Anyone have any opinions on whether or not the UV fibers that are appearinging in some dubbings make much difference?
Printable View
Anyone have any opinions on whether or not the UV fibers that are appearinging in some dubbings make much difference?
See here:
http://www.troutu.com/class/color_vision_trout_eyes
That being said, I use a lot of it...
PT/TB
One fly I had success with on a MT tailwater, a Grape Slushy, has a body of brown UV Ice Dub:
http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j1...n/IMG_8061.jpg
I've used the stuff on some other caddis emergers and they worked well, too. Don't know if the UV properties make much difference, but I like the colors and it's easy to dub with; that's good enough for me.
Regards,
Scott
I use it, but to be honest with you I can't say if it has helped to generate more strikes.
Over the last couple years I have been retying patterns with UV and flourescent colors and have seen a huge difference. In September we had 5 people fishing the same fly and getting multiple hits per cast on Dolly Varden for hours on end. Similar flies without UV dubbing did nothing... to the extreme end of nothing.
Many colors I have used over the years and thought were great had started to fail, others picking up... Until I shined a UV light in my fly box and realized the materials I have always relied upon were glowing under blacklight I thought the fish were changing.
For example, my favorite huge rainbow pattern for years in the Kenai River was a yellow marabou muddler. Then after many years it failed to produce and I moved on, but always had the yellow muddlers to try on slow days. The blacklight showed my initial flies were tied with flourescent yellow marabou, but my new supply was not. My yellow marabou muddlers now fish like they used to...
How much difference it makes for mayfly patterns and such is obviously a very different question...
If you use UV glue you will (probably) have a UV flashlight for kicking off the glue.
Next time you go to a fly shop, take the flashlight with you. Walk around the shop shining it on all threads hairs feathers and fibers. Most such stuff does not react at all. A small number of materials light up light Christmas tree ornaments. Natural UV light penetrates deeper into the water than anything in the humanly-visible bandwidth. In other words UV light is there, at depth. When it contacts fluorescent materials they will glow a little. They might reflect UV light some too. We cannot see UV light but fish can. 1
Do fluorescent materials make a difference? Yes. Big time. Especially so in the colder months. Small hot fluorescent flies are the secret ticket into winter fly fishing. Some materials making use of "uv" in the trade name are among those materials that do not react to UV light. So buyer beware.....buyer be with UV flashlight.
1 Fluorescence happens when UV light excites electrons inside the fluorescing material, which somehow causes new photons to be emitted, where those new photons are vibrating in the humanly-visible spectrum. In other words we can actually SEE fluorescent light. But we cannot see the original UV light, reflected or not.
[QUOTE=hap;436459]Similar flies without UV dubbing did nothing... to the extreme end of nothing. [QUOTE]
You were losing flies and not catching fish? Not catching fish in the cold and wet? What is the extreme end of nothing? Doesn't sound like somewhere I want to go.
I, too, don't ever want to experience the "extreme end of nothing." :confused:;)
Well, it WAS frightening! ;) And I was there!
One example... Five guys fishinig with my "scud", one guy fishing with a commercially purchased scud. The five with were literally catching fish on virtually every cast while the commercial scud did absolutely nothing. I was coaching the guy on how to fish it because clearly it was "him" and not the fly. So we swapped rods for a bit and he caught fish on every cast and I literally caught nothing on the commercial scud. Changed his fly to the UV "scud-sorta" pattern I tie and he went to catching fish exactly like we were.
I had some earlier versions of the fly without UV dubbing and they were only marginally better than the commercial scud.
I also use Fl. Chartreuse GSP 100 for tying and rib the scud back with double wraps of the GSP. Under a blacklight it is amazing to see how they stand out. I am pretty sold...
YMMV
The UV subject is interesting--and a bit complicated and at times abstract.
The two most important parts of the subject revolve around the difference between UV Fluorescence and Refleced UV light.
Maybe you don't want to get this technical. But a lot of people are talking about it. And a lot of new fly tying materials are attempting to jump on this new marketing band wagon.
