Jerry....
Good thoughts.
See you next week in Marathon!
Gordy
From: jerry puckett <jerry_puckett2001@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Gordon Hill <hillshead@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: My error
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 08:32:26 -0800 (PST)
Gordy, In using fluorocarbon over the last few years and trying to marry it with monofliament your advise on testing the knots is on target. I lost a lot of trout early until reading an article recommending ways to tie the two together. Example, in tying the blood knot seven twists on the floro and the standard 5 twist on the mono with attention to slowly tightening the knot snugly and firmly did the trick. This is especially important when lubricating the line before tightening the knot. A little trick I learned for my self when dry fly fishing with fluorocarbon leaders is to dress the leader with the same material you use on the fly--fly floatant. This helps the leader float more like monofliament.There is debate about the long term effects on the environment with Fluorocarbon. The fact is I have found an advantage in fluorocarbon in higher catch rates, if that is important. Since that is not high on my scale of priorities and being retired I use mostly monofliament. This is not to start an ethical debate but to encourage wise use of fluorocarbon to minimize the impact upon the enviroment. I tend to use flurobcarbon now in the most challenging conditions, example, when it is a slow day and I am not having success with anything. Flurocarbon is an option for me when catching fish becomes important for myself or someone I am guiding who has not yet experienced the primitive excitement of matching wits with mother nature prey. Those days are awesome.I find it much more destructive to the environment when fishermen wade and walk on redds so folk let not get torqued out on righteousness over the use of flurocarbon. A little kindness and wisdom applied to the environment will help in making sure our future children have the advantages and blessings we have.I cannot wait to get to Marathon Gordy and can only recommend those reading do the same. The learning curve during that week last year really guided me well this year. Just my two cents and thanks, JerryRandy...One of the things which make judgement about the merits of fluorocarbon as compared to those of monofilament nylon so complicated, is that there has been, over the last couple of years, an explosion of available variations of each.Some fluorocarbon products are more flexible than others, some have differing densities, and some have diffening knot strength potential. Still others have differing diameter/strength ratios.The same can be said for nylon mono. products.So, now, the need is to compare specific products one with another. A daunting task.Some general differences remain, however, such as the unreliable knot strength when fluorocarbon is spliced to nylon mono., the general rule that fluoro. is denser (sinks easier), the debatable optical density of fluoro being closer to that of water and the fact (as Walter points out) that fluoro. is far less biodegradable than nylon mono. With most fluorocarbons, one must be careful to use only the recommended knots.....or to take the time to test the knots, especially for big game fly fishing.Again, I refer you to Bill Nash's writings on leader systems and knots. (billsknots@xxxxxxx). His inexpensive little book is worth having.It's hard to deny the touted fact that fluorocarbon is less noted (or seen) by the fish when I discussed its use by professional long line fishermen. Their statistics show much higher catch rates when using it......and the, "proof" of that is that these men make their living with it and spend a LOT more money for it despite their declining profit margins.Gordy
From: "Randy Olson" <bigfly@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Gordon Hill" <hillshead@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: My error
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 12:06:08 -0500
Gordy,As long as we are on the subject of flourocarbon:I took a class maybe 4 years ago regarding fishing the Henry's Fork, taught by Gary Grant, and he advocated the use of flourocarbon even when fishing small dries. It struck me as odd, as going against the literature I've read, for the sinking ability as you mentioned, and also it is stiffer. But I tried it and can't argue with him as I have not noticed any problems in percentage of hookups either. Maybe in 6 and 7x diameters the differences are negligible?What are your/the groups thoughts on this?(I don't like the non bio-degradable factor, however.)-Randy----- Original Message -----
