Fluorescent or Non-fluorescent

[Mike Connor]

I I realize this is not fly fishing, but wanted to add the general comments/experience regarding phosphorescent materials.

Indeed, I have also used phosphorescent materials for various purposes, and successfully, but this has been under very specific conditions, either exclusively at night, or in deep or murky water. Various fish also hunt using bioluminescence, especially deep sea fish. In these cases the light itself is the attraction. Several ranges of seatrout and salmon flies were produced ( and the tiny rechargeable lights) which incorporated such phosphorescent materials. I didn't find them any more effective than any other flies, ( Indeed less so in most cases) but some people maintained they were better.

There is a lot of stuff like this available, and all sorts of claims are made for it;

http://www.crystalriver.net/laser.htmL

http://www.theessentialfly.com/syntheti ... ubing.html

In some places ( Scotland is one) it is illegal to fish with lighted lures for gamefish.

TL
MC

[Mike Connor]

(particularly in stained water) as a fish attractor,
Aaron

In stained water there is no fluorescence, because the stain filters the ultra violet light. See this link I posted which explains and demonstrates this;

http://www.skiptonflytyers.co.uk/snippets.htm

Scroll down to "What use are fluorescent materials in water? "

TL
MC

[Mike Connor]

QUOTE His summary--fluorescent materials maintain colour at depth. Since water essentially washes colour at depth--i.e. normally red "disappears" first and then the remaining colours in sequence (ROY G BIV), fluorescence allows for "true colour" to be reflected deeper in the water column. This means that the attractive properties of a given colour should be functioning deeper in the water column. It's also worth noting that this applies to light reflection in all directions so the same principle should apply over distance horizontally.UNQUOTE

That is correct, as long as the water is clear then fluorescent materials will operate at any normal fly-fishing depth. However, this is NOT "true colour with regard to the normal daylight colour" and nor is it reflected light. It is light emitted by the substance which is fluorescing. The perceived colour of the material at depth is due to the emitted light and may be completely different from the normal daylight colour of the material. Although most fluorescent dyes are used to give materials the same fluorescence colour as their normal daylight colours. This need not be so. I have some red seal fur which fluoresces blue, among a few other similar things. The fluorescent dye used in many modern washing powders also causes materials washed in it to fluoresce blue. I have some hare fur which does that as a result of being washed using such powder.

At one point I thought that I had actually discovered something useful as result of this, as I had a few days where some shrimps I dressed with this hooked a fish a cast. Unfortunately, I have not been able to repeat this, and so had to put it down as a "fluke". Fishing two on a leader ( one "normal" hare fur, and the other with the fluorescent stuff), the fish show no appreciable preference, usually the point fly gets most strikes, but changing the flies around produces the same results in favour of the one on the point.

More or less lastly, and this is something I have often mentioned in regard to various things, if you have a very good fly for a situation, or set of circumstances, that works very consistently, then there is very little point in trying to "improve" it, even if you knew how you might go about doing so.

TL
MC

[Klaas]

Hi Mike

What about bubbing with ultraviolet.
What i got from school is that we dont see ultraviolet,lots of landinsects do have ultraviolet collors,some of their predators see the ultraviolet collors to.
There are also fish that have ultraviolet collors,i can inmagine that water can work as a prisma.
Some brands have dubbing with "ultra violet" in it,the only thing i can see is some small shiny pieces in it.
I tried it and did catch fish with it,not knowing if it got something to do with the ultraviolet.
But if aquatic insects do have ultraviolet collors do fish like trout and grayling see it?

Klaas

[Mike Connor]

Hi Klaas,

Natural ultra violet radiation is produced by the sun, it is part of the electromagnetic spectrum just like normal visible light, but we can not see it. It is the part of light which causes sunburn. The amount reaching earth varies considerably depending on conditions.

There is no dubbing which can produce ultra violet light. What fluorescent material does is to react to ultra violet light and emit light in the human visible spectrum. As far as fluorescent material is concerned it makes no difference whether fish can see in ultra violet wavelengths or not, because the fluorescence is not ultra violet, merely the result of ultra violet radiation striking the fluorescent material.

Applying ultra violet radiation to fluorescent material is similar in principle to using electricity to cause a light emitting diode to emit light. The energy from the electricity causes the LED to emit light. The same thing happens when ultra violet light strikes fluorescent material.

Scientific research has concluded that mature brown trout can not "see" in ultra violet wavelengths, because their eyes are not equipped to do so.

TL
MC

[skunkaroo]

In stained water there is no fluorescence, because the stain filters the ultra violet light. See this link I posted which explains and demonstrates this;

http://www.skiptonflytyers.co.uk/snippets.htm

Scroll down to "What use are fluorescent materials in water? "

TL
MC

Mike,

While I respect the science, I disagree with this interpretation. My personal observation (dare I see empirical observation) tells me that fluorescent materials are clearly visible at a greater distance or depth than either reflective or so called UV based materials in water. This is most apparent on lakes where it's possible to see the effects of fluorescent materials when using the hang. I fished a heavily stained lake recently with three flies on my cast: a fluorescent wet on top, a dyed black UV nymph on middle dropper and a fairly plain gold bead leech on point. While drawing the three flies slowly to the surface, the fluorescent fly was visible at the deepest point (about 1.6 meters), the UV fly which incorporated a small amount of red holographic material became visible at a bit over a meter, and the plain fly at about the same point. It was a bright overcast day and water fairly flat next to the boat. Now there are probably a half dozen other variables that could come into play, but in general terms this result matches fairly closely with observations under different water and weather conditions.

