Leaders

[LlamaLeach]

 

 

I need to purchase some leaders, Is there a differnce in manufacture of leaders?

[cheeler]

I've found the quality brand leaders like Rio's have less coiling out of the pack.

[ÜberFly]

Yes!

 

I need to purchase some leaders, Is there a differnce in manufacture of leaders?

 

[dekkard2019]

...IMHO the RIO leaders rock...just uncoil right and stretch it out yourself...great turnover on the RIO

[admin]

I love RIO leaders for tapered leaders, but I use some hand built ones from Sero and my favourite is anything furled. There are a couple guys on the board here that make furled leaders.

[LlamaLeach]

It appears that Rio has the vote by most

 

I was wondering if there is life expected on leaders, how many years in there packages before they break down.

 

[SilverDoctor]

I'll drop another Rio into the pack, love em.

[ladystrange]

It appears that Rio has the vote by most

 

I was wondering if there is life expected on leaders, how many years in there packages before they break down.

 

 

 

there is, but i dont know what the time period is. the leader and tippet material will breakdown with exposure to UV light and i do believe florecent lights but dont quote me on that. which would mean depending on the store you shop at - like a big box place that orders lots at a time and stores it and then puts it out but who knows for how long it stays there until it's sold. it could still be fresh or it could be 5 years old

 

i find it has had the bisket when it breaks with less force as indicated on the lable and i chuck it.

 

i also only buy as many leaders as i think i am going to use in a season and if i start getting down and it is only part way through the season, i go buy more. why chance losing a fish to weakend material when it is completely avoidable? why buy 5 years worth of stock of leaders just to save a few dollars when you may end up having to replace it anyway

[jack]

SA Fluorocarbon or Seaguar Fluoro(same thing, SA fluoro is made by Seaguar). Stronger, longer lasting, better "knotability" with fluoro tippet.

j

[bowbuster]

fluorocarbon sucks, leave it on the shelf(rio that is). no knot strength at all or cut it back to the start of the taper and add maxima for the rest.

[Whistler]

also keep in mind that Flouro is evil for the environment as well as being hard on the wallet. Speaking of hard on the wallet Froghair leaders and tippet totally rock and get my vote for best. In second place, the people choice Rio and in third the standard, Umpqua

 

when it comes to swinging flies off of sink tip maxima ultragreen always wins!

 

Brian Niska

[Din]

Speaking of hard on the wallet Froghair leaders and tippet totally rock and get my vote for best.

 

x2

 

[reevesr1]

Mono degrade time=500 yrs. Flouro=never. I can't find anything for nylon tippet, but my bet is long as well.

 

Practically, there is no advantage to any from an environmental perspective. At least for 500 yrs anyway.

[Whistler]

not sure where you got the 500yr idea from but it's way off base. leave your mono out in the sun for a couple of months and watch what happens.

[birchy]

not sure where you got the 500yr idea from but it's way off base. leave your mono out in the sun for a couple of months and watch what happens.

 

Probably Here

 

A whole bunch of answers say 600 years.

[reevesr1]

Actually, the site I found says it never actually biodegrades, more like photodegrades. And it said 500 yrs.

 

However, I was incorrect about nylon. It decomposes in months (according to the intrawebs). Can't find anything about nylon tippet. Was your backyard test nylon or mono based? Did you wear a lab coat?

[Whistler]

Probably Here

 

A whole bunch of answers say 600 years.

 

I suspect that 'scientific fact' refers to the complete decomposition time if it is left in a dark place and not exposed to the elements.Many of your references refer to decomposition time in a landfill(no or very limited uv).As all anglers know, the sun's uv rays facilitate rapid decomposition of monofiliment. This is evidenced by the significant reduction in breaking strength observed in tippet with only moderate exposure to uv. Prolonged exposure to uv gives the mono a gummy feel and causes it to dull in appearance. At this point it will no longer hold knots and is no longer suitable for angling. One of the main selling features of flouro is that it retains istrength despite exposure to uv light.

