Smallmouth on the Winter Solstice

[tjm]

I think one often overlooked things that scare fish in very clear or relatively shallow water is shadows that move. And although I advocate heavier line/leaders for the ability to horse a fish in when C&R fishing, I will admit that fatter lines have bigger shadows. Sometimes the angle of approach/presentation or angle of sun can cause the moving shadow of the line on the stream/lake bottom to  spook  a fish just as the shadow of a predatory bird would. When I did my experiments in still water the line was fairly motionless and the presentation angle put any shadow between the baits and myself rather than between the bait and the fish. It was only  years later that this occurred to me as a factor.  Personally I don't think that even with 1/100th ounce jigs that 8-10# line is stiff enough to steer  or to hinder the movement, but I'm not seeing it from a trout's viewpoint either. I've long fished unweighted flies down to #18  on 5X-5# and moving up to 3X-8# with #12 or larger flies, and I don't think it hurt my numbers. But I must admit that it's possible that I would have caught more if I had used lighter line.

I only asked because I see the 2# as an unnecessary handicap, having broken off many more trout on 4# than I have bass on the same line. I know a fellow that used to always fish bass and white bass with ultralight crappie rigs, broke dozens of those little rods, when I asked him why he kept using the UL gear he said it just made the fish feel bigger. Others have answered that "so and so" told them light lines were required. The answer given above of anecdotally, you  just seem to catch about ~1/3'' more fish with the smaller line is an excellent reply, you are convinced by your experience that it is worthwhile just as @Al Agnew is convinced by his experience; both by the way, anecdotal. I'm convinced by my experiments, which since they were not conducted in a laboratory by trained biologists are also kinda anecdotal. Staying in the anecdotal, some years ago at a time when I fished RRSP 50-100 days per year, I arrived at the idea that every time I used  6X-3# I lost (by guesstimate) ~1/3 of the fish I hooked and when using 7X-~2#, I guessed the number of break-offs to be nearly half. I wish I had kept actual count and done some switching of tippet using the same flies, so that I could be more sure of my beliefs. After writing this I may just have to buy a spool of 7X and try that next summer. 

 

[Quillback]

I'm firmly in the match my line to the presentation camp.  Lighter stuff, I tend to use lighter line for ease of casting and distance.  I don't fish flies on gin clear streams however.  When I used to fish back country lakes in Washington, some of those lakes the water was as clear as air, I'd throw spoons on 6 lb. mono.  You couldn't see the fish, but as I retrieved the spoon one would come streaking from 50 feet away like an arrow shot out of a bow to get that spoon.  Those fish were relatively unpressured and that may be a factor too.  

[oneshot 1]

4 hours ago, WestCentralFisher said:

The river is certainly very nice right now. And not that many people on it even on a Saturday with fairly good weather. 

Yea I know but have to have someone take me. Everyone always have something to do but take an old man fishing. 

oneshot 

[Al Agnew]

On 12/24/2024 at 10:45 AM, WestCentralFisher said:

For the sake of clarity (some pun intended) this mostly matches with what I said. I think heavier line has an effect with more subtle forms of presentation like tiny marabou jigs, and less so (if at all) with less subtle presentations like  spinners/crankbaits.

I do happen to think 2 pound test is marginally less likely to spook fish than 4 pound based on anecdotal, visual observation while sight-fishing. That conclusion may well be wrong, but I do fail to see how it would be "mind-boggling" to draw a seemingly reasonable conclusion (smaller diameter material may be less likely to be noticed by fish) based on observational evidence that seems to support it. There are loads of possible reasons I could be interpreting the evidence incorrectly, but I'm compelled to push back a touch at the insinuation that it's a ridiculous thought.

I will allow that I've not yet seen fish carrying calipers about, but I'll keep an eye out for it. If you see any, please let me know. Might be time to take up golf at that point.

Anyway, y'all have an excellent Christmas Eve, regardless of which gauge of fishing line you prefer.

I don't think you can credibly say that fish can't see 2 pound line as well as they can 4 pound line in very clear water.  There really isn't that much difference in its visibility.  If I cut off a foot of 2 pound line and a foot of 4 pound line and asked you to tell which was which, you'd have to really look pretty darned closely and study the lines for a bit to give me an answer.  I kinda know this because I just got finished filling up some reels, and I wanted to spool some with 8 pound line and some with 10 pound.  And I wanted to figure out which of my reels that didn't need re-spooling already had lines of those two diameters.  I absolutely could NOT decide with any real confidence which reels had 8 pound and which had 10 pound.  If I can't easily tell the difference in appearance of lines that are two pound test difference in diameter, I highly doubt the fish could, or that one would spook them more than the other.

I would guess that there are other factors in making 2 pound catch you more fish than 4 pound.  But I'm not a fish.