Paul Roberts

OK, BR member nick provided a youtube link of some of Glen Lau's underwater footage from Bigmouth. And these clips show the strike types bass use in feeding/striking very relevant to the discussion in this thread. In these clips you'll see: bite, suction, and engulf strikes. These strike types were identified by fish behavior researchers a while back in looking specifically at bass. Strikes are often a melding of these three basic types, depending on what the bass needs for the situation and its level of arousal. I guess the relevant thing here to this thread is how easy it could be to not feel certain strikes: Notice the slack line that can develop on a high speed engulf what I call an overrun strike. Also notice how little an interruption is generated by some of the low energy suction or bite strikes. You'll also see bass engulfing, and spitting, crankbaits. There's one missed strike, of what looks like a tube bait, in which the hookset occurs when the bass is handling the bait, and it's mouth is not fully closed it hasn't bitten down on the bait. The hookset simply pops it out of the open mouth. This is a common missed hookset with plastics at close range to sighted fish. Drives me nuts when I forget to wait a moment longer. http://www.questforadventure.com/bassvideocollection.htm VERY cool footage.

That's footage from Glen Lau's film series "Bigmouth".

There are LOTS of ways to catch steelhead and avoid foul-hooking. First you have to WANT to avoid it -the first hurdle for many. Then you have to get know your tackle and how it operates in moving water. Then you're home free. Nuff said. We're on the same page. Hey, and it was almost on topic!

I once had a Prof tell me, when I had complained about working under an intense unfriendly biologist: "It's content, not style, that matters." I had to wrestle with that idea, and still disagree. Content is delivered by style. And it does matter -if you are truly wishing to educate. Style can turn people on, or put people off.

Very cool Roger. This comes into play in hook-set pressure too. Brian had a piece on his site that looked at this. Upon reading it, my mind immediately went to presentation and strike detection. I couldn't re-find the piece, so maybe he'll pop in again and add a link.

Gotta ask: Why a FC leader? Why not...hard mono, or any of the wires available? What does FC offer?

Not linear at all. If the line in the water remained arrow-straight then it might be linear, but the monkey-wrench is "Line-Belly". Though rarely discussed on the boards, line-belly is the culprit that quickly converts negligible resistance into supra drag. In my tenderfoot years on the ocean, I was marking bluefish about 30 ft below the surface in water about 150 ft deep. Several unproductive trolling passes told me that my lure wasn't getting down to the fish. I began paying out line behind the boat but to no avail. Frustrated, I paid more-and-more line astern, and though my backing was past the tip-top guide, there was still no takedown. Then I noticed something weird, a raucous group of Franklin gulls were following my boat, about 100 yards in its wake. They seemed to be taking turns diving toward the water, but invariably changed their mind just before entering the water. I finally come to my senses, they could actually see my Clark spoon under the water, but it was just below their diving capability. Due to cumulative lin-drag, my lure had reached its terminal depth and as I paid out more line, the lure simply rode upward in the water column as it departed from the nadir of line-belly. That's a lesson I will never forget. Roger ;D That's a great, and telling, story. Line belly: Hence my interest in the density of FC. Whether it pans out to be a real advantage -I find no other in FC -remains to be seen. Also, (to get further anal -you can blame trout) I think the non-linear relationship when you change line diameters, even if you COULD keep a straight line, may also have to do with the 3D (cylindrical) shape of line -meaning, mathematically, volume comes into the picture. That's a guess --I am no mathematician. Suffice it to say -diameter matters.

Exactly. As to the Dale Hollow reference -another BIG advantage with fine lines is their ability to maintain good presentation to deeper fish. Nowhere is the effect of line diameter more dramatic than in the ocean. Let's say that you're drifting in 100 ft of water with 20 lb line, and a 4 oz sinker is just barely bumping bottom. You fetch a rod out of the socket that's spooled with 30 lb line. On this outfit you'll have to step-up to a 6 or 8 oz sinker before you feel the sinker bumping bottom. Roger At a diff scale, I've found 4#XL matched with a 1/16oz jig to be akin to 8#XL with a 1/8oz jig. They seem to present similarly in terms of sink rate/depth and speed (Doesn't appear to be a linear relationship). But I can go one better (not competitively of course) -moving water! Current separates the spiderwebs from the ropes quickly, as you mention. Then drop the temperature, with associated increased water density, and line diameter weighs in huge. If this sounds unnecessarily anal, ask trout in 40F moving water. They'll set you straight. rubba -THANK YOU for that table. That's something I can use. BTW: FC is NOT invisible -that's a myth. Having a refractive index close to that of water is not all that's involved. Consider it a myth, a distortion of a scientific measurement.

My guess is Chris is not challenging Elias as much as using the interview as a jumping off for discussion. Fair enough. I try hard not to make assumptions about poster's motives -although it can be hard to put a clamp on it at times. No one should be compared with KVD or Paul Elias or anyone. As Catt said, you need to judge ("discern" -that's a better word) info as to how well it applies to your fishing. If you need clarity, ask. I like RoLo's footer: "It's not Who's right, but What's right." Let's not make this personal. Much of what Chris has brought here doesn't appear to need much debate. Nor do I have to take his word for things I might question. I'm not confused by what he's said. If anyone is, then they should ask for clarity. If it's BS, it'll show. There are too many good anglers on this board for BS to get very far. And good anglers are not all tournament anglers, trophy hunters, much less top name pros. We all fish different waters, in different ways. Anyone, even novices, can come up with good insights. I'd hate to have a board where only KVD could attempt what Chris has.

OK, I'm done. Latest front has resulted in the third night with below 0 temps. I'm iced up. The bright side -my ponds thaw by late February. As a former NYer I know it could be worse.