1) UV Fluorescence is easy enough. That's the stuff that glows (visibly to humans) when you shine UV light onto it. Daylight contains UV. So fluorescent materials do glow a little, all the time. The ratio of UV to other parts of the light spectrum is greatest at dawn and at dusk. So fluorescent materials (and UV reflective materials both) stand out even more at those times. Dawn and dusk often turn out to be prime times for fish feeding activity.
Most parts of the humanly visible light spectrum fade to shades of gray as they travel through water. Reds and yellows fade to gray the fastest. Greens and chartreuses penetrate deeper. Blues and violets penetrate deeper yet. UV penetrates the deepest of all. In otherwords a red streamer might appear as light gray ten feet down, while a chartreuse streamer might still appear as chartreuse. And because UV light penetrates so deeply, fluorescent colors will still glow a bit, even at depth. Fluorescence happens in those rare materials that ABSORB UV light, then undergo a chemical reaction and emit new photons that are not UV anymore. Those new photons appear as parts of the humanly visible spectrum. Like hot pink, glowing chartreuse, etc.
2) Some materials reflect UV light (rather than absorb it). Reflected UV light (coming off a reflective surface) is no different than the UV before it gets reflected. It's just UV light. Most humans cannot see UV. A few can see it. Those humans who can see UV light usually see it as a light violet color.
Fish and birds typically can see UV light. Because UV light penetrates so deeply, it is particularly important to fish. UV light allows fish to distinguish UV-reflective outlines at depth. Some biologists theorize fish have evolved an optimized ability to see UV light because it is so powerful and useful at depth.
=======
Finding out what materials fluoresce is easy. Shine a UV flashlight on it and notice if it fluoresces or not.
Finding out what materials are highly UV reflective is difficult for humans because we cannot see it.
You can expose UV-sensitive film with a film camera, develop the film and then examine the prints. The brightest subjects will be highly UV reflective. But that's not so easy to do. You can also purchase a UV light meter, and then walk around inspecting test surfaces in daylight, or in the presence of a UV flashlight. But UV light meters are not cheap.
The recently published "New Scientific Angling" displays pages and pages of photos exposed with UV-sensitive film. But the book has so many images it's hard to remember which image is what. The author never did publish a simple bullet list of the most highly UV reflective fly tying materials.
Finally:
Is anybody still reading? This far down?
The author of the New Scientific Angling dismissed interest in fluorescent materials as "not interesting" because "they are not natural." His interest and discussion was limited entirely to UV reflectance.
Natural or not, I'm interested in fluorescent fly tying materials--if they help me to catch a fish. And it turns out they do. Big time.
But I think the New Scientific Angling author is wrong about the "unnatural" claim in any case. Some parrots (just one example) have highly fluorescent cheek feathers. Many night crawler gatherers use UV flashlights to find worms in dark grassy meadows because night time night crawlers (are said to) glow brightly when exposed to a UV light beam. I have yet to test that worm-gathering technique because I'm not a worm gatherer. But the claim is all over the internet.
~
~
Well, I have to ask: Let's say that the 'tests' and 'experiences' described in some of the above posts clearly identify that, beyond any doubt, the conclusions are: 1)It IS the Material used in the construction of the fly that was the difference in catching and not catching trout; and, 2)The ability(ies) of the fisherman had little to do with the catching success.
Which brings me to these questions: Why not use some Lure Scent or rub some insect lubricant to the fly or even impale a real insect to a hook (like a catepillar or cricket) and continue to call it 'fly fishing'?
Allan
A WHOLE LOT of natural things such as certain feathers, DEFINATELY lepidoptera and other insect wings and body parts, etc are highly UV reflective. it varies as to how much and what part, but this is just a fact. So if you impale a real insect on a hook and it just happens to be UV reflective (which your eyes can't see...) would it still be cheating? I don't even know if I understood my own question just then... :)
Also, there are many arthropods which fluoresce under UV light-- the most famous of which are many species of scorpions. When I've been out in the southwest, it's always great fun to go on a scorpion hunt at night with UV lights. You can see those suckers glowing bright green from a long way off.
Pittendrigh deserves big props for explaining the difference between fluorescence and UV reflectivity, which most folks don't understand.
Allan
You raise a couple good points, but run over into Anachronism in the end...
I change the colors of flies all the time... UV, to fish, is just a color. A very effective color, but still just a color.
