Line/rod flash & false casting

[ibm59]

I mentioned this in the "off the reel" thread and as stated there I'm paranoid about avoiding the flash.
There's absolutely no doubt that it makes a difference when trouting but what do y'all think about it when after salmon. Same family of fish so why would the salmon be any less adverse to it?
Thoughts?

[paulsewin]

Hi Brian, this is one of my pet hates in modern tackle design.

First, here's my take on line flash. Most fly lines, but not all, have a matt finish. If they are dry, there isn't much flash, but when they are wet, the water on the line does reflect light. There is also a problem with the line depositing a line of water droplets on the surface of the water on the delivery stroke.

This is only going to be a problem, if we think it matters at all, when fishing water with a smooth surface, a glide or tail of a pool, in bright conditions.

In any water with a broken or ruffled surface, the surface of the water is a changing pattern of light and dark patches of light. I'm not sure how significant line/tackle flash is here, I don't know if it would be detected by the fish.

Sad individual that I am, I have actually conducted a few experiments on the fish in the river Cothi. Using the face of my watch, I have heliographed the pool singling out individual fish. Surprisingly, I've found the brown trout to be quite tolerant, I usually need to flash them two or three times to upset them. Sewin on the other hand need only one flash to send them scurrying off for the cover of deep water.

I can't speak about salmon because I haven't had the right conditions to try this when salmon were visible in the pools.

What I try to do is false cast downstream away from the fish to shed the water and then cast. It is debatable whether this is necessary, the same effect could probably be achieved by using a bit more effort in the back cast and using a more abrupt stop.

Tackle, on the other hand, is a different ball game. There has been a move in the last 10 years especially towards producing high gloss shiny items of tackle. Rod reviews in magazines don't help "I particularly like the lustrous high gloss finish on this rod" being a typical observation.

My attitude is that the tackle we use is supposed to do one thing, assist us to catch fish. It is not supposed to be an accessory in a fashion show. Unless a change in the tackle actually helps us catch fish, I don't want it.

Even if it doesn't do any harm, does it do any good? If heliographing the water helps, we can all carry a blank cd and do the job more efficiently, more thoroughly and much quicker ourselves.

The same comments apply to reels. I am afraid that I won't even look at the Hardy range now that all the reels are silver. I've got sovereign 2000s and MLAs but recently bought a Lamson Velocity because it was the only black reel I could find. I don't regret this purchase, it's an excellent reel.

However, when it comes to reels for saltwater fishing in hot places, silver reels have major advantages. They won't absorb the heat of the sun as much as a black reel and won't suffer from the potential problems caused by the expansion of the spool, especially on models where the spool runs on the reel cage.

I find it very annoying that some of the traditional names in fishing tackle, who ought to know better, are now seduced by this desire to produce "bright shiny things". I also resent having to spend my time rubbing back a new rod with wet and dry sandpaper to undo this unecessary finish.

Told you this was one of my favourite rants,

Paul

[bandon]

I suppose it flash either from the rod or the line depends on the length of the cast
Also the size of the river; big river' long cast' this wont really bother fish that are thirty yards away'
On a smaller river it would definitely make a difference; even your shadow will spook them day or night.
Once everything is on the water; even the colure of floating fly line doesn’t seem to mater.

[ibm59]

bandon said:

Also the size of the river; big river' long cast' this wont really bother fish that are thirty yards away'

Not so sure about that. Just watch someone casting on a bright day. You can see the line , rod and ,as paulsewin says , the spray from casting from a lot further away than 30yds. It must be like a fireworks display to a fish lying in shallow/ smooth water. Remember , you're throwing that spray a long way in the same direction as your fly is travelling. Probably even further than the fly itself.
I'm sure you're right about line colour etc , but only after the line
has landed on the surface. Again , check out someone casting a dark coloured sinker compared to a floater. It's next to impossible to see . Is it really that much different for the fish?
Regards. Undecided B.

[paulsewin]

This is a link to a site showing some photos taken by a Canadian photographer of Atlantic salmon. Few of us actually get in the river to see what a fish sees.