 

Here is a quote from one of the sites your google search led to:

 

"I’ve used very strong 60 pound monofilament fishing line on my roof to hold a radio antenna steady, and it degraded in less than a year to where it broke in the wind and I could easily break it apart with my bare hands. After all the weathering, the once transparent line was faded and milky looking and had definitely decomposed somehow. If it’s exposed out in the open, you can rest assured it isn’t going to last anywhere near 500 years."

 

 

[reevesr1]

I suspect that 'scientific fact' refers to the complete decomposition time if it is left in a dark place and not exposed to the elements.Many of your references refer to decomposition time in a landfill(no or very limited uv).As all anglers know, the sun's uv rays facilitate rapid decomposition of monofiliment. This is evidenced by the significant reduction in breaking strength observed in tippet with only moderate exposure to uv. Prolonged exposure to uv gives the mono a gummy feel and causes it to dull in appearance. At this point it will no longer hold knots and is no longer suitable for angling. One of the main selling features of flouro is that it retains istrength despite exposure to uv light.

 

Here is a quote from one of the sites your google search led to:

 

"I’ve used very strong 60 pound monofilament fishing line on my roof to hold a radio antenna steady, and it degraded in less than a year to where it broke in the wind and I could easily break it apart with my bare hands. After all the weathering, the once transparent line was faded and milky looking and had definitely decomposed somehow. If it’s exposed out in the open, you can rest assured it isn’t going to last anywhere near 500 years."

 

 

Now that's one hell of a scientific test there.

 

From Cortland's site:

A. Monofilament line should never be thrown into the lake, river or ocean because it takes dozens of year for it to decompose, and will create a serious hazard for wildlife who might become entangled in it. The best way to dispose of old monofilament is to toss it into the recycling bin at your local fishing tackle store. If there's no way to recycle it, wind it into a tight ball, put it into an old plastic or paper bag, and put it out with the trash.

 

This from a website called "Green Living Tips"

 

With all that in mind, here's a list of common items and how long they take to "break down" in the environment.

 

Glass bottle 1 million years

Monofilament fishing line: 600 years

Plastic beverage bottles: 450 years

Disposable diapers: 450 years

Aluminum can: 80-200 years

Boot sole: 50-80 years

Styrofoam cup: 50 years

Tin can: 50 years

Leather: 50 years

Nylon fabric: 30-40 years

Plastic film canister: 20-30 years

Plastic bag: 10-20 years (???)

Cigarette filter: 1-5 years

Wool sock: 1-5 years

Plywood: 1-3 years

Waxed milk carton: 3 months

Apple core: 2 months

Newspaper: 6 weeks

Orange or banana peel : 2-5 weeks

Paper towel: 2-4 weeks

The above information was taken from the Pocket Guide to Marine Debris

 

Edit:

The above information was taken from the Pocket Guide to Marine Debris from Ocean Conservancy. It's sources were the U.S. National Park Service; Mote Marine Lab, Sarasota, FL and “Garbage In, Garbage Out,” Audubon magazine, Sept/Oct 1998.

 

So I've seen a manufacturer say "dozens" of years (very, very soft definition there), multiple answer sites say 500 or 600yrs, and the backyard test say a couple of months. I'm going with "a long damn time." Degrading such that it is unusable (milky and weak) is not the same as degraded. I would imagine that the "Guide to Marine Debris" is talking about degrading in that environment. I would assume that depth (access to light) would have a significant impact. But it doesn't take much depth to cut the UV way back.

 

My point was that don't kid yourself that mono is environmentally friendly. It isn't. Anytime Flouro comes up, people talk about the fact it does not degrade. In a practical sense, in the water, neither does mono. The fact that it is decomposed enough that I can't fish with it in know way means it is decomposed from an environmental standpoint. If you want to refute this, please be my guest. But I think something more than the radio antenna method could be in order.

[headscan]

Speaking of hard on the wallet Froghair leaders and tippet totally rock and get my vote for best.