Saying the fly itself is wholly the color of the particular colored units making up the fly is probably not correct. Otherwise I could just twist up a piece of UV Ice Dub and tie it directly to a hook and have a 100% competetive fly is a bit of a stretch.
Further, we have no way of knowing how much difference the skill of the fishermen had to do with their success...
YMMV
Hook& Hackle has what is apparently new to them...UV Lightning Dubbings!
They are having a little sale on everything right now...10%
last,
No. I don't think that any of those items make a trout strike moreso than its comparable natural product.
Oh, and I was fly tying and trout fishing 30+ years ago.
Allan
I guess if it's not a catskill, it's bait. Personally UV doesnt do it for me or the fish I go after. Luckily the fish I go after dont demand a perfectly tyed Dettes fly to be caught .
I do like Short Bus trout!
I'm going to tie up some scuds with a pink/orange mixture of UV Ice Dub to try on tailwaters next spring; try them alongside the ones I used this year with Sow/Scud Dub and see if they make a difference.
Regards,
Scott
QUOTE=DUB;436608]I guess if it's not a catskill, it's bait. Personally UV doesnt do it for me or the fish I go after. Luckily the fish I go after dont demand a perfectly tyed Dettes fly to be caught .
I believe you're missing the point of my post which is that any material, synthetic OR natural, should not be composed of something or have a substance added to it that gives the fisher such an advantage that nothing else matters. Style, pattern or even quality(perfection) of the tyed fly has nothing to do with it.
Upon re-reading this I don't know if it makes any sense but I hope it does.
I do like Short Bus trout! If you mean the 'Short Line Bus' trout, that's a good inside geographic joke, LOL. [/QUOTE]
Allan
Allan, I have a clue what you mean, but it doesnt make a lick of sense to me. No worrys, I'm not the brightest bulb on the tree. I have tryed the UV products. A few days they work, most days they dont. The one ingredient I dont add to the UV patterns is my confidence. Without that, they will always be subpar patterns. If an angler has confidence in his pattern, odds are it will produce for him in spades.
I wouldnt put much faith in my ramblings. I dont care for CDC either. ;-)
There are plenty of materials, both natural and synthetic, that work better or worse than many others. Do I think the UV dub is the be-all or end-all of fish catching flies? No. Does it work in some very effective patterns? Sure it does. The goal is to tie the most effective fly possible. Don't we all? Why would I purposefully tie and fish a pattern that was a handicap to me? I have found that a peacock wing case works far better on a hare's ear than any other material. BECAUSE of it's translucent properties. So, do I purposefully tie my hares ear patterns with a turkey tail wingcase because peacock herl is TOO effective and not fair? Should I only use chinese necks because genetic necks float the patten too well and cause me to catch fish I may not otherwise catch with the chinese necks? Do I not use CDC because it provides too much movement in the water?....or maribou streamers because it provides far more action than bucktails?
troutbum,
I'll say it again and see if you agree with this:
"point of my post which is that any material, synthetic OR natural, should not be composed of something or have a substance added to it that gives the fisher such an advantage that nothing else matters.
See the post by 'hap'(pg 1) in which he says he and others were catching fish on virtually every cast except for 1 guy. "I was coaching the guy on how to fish it because clearly it was "him" and not the fly. So we swapped rods for a bit and he caught fish on every cast and I literally caught nothing on the commercial scud. Changed his fly to the UV "scud-sorta" pattern I tie and he went to catching fish exactly like we were".
So, clearly it was solely the fly.
What would you say to flies with propellers or rattles, or scent added, or any additive, or chumming that made catching way above the norm? Now, of course some flies are more effective than others. No problem. That's part of the fly selection (skill) process. But I'm talking about the extreme described by 'hap' and maybe he was exaggerating(?). That's my point. I guess I think that successful 'fly fishing' is more then just 'catching'. It incorporates many factors for success like reading the water, careful stalking, trying to figure out the food the trout are onto, getting the fly to the trout(casting), getting the right drift, etc. (SKILLS).
Allan
Allan,
Joining in late, but aren't you referring to "fair chase" fishing or hunting. Sort of like not using Jelly Doughnuts to lure in a bear so he can be shot. Nothing "sporting" about it.