Exactly. As to the Dale Hollow reference -another BIG advantage with fine lines is their ability to maintain good presentation and detection to deeper fish.

;D ;D

There was an early study that showed bass could actually see lines as light as they tested -6lb test. It's what line "means" to the bass that matters.

X2

The flame green Fireline or yellow PowerPro will fix that visibility issue up right quick 8-) ;D Brian isn't using a leader either -tying direct. He just didn't know any better . Turns out the bass didn't either -to the tune of...how many now Brian? Pretty cool test to an age old question on line visibility to fish, and what it means.

Say what?? Them's fightin' words you know. Admit it, you have a spey rod loaded with 25# mono, and two gumball sized sinkers about 4" above a #2 hook. ;D #1's legal Is sponge still popular? There was a time when that was all you EVER saw ANYONE using. I snagged one steelhead on sponge -being shown the ropes by a friend back in '76. Didn't feel right (and wasn't) so I broke out a spinning rod and marabou jigs and CAUGHT two more. My buddy almost had a heart attack. Anyway...we're going OT again. Oh yes, I caught them on Trilene XL.

Say what?? Them's fightin' words you know.

There's a high floating braid out there, specifically designed for steelheading I hear. Curious, if anything; I prefer fly-tackle for most things trouty anyway.

;D No worries Chris, I didn't take it that way. Good jumping off material. Don't know why I had the urge to speak up for Elias...Guess I like his gentle manner. Real good stuff Chris.

Thanks T-rig.

I'm lumping nylons/CoPs together. FC and braid are different enough to separate -at least at this point. Any use for braid for drift fishing?

You've got some really good points in there. To be fair to Elias (and I know this is a jumping off point for you, not a challenge to Elias), when on the spot in an interview, lots of those contingencies get forgotten. Good post.

Now you're dipping into line so thin, the strength to diameter relationship is negligible. I don't see an advantage in the lines smaller than 8# (0.012). I'll put it this way, I replaced 10# Trilene XT with 8# P-line, and see a real improvement. I replaced 12# Trilene with 10# CXX, and see a really big improvement. My initial spool of CXX was 15#, because it was close to the 17# Trilene I used, and it was overkill. 12# CXX works fine. Here's a story about 15# CXX. 18.5 ranger + 89 lb. thrust TM + hung bullet sinker in wood = boat lost. I had to cut it. This was down on SML this past April. For most of my small diameter applications, I've gone to braid. 15# Power Pro with a long fluoro leader (I like P-line CFX, Gamma, and TriplFish leader material) in 4 to 10# sizes is working really well for me. Hope that helps. Get rid of mono??? :) OK, I'm over the shock. You make a good point. I actually have been using 10# braids for my light applications the last couple of years. The only thing left is my UL spinning rig -which has mostly been collecting dust -and my CB rig filled with 10XT. For topwater, I'm using 20# braid w/mono leader. AND...looking at Brian's (Team9nine) results with straight fluorescent braid (no leader) -that's fluorescent yellow --we might just be able to get rid of the leaders too: http://www.bigindianabass.typepad.com/big_indiana_bass/page/2/ But....NO MONO?? At all??? I'll have to let that sink in for a bit. Remember, I'm one of those "old dogs".

Excellent. Yup I'm a Trilene guy, for the reasons you state -bc that was the standard, once upon a time. I've been aware of the talk around P-Line and am seriously tempted. If it's SOOOO strong I should be able to replace .009 XT with .009 P-Line, or maybe even with .008??? That is what I want to chip away at. Sufix is the other I've heard good things about, and from some good sources. And the ratings are high on Stren MagnaThin -but the ads for it talk "walleye" a lot -which makes me think it may be lacking in abrasion resistance. Another I've used is Trilene Sensation, and was surprised at it's strength to diameter (compared to Trilene XL/XT). But, it's a low stretch formula and appeared to be a bit brittle (less shock resistance) -maybe just something to get used to. And this was just my own impression in fishing it. As to FC, so far BPS XPS has performed the best for me and is highly rated. The other I'm curious about (due to rating) is Maxima FC. But one test gave it a not-so-great knot strength rating. Yes Roger, braid IS great stuff. I use it a lot. But...it floats, so I am playing with FC for deep water(and high wind) use. Thus my spending my time here on the lines forum. Discussing the nylon/CoP is simply mission creep lol.

Good response. I tend to be reluctant to try new lines, bc I feel know what to expect from my Trilene. But adding FC to my game has had me shelling out the cash to find something I like. With nylons, I'm willing to stray from my XT, but only for a darn good reason. I think strength (agree tested knot strength is better than tensile) is important -the starting point for me. After this I can look at all the other properties I might require. My thinking is that diameter is primary in terms of basic presentation--depth and speed control-- and I want that standardized. I was recently frustrated in purchasing 8lb Berkley 100% fluoroc, only to find that it's the 6lb that meets my diameter standard (.010) for an 8lb. line! I had to go back to the store and get the 6lb. Another variable is strength when wet. Tackle Tour found a this to be a major variable in their testing. So..it appears that the real test would be: wet knot break strength. Knowing this I would consider purchasing the lines that rated highest, at the diameters I am used to, keeping in mind the other qualities I might need. Complicated? I suppose, but much less so than the existing "rating game" we seem to be stuck with. Another issue might be age/history of the line spools he used. TT gets theirs directly from the factory I believe. Finally , I had to wonder: Just how consistent is a spring scale AFTER it's been abused like this over and over? I didn't check, but wonder how often he re-calibrated that scale. This could potentially blow his entire dataset.