Fishing Forum

Since X-Man started the post about using a red line, I started to wonder . . . other than effecting the confidence of the fisherman, what real difference can the line make? People have been catching fish long before monofilimant, flourocarbon, and spiderwire came along. I know some of the first flyflingers used horse hair tippit to tie onto their flies. The other reason I bring this up is my brother's fault. When tying on to his lure, he leaves a nasty looking tag of line and typically uses heavier line (e.g. 8 lb test when pursuing 2-3lb trout). He catches just as many fish as my Dad and I using 4 lb test neatly clipped at the knot.

I can think of a couple of considerations when choosing a line:

1) supple vs. stiff:

A lighter lure may have better action from a supple line.

2) toughness (aka abrasion resistant)

A toothy fish or nasty structure could do more damage to a line

3) strength

I'm not going fishing for King Salmon with 4 lb test . . .

So, what do you all think???

ES
[signature]

one other consideration i learned recently - ease of tying knots/knot strength - the difference between 4 and 8 is significant . .

sm
[signature]

I almost fish exclusively with one weight of line. I know it's ups and downs and basically know how hard I can play a fish with out breaking the line and rarely even think about it. The only exception is fly fishing but I still use the same tipit over and over. Well If I can't put the line thru the eye I'll go a size down but that doesn't happen much.

I don't think the size of the line that matters most is how well if performs. I've found the most basic a line usually does a better job then some of that fancy stuff that rarely does what it claims. Heck if it catches fish then it much be good right.

The only exception I've really found is Ice fishing.
[signature]