REE
Suppose hap went out on another day and hardly caught any on that fly....is it OK then?
duckster,
Suppose you begin to bait an area with deer food prior to the season. Then the day you actually go 'hunting' you kill one of the several deer as they are feeding. Is that ok and do you really call that 'hunting'?
Further, suppose you do the exact same preparation but the day you go out the deer aren't there so you don't kill one. Is it ok then?
Allan
Hap did do well with that pattern. Hap should have gone home and destroyed the dubbing that he used to tie the pattern, throw away the hooks, cut all the thread into shreds, and take a sledge hammer to the vise that the pattern was developed on. You know, just to prevent doing well on the next outing. Cant be too careful nowadays. ;)
Might wanna break the scissors too.
Well now, I see your point. But to make it stick you have to acknowledge that a particular material of a given fly made it irresistable, all things considered. I don't think any one material does that on any fly. So thats where you lose me. :) I've fished many a day when only ONE particular fly produced fish. Don't have that fly, and you were in for a rough day. Fish are fickle beings some days. That doesn't mean that particular fly had an attribute that was "unfair". It just means that for some reason THAT fly was what they wanted THAT day, and they were not given to let it pass by for one reason or another. I take fish as I find them. If they prove to me that what they want is a "Beadheaded Purple Patunia Gurgler" on a given day, I don't continue to throw Parachute Adams at them just because it is more fitting. I look for the closest thing to that BPPG that I can find, and have a day of it. I don't why....until after I'm done fishing and we are discussing it over a beer. :)
trout,
The consideration for my comment was based on what I thought others were saying about the attributes and effects of a certain color additive, namely UV to dubbing, to the fish catching ability of a fly. Without going back to the post by 'hap', I believe he stated that a fly with this additive worked for 5 fly fishers but not for 1 guy who used the same pattern except the body material lacked the UV. And again, it was 'hap' who said that it was the fly and nothing else mattered.
I just think knowledge and some qualitative effort shopuld be needed in addition to the particular fly and the fly should not have any additive that makes it solely responsible for the catch.
Do you disagree?
Allan
...absolutely.Quote:
Do you disagree?
I just reread my own words and admit to the sentence being poor gramatically. So let me rephrase it.
I just think that knowledge and some qualitative effort should be needed in addition to the particular fly. The fly should not have any additive that makes it solely responsible for the catch.
Do you agree with the first, the second, both or neither of those sentences?
Allan
Sure. Your argument makes sense in an abstract sense. But only that way.
If there was a magic Twilight Zone fly that allowed beginners to catch fish at will--then yes, that would change and perhaps even ruin the sport. But that's not what's happening here. Edge Bright-bodied nymphs (Edge Bright is fluorescent) are just one more tool in the expert's ammunition pouch. Every material brings power to its user, if applied at right time and in the right way. Would you outlaw deer hair because Goofus Bugs (Humpies) work better than Gray Hackle Yellows in the Madison? If there is a line in the sand it probably revolves around the fish's olfactory systems. Flies that have smell are substantially different than those that do not. But even that isn't something I lose sleep over. I'm not a bait fisherman. But I've seen plenty of those guys get skunked on the wrong day too.
Allen, I agree. I guess I was lost in the argument since I don't think UV dubbing is anything special. Being easy to work with is it's best attributr im-my-opinion, but flash-is-flash. Look at beadheads. There are many materials that provide it....and at times flash is the triggering attribute for a given pattern on a given day. But even with the effectiveness of bead-head flies....there are plenty of days on the water that I can't get a trout to even look at a bead-head pattern...but an age old standard Pheasant Tail kicks butt. :)
I would say that more often than not....presentation trumps the fly fished. Those odd fickle days aside.
There sure were alot of left turns in this discussion. I guess what we learned when we arrived was, hap has great nymphing skills. We can all go back to bait fishing when the ulimate dubbing gets here (Mayan calendar says it will be here in 2012). Magic flys are the DEVIL.
I dont want to discuss Santa with this bunch, cause I know he's real! :-)
Is cabin fever setting in already? LOL!
Ya, good thing this didn't come up in Feburary!
HHhmmmm...I wonder if Tom was playing fair?
THE MYSTERIES AND MAGIC OF GRASSHOPPERS