Pike - leader material

[Bemoredog]

I was out fishing last night with a forum member who runs 50lb fluoro leader while I run a 30lb test titanium leader.

I landed 3 or 4 Pike over the period while I think he landed 1 or 2 more. I probably had half a dozen or so short strikes, bumps or missed sets and one fish throw the hook. I'm not sure what he had for missed sets, short strikes or bumps (but it was at least in the same range as my own), but I know there were at least 3 fish he had on that simply got away by running into the weeds. (If he sees this he can correct me).

So, if my math is right, and it's probably not entirely, he hooked possibly twice (or more) as many fish as I did. However, while I think this information is interesting and maybe even useful, it's still anecdotal and not a true experiment. I've listed some of the issues that cast the conclusions of this experiment into doubt below:

• We didn't run identical lures.
  
• Our lines were not usually out the same length.
  
• We weren't always in the water at the same times.

The time we went before I was pretty clearly outfished. I landed 3 while he was nearing or even in double digits. I did have a large number of takes this time, but was really struggling with setting my hook/keeping the fish on.

My sense is that there probably is a difference, but I think it's likely marginal. I think the real factor here is lure choice since both times we were basically even for awhile, but when he swapped in a new lure (a zombie maxx in the first case, and a cabela's brand gold fish swim bait in the second), the fish seemed to really turn on.

[RavYak]

As you pointed out you can't really compare the two when using different lines etc.

Even if you used the same lures the same amount of line behind the boat then you would have to do 100s if not 1000s of hours of observation to make an informed decision on which worked best because even then just which side of the boat can be a significant factor.

As I stated before when you are using something like a crankbait etc you aren't really using a life like lure. They are attractants and most have built in movement, vibrations and noises that regular fish do not emit. You are primarily getting fish to bite on instinct/aggression rather then actually tricking them into thinking it is really a tasty meal.

Only a fraction of fish will bite such a lure and the ones that will usually would care less if there is a visible leader in front of the lure.

Now if we are talking about using a realistic lure, a jig head with a minnow, a drop shot with a minnow/leech, a hook with a worm etc. Something that is actually tapping into the fishes desire to feed rather then just strike out of aggression then that is when leaders get important. Especially with slow moving presentations as most of these bait presentations usually are.

People always claim they know fish are finicky of leaders because they see it ice fishing etc. Of course they do, you are seeing every fish that approaches your lure and usually ice fishing you are using something more realistic like say a jig head and minnow. If a realistic bait has a strange black line coming off it then that will turn fish off. But if you jig a less realistic lure like say a ripping rap that primarily gets the strike based off its erratic movement and noise then you would notice less difference in leader material effect on strike rates but you will also notice few fish even bother to bite such a lure just because of its action(although sometimes you will notice opposite because fish aren't interested in feeding but can be enticed to strike out of aggression instead).

As I said before type of lure will have a significantly larger difference on catching fish then a leader ever will have. If you are using finesse fishing methods(which crankbaits, spoons etc are not) then a leader will come into play but most people do not use such methods for pike as they are not really necessary. There is possibly an argument that finesse fishing methods will help you catch the bigger smarter pike but simply put if you are going to zone in on these fish that are too smart to bite a hook with a visible leader then you are going to have to change your tactics significantly anyways or just get lucky and catch said fish on an off day.

[ROA]

I have just been using a foot or two of 25 or 20lbs maxima floro leader material with a swivel between it and the braid and then a snap at the end. I have to tie new stuff on every once in a while when I feel a nick. Got probably 10 pike over 10 lbs with the largest at 20lbs with this set up and a boat load of little ones. Only ever had one cut the line and I watched it happen 5 feet away, 2 lbs pike took a poorly aimed swipe and his gill plate cut through the line like a knife. Probably only felt 2lbs of pull on the rod. Got the net and scooped up my $12 rapala that was floating away lol.

25lbs maxima is not totally bullet proof but as big as I am willing to go before I feel I am missing out on fish on the clearer water that at times are spooked or not biting well enough because of visible leaders.

For lakers on cold lake I use 12lbs berkly vanish as a leader and have found a definite advantage in hookup rates.

[cube]

Originally Posted by Jet

You'll need to get the Keith Jones book for further information on this, but it was done at Berkeley Labs and here's a summary of it:

During our interview, Dr. Keith Jones shared information about an experiment he and his staff conducted regarding bass and their ability to visually detect line. This experiment was conducted at the Pure Fishing Research Center where behavioral research and testing is conducted in a 60ft. long by 15ft. wide and 6ft. deep tank. The test group for their experiment consisted of approximately 100 bass that were free to roam about in the tank. Over the course of 72 hours, researchers strung two different lines (Berkley Trilene XL 6lb. mono and Berkley Vanish 10lb. fluorocarbon as they both had the same diameter) by vertically attaching one end to the bottom of the tank and the other to the ceiling. One end of each line was attached to a pressure-sensitive counter that was triggered every time a bass came into contact with the line. The researchers left the lines in the water for approximately 12 hours at a time then moved the lines to different areas of the tank to eliminate any positional bias or habituation learning. Over the course of the experiment, the researchers noted that the bass touched the mono 170 times versus the fluorocarbon at 294 times. These figures helped assert their initial assumption that one, bass don’t like running into line and two, that the bass could actually see line. It also proved that bass were able to detect the mono line more often than the fluorocarbon; thus providing further proof that fluorocarbon is less visible to bass versus mono.