Ditto.

[Whistler]

Rickr,

 

I am curious how they got this 600 year figure

 

also no mention is made of thickness(test)

 

many of your sources say 'in a landfill' where it would be out of the sunds rays, honestly it sounds like something out of the ultra green camp as in "those fishermen leave behind line for 600 years"

 

I don't think any line should be left in the environment but I can tell you from time on the water that flouro is very recognizable when a pile is left on the bank. Mono goes soft and is breakable. There is no reason to choose flouro other than the supposed fishing advantage it offers. Mono is the more environmentally sound option, given how quickly it begins to break up due to exposure to sunlight.

[bowbuster]

What exactly are the advantages of fluoro besides its sink rate and limited stretch? I know its knot strength sucks and its obviously bad for the enviro.

[reevesr1]

I don't think any line should be left in the environment but I can tell you from time on the water that flouro is very recognizable when a pile is left on the bank. Mono goes soft and is breakable. There is no reason to choose flouro other than the supposed fishing advantage it offers. Mono is the more environmentally sound option, given how quickly it begins to break up due to exposure to sunlight.

 

Brian,

The 600 yr figure came from a Marine book about a marine environment. Why would I doubt it?Where did the number come from? Experimentation I assume. Like any long term test, I would guess they know what the degradation factors are (sunlight or lack thereof, temperature, chemical, time, etc), test for a certain amount of time and measure degradation, then extrapolate. There are also almost always way to accelerate the testing (basically manipulating one or more factors to artificially speed up time (much like lifetime testing of electronic components--if I want something to last 30 yrs I can't actually test it for 30 yrs, I need to figure out some way to increase stress in some other way to simulate time)

 

One of the sites said mono doesn't really biodegrade as much as it photodegrades, ie, sunlight as you said. But once underwater, that process would slow to a crawl. And while if you pulled the line out it may be unusable as fishing line after a few months, it still is a menace to stuff in the water.

 

So if we are talking about line lying around on the bank, then yes, mono is far better for the environment. If you are talking about in the water, mono is brutal. It doesn't last as long as flouro, but it lasts a LONG time. To say it is a more environmentally sound option is technically correct, but is misleading in practicality.

 

 

Here is a graph from one of the new bioline companies:

 

 

Anyway, if you still don't believe, fine. But the evidence is very very clear (pun intended).

[headscan]

What exactly are the advantages of fluoro besides its sink rate and limited stretch? I know its knot strength sucks and its obviously bad for the enviro.

It's also supposed to be more invisible under water than mono and has higher break strength than similar diameter mono. The knot strength doesn't suck as long as you seat your knots properly and lubricate before pulling them tight. Fluorocarbon breaks easier when it's abraded either by tightening the knot without lubrication or rubbing against rocks. When you attach mono to fluoro the fluoro can cut into the mono causing it to break which might give the illusion of poor knot strength. Attach them using a three or four turn surgeon's knot to reduce the likelihood of this happening, or use all mono or all fluoro.

[brownonbow]

You nerds have waaaaaayyy too much time on your hands...

[ironfly]

It wouldn't be the first time I was wrong, but I'm pretty sure that standard monofilament is made of nylon. After all, "monofilament" just means single strand. And water breaks it down pretty good. 24 hours and your breaking strain is cut in half. That's actually faster than UV. When that Bioline first came out I got some and did a bunch of comparative bench tests and research. The only plus is that it actually biodegrades.

 

I really question some of those degradation figures. Yellowknife has a little piece of history called "Tin Can Hill". Back when it was first established as a gold mining town, most people lived in tents and ate out of tin cans. Years worth of empties were chucked in big piles in the bush. These tin cans have been in full exposure to the elements for about 50 years. They're very corroded, but still recognizable. So if these figures are for landfill type degradation, that's way off.

 

Also, 200 years for an aluminum can? Aluminum is an element! What does it break down to? It doesn't corrode, as far as I know.