From: "Gordon Hill"
To: simbirsw@xxxxxxx, flysoup@xxxxxxxxxx, sobbobfish@xxxxxxx, rtab@xxxxxxx, CAPTPERMIT@xxxxxxx, creangler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, dan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, daver@xxxxxxxxxx, dennisg@xxxxxxxxxxxx, dsprague01@xxxxxxxxxxx, ephemera@xxxxxxx, brushycreekfc@xxxxxxxxx, barefootj@xxxxxxx, bradyir@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, flyfishar@xxxxxxxxxxx, ken.cole@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, captkirk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, glbaggett@xxxxxxxxx, mkreider1@xxxxxxx, martyt@xxxxxxxxxx, niallogan@xxxxxxxxxx, pminnick@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, bigfly@xxxxxxxxx, whorwood@xxxxxxxxx, flycasts@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, sheila@xxxxxxxxxx, scjacobs@xxxxxxxxxxxx, cooper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, tharper@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: My error
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 07:00:57 -0500
Walter....I tie all my own leaders (I get a kick out of playing with different leader designs, for one thing).To make a sinking leader, I find that fluorocarbon has a higher density than most monofilaments. Also, I've increased the sink rate a tad by using a wipe-on material called," Gehrke's Zink".Much more practical to use the commercial ones from Airfly, I'm sure.Gordy
From: WALTER/SUE SIMBIRSKI <simbirsw@xxxxxxx>
To: Gordon Hill <hillshead@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: My error
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 10:16:59 -0700
Gordy - I've also found the Airflo sinking leaders to be extremely handy when
fishing the Bow River. Similar in concept to a multipurpose line but they are
low cost and can be added to any fly line within a couple of minutes. The Bow
is an ideal place for their use because the river is relatively shallow (typically
no more than 5 or 6 feet) and the current isn't extreme. They do change the
dynamic of the casting system (they result in a significant overlining of
the rod) but the convenience is great and the environment is ideal.
Cheers
Walter
From: Gordon Hill <hillshead@xxxxxxx>
To: bigfly@xxxxxxxxx, flysoup@xxxxxxxxxx, sobbobfish@xxxxxxx, rtab@xxxxxxx, CAPTPERMIT@xxxxxxx, creangler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, dan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, daver@xxxxxxxxxx, dennisg@xxxxxxxxxxxx, dsprague01@xxxxxxxxxxx, ephemera@xxxxxxx, brushycreekfc@xxxxxxxxx, barefootj@xxxxxxx, bradyir@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, flyfishar@xxxxxxxxxxx, ken.cole@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, captkirk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, glbaggett@xxxxxxxxx, mkreider1@xxxxxxx, martyt@xxxxxxxxxx, niallogan@xxxxxxxxxx, pminnick@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, whorwood@xxxxxxxxx, flycasts@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, sheila@xxxxxxxxxx, scjacobs@xxxxxxxxxxxx, cooper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, tharper@xxxxxxxxxxx
CC: sportfisher@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, mildbill@xxxxxxxxxxxx, caddis@xxxxxxx, Brydnlnims@xxxxxxxxxxx, cezannealexander@xxxxxxxxxxx, crazycharlie@xxxxxxx, croberts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, blacksalmon@xxxxxxxxxxx, DermSox@xxxxxxx, gladesflybum@xxxxxxxxx, gavin@xxxxxxxxxxx, hillshead@xxxxxxx, iverson@xxxxxxxxx, jfs523@xxxxxxxxxxx, jerry_puckett2001@xxxxxxxxx, captsilverking@xxxxxxx, till@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, kathleen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, thedamselfly@xxxxxxxxxxx, plami@xxxxxxxxxxx, ray@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, kerrrc@xxxxxxxxx, simbirsw@xxxxxxx, bobbeanblossomFFF@xxxxxxxxxxx, hillcathy@xxxxxxx, dnewpher@xxxxxxxxxxxx, donjack@xxxxxxxxxxx, douglas.swift@xxxxxxxxxxxx, erniemaynard@xxxxxxxxxxx, flyfsfrank@xxxxxxx, gregrahe@xxxxxxxxxxx, hlhpc@xxxxxxx, jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, jhara.carter@xxxxxxxxxxx, harveyjl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, t.maltese@xxxxxxxxx, skifishvail@xxxxxxxx, jfv@xxxxxxxxxxxx, trallag@xxxxxxx, captflyrod@xxxxxxx, mollysemenik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, fraudflies@xxxxxxx, Ssadik1@xxxxxxx, shane@xxxxxxxxx, snowmonkey29@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: My error