I particularly like the "red" one showing the maple? branch in ther river. You get to see the effect of the window and mirror in one photo.

www.salmonphotos.com/stock_photos.html.

[bandon]

Few of us actually get in the river to see what a fish sees.
Paul ?
some people thrive on the trivial; it,s these same people' that that develop new technique
some of us just like to fish.
We don't always know how' or why it works; and don't care.
get the fly out there by whatever means; there are times when delicate casting is needed.
you cannot say a double spey cast ;is the most delicate cast but it works
Rod flash' i would agree is to be avoided everything else i just get on with it and let the fish worry about it; cant sat it,s bothered them to much so far

Bandon

[Willie The Gillie]

I am not so sure about rod flash putting salmon off/down/scaring etc etc. My thoughts are it saves salmon rod manufacturers a coat of paint !!!
The biggest flash in a river surely has to be from the flanks of a fresh run fish. The biggest disturbance to a pool is a salmon jumping. And surely when the salmon are feeding in the sea flashes are what they are looking for and drawn to ? If flashes are so bad for salmon fishing why do toby's, flying C's etc all work.
Only my thought - who knows - too many permutations for any answer to be correct - just like most other things in this sport and maybe just as well.

[severnfisher]

Quite a lot of the holding water I fish is glassy smooth surfaced stuff and that's why I leave it till the sun has gone down.

Though a fair few people try there are some sections of pools I fish regularly that I have never seen a fish taken from on fly in low water in daylight.

There is really no other way round the problem other than very long Arthur Cove style leaders and praying that a fish takes first oir second cast down, hoping for a daft fish, or waiting till dusk.

In the seventies the coarse matchmen on the Severn all used to repaint their long float rods in matt black. They had a point...

[paulsewin]

williethegillie said:

I am not so sure about rod flash putting salmon off/down/scaring etc etc. My thoughts are it saves salmon rod manufacturers a coat of paint !!!
The biggest flash in a river surely has to be from the flanks of a fresh run fish. The biggest disturbance to a pool is a salmon jumping. And surely when the salmon are feeding in the sea flashes are what they are looking for and drawn to ? If flashes are so bad for salmon fishing why do toby's, flying C's etc all work.
Only my thought - who knows - too many permutations for any answer to be correct - just like most other things in this sport and maybe just as well.

Can't argue with anything you've said here.

Would the "flash" outside the water be perceived in a different way to a "flash" in the water?

In some of the wildlife programs I've watched, large predators such as killer whales and tuna deliberately flash their bodies to force their prey into a bait ball before they feed. Of course, we are talking about fish in a river, so this may be totally irrelevant.

The other thought I have is that many predatory fish, such as pike and brown trout, are very well camoflagued indeed. Presumably this is to disguise their presence form their prey.

Until we find a talking salmon, we'll never know for sure and discussions in hotel bars would not be the same!

[bandon]

Until we find a talking salmon, we'll never know for sure and discussions in hotel bars would not be the same!
wouldn't i love to meet him ;D ;D
rod flash line spray; you might think would disturb the fish; and put them down.
might it do the opposite, and wake them up?
how many times has someone spun down a pool, only to have someone like me waiting; to fish down after him hoping he has woken them up fish that have become resident ?
Bandon

[severnfisher]

I think there might be an issue of different experiences based on different types of water.
On my local river Severn I wouldn't worry about fly fishing this this bit of water in broad daylight in the middle of the afternoon - not least because the hill shades the deeper water from the sun after 2pm even in high summer.



But on this bit. Well I'd rather leave it till the sun has gone down



Ignore the date tghingie they were taken in the spring
Tom

[severnfisher]

p.s.
spinning doesn't create a great big bloody shadow from a tow rope...

[paulsewin]

severnfisher said:

p.s.
spinning doesn't create a great big bloody shadow from a tow rope...

I don't know if you've read Moc Morgan & Graeme Harris' book on sea trout fishing. In bright conditions, they tried to position themselves so that the fish saw the flash of the spinner before they saw the shadow of the spinner. The same point you're making here.

