conservatively estimated that there is sufficient ultraviolet light for vision down to 200 meters (700 feet) in clear ocean water”." No citation to check that they are using the the quote in context, but it must be the Oceanus article, a non-peer reviewed article. Yet, here is a NOAA site that had data to show that 90% of more of the UV-B is absorbed, in coastal waters, in the first 30 feet. See also the light penetration figure in this article by Eddie Widder, a world-class research on light and vision in oceanic organisms (http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/04deepscope/background/deeplight/deeplight.html). Here is an article (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCoQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.int-res.com%2Farticles%2Fmeps%2F144%2Fm144p109.pdf&ei=VFkTT50w5qCJAoqJ8d0E&usg=AFQjCNHvM0m6D-s1GTo35wq5h2-l-Wru-Q&sig2=nTN14ISOuOpNvB41DRSnUw from a peer-reviewed journal that actually measured the penetration of various types of UV radiation at three sites in the Maldive islands. From their abstract, "E,(UVB) at 5 m depth was found to decrease to 12% of incident irradiance at the mid-ocean atoll, to 2% for the high island site, and to 0.4% in the turbid waters of the inshore reef. A 1% Ed(UVB) depth was computed for each site and found to be 11, 6,and 3 m respectively." In other words, at 5m (15 feet!), they measured only 12% of the UVB at the surface at the clearest sites and 0.4% at a site more like our coastal area. And their measurements for UVB indicate that 99% of the UVB is absorbed in the first 11m (33 feet) to 3m (9 feet). In our coastal waters with lots of dissolved organic material, UV penetration is likely to be even less.
Color me skeptical,
No problem Steve. When I posted this I knew some guy more "intuned" to the "light science" would shed more light (ha ha) on the subject. I appreciate your links. I am now burned out from reading! Ha. Anyway, I like to believe that fish (including my favorite sea-run cutts) can see these brighter material colors better than we, and if so, the ones that have florescence qualities sure seem to bring more fish hookups. As a recent experiment, I recently used a same fly in water I was fishing with and without the extra florescent materials. You know which one brought the fish, right? I think you should take my blacklight down diving to 15 feet with florescent material in the fly and see if you see them better! Thanks for your posts, they are always quite informative.
I'm happy that you took my comments in the helpful spirit that marks (typically) our discussions on WFF. In the shallow freshwater or marine depths that flyfishers are working, I have no doubt that there is sufficient UV, especially UVA, to contribute to fly visibility, either through reflection of UV or through fluorescence of UV, for flies with UV reflective/fluorescent materials.
If you really want to grind through a paper that will hurt your head, download http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fies.jrc.ec.europa.eu%2Fuploads%2Ffileadmin%2FDocumentation%2FReports%2FGlobal_Vegetation_Monitoring%2FEUR_2006-2007%2FEUR_22217_EN.pdf&ei=JXcTT_auBbLOiALu6oXeDQ&usg=AFQjCNGP182O1NimA1JyrGP8TuKBFn972w&sig2=50YMgKoOHJYCODVNwY-lmg, UV Penetration in the Water Column. I just skimmed it and I may need a scotch or two to make the headache go away. I took away several things. First, measuring UV penetration in pure water is challenging; they compare past measurements in other studies and show huge variation among studies, something that they attribute to contaminants / improper sample preparation. Second, the amount of penetration depends on precise wavelength (UVb penetrates much less than UVa - closer to the visual range). Third, the presence of sediments or dissolved organic molecules, which are why are coastal waters are green and not blue especially in the summer, can dramatically drop penetration.
Spoke to a scientist friend whose thesis was on butterflies seeing flower patterns in UV light
Apparently the patterns in flowers under ordinary light are not the same as the patterns that show up under UV
Might be interesting to hold the bait fish under UV and see what shows up and then tie patterns based on that.