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 07:30:49 -0500
Randy....To get deep running fish, here, (as well as in Northeastern waters such as New England and New York waters) I've found it much more effective to use full sink density compensated lines than sinking heads. I can get all the distance I need, and I have better control on the retrieve as well as avoiding the headaches of thin mono running line tangles.The mono running lines become an occasional nightmare when fishing for explosive pelagics such as tuna......even a tiny tangle or knot can be a disaster.Having said that, I did take a 12 lb. tippet world record Pacfic Bigeye Tuna using mono several years ago.....and Bob Andreae took a 15 lb. tippet record tuna on the same day with a similar head/mono line. We were doing some field testing with "Cortland Cobra" oval cross-section mono running lines in Costa Rica vs. "Amnesia" mono.Most of our fishing here in the Keys is done with floating or intermediate lines....not heads. One reason is that we've learned to handle the heavy winds just fine, can get the distances we need, don't need the baskets, and I can control my presentation much better than I can with heads. Most of our successful fly fishermen and skiff guides agree with that.For deep running King Salmon in Alaska, we found that the Jim Teeny sink tip T-300 and T-400 lines were a very good compromise.Some steelhead rivers present a different problem......there, I still use heads of various densities and mono running line. Being able to change heads is a plus for that fishing.Gordy
From: "Randy Olson" <bigfly@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Gordon Hill" <hillshead@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: My error
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 23:38:46 -0500
Gordy,Do you like to use floating or intermediate shooting heads in your flats fishing or do you find the thin line blowing around on your skiff not worth the headache? (I suppose those line tamers might do the job, but my even stripping baskets are too shallow when using 20 or 30lb mono. The wind picks up and still carries away a lot of line.)Or do you use heavy, short sinking heads only around deeper wrecks and other deep water situations? "Jigging" with a fly rod is not the stuff of beauty but it does work. Do you do much of that kind of thing?-Randy----- Original Message -----
From: "Gordon Hill"
To: flysoup@xxxxxxxxxx, sobbobfish@xxxxxxx, rtab@xxxxxxx, CAPTPERMIT@xxxxxxx, creangler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, dan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, daver@xxxxxxxxxx, dennisg@xxxxxxxxxxxx, captdoug@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, dsprague01@xxxxxxxxxxx, ephemera@xxxxxxx, brushycreekfc@xxxxxxxxx, barefootj@xxxxxxx, bradyir@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, flyfishar@xxxxxxxxxxx, ken.cole@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, captkirk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, glbaggett@xxxxxxxxx, mkreider1@xxxxxxx, martyt@xxxxxxxxxx, niallogan@xxxxxxxxxx, pminnick@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, bigfly@xxxxxxxxx, whorwood@xxxxxxxxx, flycasts@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, sheila@xxxxxxxxxx, scjacobs@xxxxxxxxxxxx, cooper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, tharper@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: My error
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 21:38:13 -0500
Hi, Group...For years I've agreed with and taught a description for the term, "OVERHANG" as the length of running line between the rear end of the head and the rod tip...........so forgive me for making that error in my list of definitions/descriptions. Dig out your notes and make the change.I might not have picked this up had Randy not called it to my attention.As our FFF, Glossary committee continues its deliberations, I again remind you that these, "definitions" are not, "written in stone on the mount" and have been my working definitions. These will change as we work hard to refine them to come up with official ones which will be the product of careful thinking by 12 CBOG's and the acceptance of our report by the exec. committee. That will take time.......so be patient.Gordy