Has anyone ever seen the way fish react to the shadow cast by branches floating over their heads? It may give us an indication of how much the shadow of a fly line upsets them.

I do know sewin don't like a shadow moving over them, but then there aren't many things that sewin do like.

[severnfisher]

Hi paul,
yep I've read it. Great book.
Back to the original question:

I mentioned this in the "off the reel" thread and as stated there I'm paranoid about avoiding the flash.
There's absolutely no doubt that it makes a difference when trouting but what do y'all think about it when after salmon. Same family of fish so why would the salmon be any less adverse to it?
Thoughts?

I found that I started to catch a lot more salmon from the glassy water on my river when i started treating them like sewin...

[donnieW]

bandon said:

Few of us actually get in the river to see what a fish sees.

I haven't done it myself but I know 2 divers who went into a river and watched while someone fished over them. The angler used a single hander with a floating line and the presentation (when watching from the bank) was good. From below, however, the divers said it looked like wire rope landing on the water. I don't really believe it affects the fish very much or we'd never catch anything. Do fish see it the same as we see it?

[bandon]

spinning doesn't create a great big bloody shadow from a tow rope...
severnfisher
use a long enough leader; and you will get away with fishing a tow rope; much easier to use one of the more modern lines.
the shadow passing over a salmon,
I have watched from bridges over the moy and below galway weir.
cant say that ether the shadow of the fly or line; spooked the fish in any way
how much disturbance will a salmon put up with; quite a lot'
since there is no way of measuring this, all i can is state from my own experience; and that nether fly line of fly shadow; effect salmon much; i am sure there will be time when it may well have some effect; but this is few and far between
Bandon

[williegunn]

And why would a salmon connect any of the above with the fly?
They are fish; and have probably never seen a human.

What is the IQ of a salmon?

[macd]

Malcolm, its called anthropomorphism


the tendency to award human qualities or sensibilities to animals or objects. Its easily done, but should be avoided.

Posted by Willie The Gillie on Today at 12:38am
I am not so sure about rod flash putting salmon off/down/scaring etc etc. My thoughts are it saves salmon rod manufacturers a coat of paint !!!
The biggest flash in a river surely has to be from the flanks of a fresh run fish. The biggest disturbance to a pool is a salmon jumping. And surely when the salmon are feeding in the sea flashes are what they are looking for and drawn to ? If flashes are so bad for salmon fishing why do toby's, flying C's etc all work.
Only my thought - who knows - too many permutations for any answer to be correct - just like most other things in this sport and maybe just as well.

Spot on. There are many disturbances- visual, audio, sensory- in the daily lives of wild animals. Seems like folly to second guess them.

However, paul sewin cathces the theme well when he says that there there is not much that sea-trout like. I take a similar view with salmon- although its not as fickle as the sea-trout.

The answer is IME for the fisher to adapt his mindset to the job in hand- its about stealth and good river craft.

You will go quite mad if you try to second guess salar.

[salmondan]

severnfisher said:

Lovely casting platform ;D.

I like this thread, it's already given me at least two more excuses for why I've had another blank day.

And possibly two more excuses to buy more tackle .

To get back on topic (sorry guys, couldn't resist), we can't really guess what line/rod/reel flash does to the fish we are targeting without being able to see the effects clearly, something we can't do whilst stood in the river. It is IMO, also foolish to think that flash would have the same effect on every fish in much the same way that it is accepted that all salmon/st are not "taking" fish, they are likely to be affected in different ways. Some may bolt from a pool after one cast, some may stay for X number of casts, some may stay all day cast after cast. I'm sure Falkus said something about it being impossible to overfish a lie.

Dan

[macd]

There is an interesting paper here :

www.nal.usda.gov/awic/pubs/Fishwelfare/Rose.pdf

Hard work but some interesting facts IMO.

Just made it through the abstract dave- hard going right enough. But I note they agree with me re:anthropomorphism. These guys must nobel standard ;D

I am going to plough on- even if it means a heightened risk of aneurism.