It's worth noting that the cited article provides the caveat that,

"It is difficult to obtain scientific evidence of penetration of water penetration of all light wavelengths ('colours'), imcluding [sic] UV, and difficult to apply this to real situations, since objective scientific research would necessarily involve pure water which never occurs in nature; and in natural bodies of water, conditions vary enormously."

I should point out that "stained water" is not always caused by peat, so my observations may be coloured (pardon the pun) by the sorts of staining I have encountered. The next time I'm fishing a beaver pond I'll do a little experiment and see.

There is of course one aspect of any analysis regarding the effectiveness of fluorescent materials with regards to fishing that a scientific analysis of light and wavelengths will never truly be able to answer--do fish find fluorescent materials attractive? I certainly can't answer it but the next time I pick up a trout on the one fluorescent fly on a cast of three, I'll be sure to ask

Aaron

[Mike Connor]

Indeed, the nature of the stain is important. Some stains wont block ultra violet radiation to the extent that others will. Tannin and humin, ( basically peat, but can be various organic matter), based stains block it more or less entirely at very shallow depths. You can actually try this with various solutions of tea in distilled water. ( Distilled to make sure the water is pure ). Even weak tea solutions block the ultra violet light more or less completely, even when only small amounts of it are between the fluorescent material and the ultra violet radiation source no fluorescence occurs. The sun block used to protect skin from sunburn also blocks ultra violet radiation, and even very very thin layers will block it more or less completely.

Science is only there in order to try and explain observations. Theories are not necessarily correct. So if you observe that something is so, then you know that it is so, even if you do not have a scientific explanation for it.

I have basically stopped using fluorescent materials because I found no advantage in them, but many added complications.

I also stopped asking trout why they did something or other a long time ago, for very similar reasons, I never got an answer!

You are quite right and have basically hit the nub of the matter with your comment as to whether trout find fluorescent materials more attractive. Many people assume they do, but there is no basis for assuming this.

TL
MC

[Otter]

You are quite right and have basically hit the nub of the matter with your comment as to whether trout find fluorescent materials more attractive. Many people assume they do, but there is no basis for assuming this.
TL
MC

It's an interesting subject to analyse the relative properties of a fly and its effect on a trouts desire to seize it - and for the most part its a subject that inevitably takes one into the world of surmise and assumption. When a trout seizes our offering the only fact that we can be reasonably certain of is that the trout at a particular moment in time deemed that fly to be food.

I have long given up on the quest for magic materials and other than wire and a small amount of ice dub I steer clear of everything else as it makes the whole process too cumbersome. Gold beads adorn most of my nymphs, next season they will not exist in my boxes as they are too attractive to smaller trout and in all likelyhood may prove unattractive to older trout. Unless one has the time to be on the water every day for many many seasons and has the temperment to operate in a scientific manner developing and testing patterns across the many varying conditions that prevail then it is very difficult to have specific patterns for specific conditions - and to be able to call upon them at the appropiate time.

Two statements that I have read over the past few years ring very true and putting the two to-gether I believe set a very good foundation for a solid and effective approach. Walbrans belief that your fly should be a close match of the natural and Mikes assertion that the fly should lack negative attributes.
Off course this does not necessarily negate other approaches which do also result in the catching of trout but they do set a basic foundation on fly design that when used as a basis then one can then feel free to apply more thought to presentation, trout behaviour.. the other bits that decide on our ability to catch trout consistently. As one gets older I also believe that as a tier one tends to revert back to the joy of using natural materials.

All this theory of mine and others is fine in its own right but at the end of the day most of us desire fun from our tying and angling - and if toying around with fluorescent, UV , glow in the dark and other stuff gives one fun - then its worth experimenting. . God help the angler that finds a magic material for he will have to then take up golf.!!!!!!!

[Mike Connor]

Not an assertion as such, just something I think is a good idea and have found to work. It is also a lot easier to do than trying to find various "positive triggers". Although these may exist, I have never found any when using normal small imitative flies. I have found plenty of "negative triggers" on various artificials though! If a fish takes something as food, then it does not need any "positive triggers" to make it do so, it just takes something to eat. This does not apply to some large "flies", where fish may take them for a number of reasons, but still primarily to eat. There are some behavioural and appearance aspects of such flies which one might also term "triggers".

Curiously Walbran used a lot of "fancy" flies for grayling. I always found that a bit of a contradiction.

TL
MC

[Otter]

Curiously Walbran used a lot of "fancy" flies for grayling. I always found that a bit of a contradiction.

TL
MC

Show me an angler without contradiction, they would be a rare beast indeed.

I have a pet theory that a hell of a lot of trout avoid capture for many many reasons other than the minutae of the fly (though the minutae are indeed important at times) and its common place for anglers to blame failure on the fly or the trout. Often its the anglers own fault , often there are factors outside his control. Sometimes u can get a sense of this whilst you fish, something is not quite right - did another angler pund the water to a foam an hour earlier etc....