Also you might be interested in this about fishing being able to see certain line colors better than others:

http://digital.library.okstate.edu/o...v59/p34_40.pdf

The general conclusion is fish can see color (some colors better than others). Also water filters color (different colored water will filter it differently).
And ultimately (just like us), it's all about contrast of the object to the background.

Hence why refractive indexes and colors that match the background will be seen less by fish.

Which is why as a general rule, assuming line doesn't serve as an attractant, then clearer, flouro and smaller are better. With the exception of things like Maxima tinted to the water color (specific to the water body), i.e. low contrast but not clear. That's if you're in water where the fish can see.

Thx Jet I will certainly try and track Dr. Keith's book down. I sure would like to see what the control results looked like for that study as I'm sure they ran a heavy black line and a very small thin line as controls.

I would be interested in your opinion on

http://www.bigindianabass.com/files/fluoro_present.ppt

http://www.bigindianabass.com/big_in...orocarbon.html

The math in the power point seems quite believable to me but is of course beyond my capabilities to follow fully.

Thanks again.

[millsboy79]

Originally Posted by Jet

So for a clear object to be (very close to) invisible in water, the refractive index of the material needs to match that of water. If it does match, “theoretically” you can’t see it, because there’s no junction between the materials that can reflect or bend light. That said, Fluoro material is closer to the refractive index of water than mono is, so it’s less visible. Water is 1.3325 ( it can vary 1.32 - 1.34 depending on temperature, depth and salinity). Fluorocarbon is around 1.42, Mono is 1.53-1.62. Is Fluoro invisible in water? No, because the refractive indexes differ. Is it less visible than Mono in water, Yes because the refractive indexes are closer.

The conclusion the PPT presentation came to was that fluoro is not invisible and they’re correct in that.

The argument was cylinder versus slab and the light not being at right angles to the cylinder. Interesting theory, but not really supported by the evidence or physics. I noticed they didn’t specify what Fluoro they used, and although 100% Fluoro correctly spun/extruded is around 1.42, many Fluoros are not 100% or are Fluoro coated, because of the differing refractive indexes they’ll be highly visible. I believe that’s where they went wrong.

If their premise was even remotely correct, then this wouldn’t work: http://www.exploratorium.edu/snacks/...ing-glass-rods
Pyrex (Borosilicate glass) has a refractive index of 1.47 (note this is further away from water than Fluoro (1.42)). Note this is also a cylinder.

Even Seaguar themselves don’t claim invisibility:
http://www.seaguar.com/applications/myths.html
MYTH: Fluorocarbon is completely invisible and matches the refractive index (the way light bends) of water.
FACT: No. It is as close as any form of line or leader can get to the refractive index of water, thus making it virtually invisible, but not completely. Some brands do state that, but it is not true.

But ultimately, the evidence is pretty compelling. Put some decent Fluoro and Mono in water (similar diameters) and compare them. And in case you haven’t got both on hand, check these out:

Showing Fluoro is less visible than Mono:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpgGfm6Q0rY
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/pg7cOdvBb0I/maxresdefault.jpg

There’s also videos showing the opposite, therefore, get good line that is 100% Fluoro. When you look at good Fluoro lines, they look different, more matt, less shiny.

Ultimately, you get what you pay for, something that is formed well, is pure and isn’t dyed is best.

I watched the video and i didn't think vanish was 100% fluorocarbon. Guess that kind of makes the point. Even fluorocarbon covered mono is better than standard monofilament.

[millsboy79]

Originally Posted by Jet

I believe Berkley Vanish is 100% Fluoro. They sell it both in mainline and leader. Although I don't know if the Berkley Vanish when that test was done is the same as now.

The fella at the wholesale sports fishing counter told me that vanish was fluorocarbon coated mono which is why Berkeley made the Trilene 100% fluorocarbon.

Guess he could have been blowing smoke I certainly don't know the chemical makeup of fishing line.

[millsboy79]

Originally Posted by Jet

I think the Trilene is the Pro one, and Vanish the non pro. Looking back, since at least 2011, Berkely has sold a 100% Fluoro Vanish.

I dunno if there's more than one Vanish, or if they'l lying, but it says 100% Fluoro on the packet.

I don't buy the stuff anyway, I don't see the point of Fluoro Line (only leaders) and I've never been that impressed with Berkeley line although some of their leader material is cheaper.

Like Macdonald's 100% all beef wasn't always all beef.

Or any line that claims to be "invisible".

Although I can't find anything online that can back up his claim.