The 'Invisible' Micro-Drag

In another thread there was a comment about drag and I thought I'd open a toipic about a subtext within the subject of 'Drag'. This is about drag with dry flies so let's stick with that. Now there's 'drag' that is obvious to the sight. You know, you make the cast, the fly lands, the fly or the line gets grabbed by the current and you see the tippet and/or fly as it is pulled along creating the obvious 'drag'. You may describe it differently but you know what I mean.
Then there's the drag that's been and being called 'Micro-Drag' by some. As it has been explained in theory, this drag is supposedly invisible to the fisherman's eye but is nonetheless seen by the fish. Therefore, that micro-drag has a negative effect of the fly on that particular cast.
So, I ask you, is this a b.s. theory or what? Really, how are you to determine if micro-drag is there and correct it if you can't see it? I can just hear some fisherman as he/she is talking to a bunch of others about this. Conversation goes: "The water was clear and I could see that I was getting great floats over the rising trout but they ignored my offering(s). Good casts, good patterns and sizes that matched the several insects that I saw. The only thing I screwed up on was I must have had 'micro-drag' because of the slight current. I didn't see any but that must have been the problem."

My response might be, 'Maybe you were seeing the wrong insects and using the wrong pattern. As described by Swisher/Richards(?) there may have been a 'masking hatch'. Or maybe the fish were hitting emergers or subsurface nymphs that you couldn't see? Did you try to seine the water? Did you evaluate the type of rise? In other words - did you do the things you have some control over, or are you accepting a theory that relies on no possible observation and an excuse or mind game for failure?

Allan

One thing to try if you suspect micro drag is going to a longer and finer tippet. Combined with a reach cast or some other presentation to minimize drag. This has sometimes worked for me when trying every fly in the box doesn't. Other possibilities are that the fish are focussing on an emerger below the film and you just won't get consistent results with a high floating dry fly. the key is to observe the situation, form a hypothesis about what is happening and then make an offering to the fish based on that theory. (Yeah. I was a science major at one time:)). One easy test if you suspect a bad drift is to cast right next to a leaf or something coming down the river. If with your normal mends the fly is more than a few inches from the leaf or bit of foam you are using for an indicator when you pick up then you should look at your leader.

Alan,
I agree with your assessment concerning 'micro drag.' When all else fails its always best to put the blame on something that we can't control. Usually we fail to succeed because we simply were using the wrong imitation but micro drag is a better excuse. I have fished with some of the finest fly fishers over the years and there are times when even the best don't figure it out. That's why we call it fishing and not catching.

Since we are on this micro drag discussion, what do you think about using flourocarbon tippets which is less visable versus mono which is more supple. In your opinion which has an atvantage over the other, all things considered?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Allan

Then there's the drag that's been and being called 'Micro-Drag' by some. As it has been explained in theory, this drag is supposedly invisible to the fisherman's eye but is nonetheless seen by the fish. Therefore, that micro-drag has a negative effect of the fly on that particular cast.

So, I ask you, is this a b.s. theory or what?

Really, how are you to determine if micro-drag is there and correct it if you can't see it?

I can just hear some fisherman as he/she is talking to a bunch of others about this. Conversation goes: "The water was clear and I could see that I was getting great floats over the rising trout but they ignored my offering(s). Good casts, good patterns and sizes that matched the several insects that I saw. The only thing I screwed up on was I must have had 'micro-drag' because of the slight current. I didn't see any but that must have been the problem."

My response might be, 'Maybe you were seeing the wrong insects and using the wrong pattern. As described by Swisher/Richards(?) there may have been a 'masking hatch'. Or maybe the fish were hitting emergers or subsurface nymphs that you couldn't see? Did you try to seine the water? Did you evaluate the type of rise? In other words - did you do the things you have some control over, or are you accepting a theory that relies on no possible observation and an excuse or mind game for failure?


Allan

---

Allan,

You have asked not one but 3 questions.

The first is whether micro drag exist or is BS. To that I answer an unequivocal, YES, microdrag exists. For me there cannot be any other answer. The logic goes like this. Drag exits. The further we are from an event, the more difficult it is to see. Eventually, there comes a point where either the drag is too small or we are too far to see it. Therefore, by deductive logic alone, micro drag exists, just like there are other things in this universe that exist that we cannot see. Micro drag, in my view, is like the wind. We cannot see it but we can tell it exists by its effect. That is my answer to your first question.

Your second question is, "how are you to determine if micro-drag is there and correct it if you can't see it?"

If deductive reasoning is not sufficient for you then experimentation is a second method. What experiment then tells us that micro drag exist?

Everyone that that fly fished for any length of time has had the situation that we saw visible drag and either lengthened our tippet, gone down in tippet size, or done both and the fish then takes the fly; and we simultaneously notice that the drag is no longer visible. So that tells us that a longer tippet and a thinner tippet will reduces drag when we see it; and by extension of that theory, should reduce drag when we cannot see it (the micro drag that was proven in the paragraph above).

This is confirmed when we apply this theory when we suspect that there is drag that we cannot see (micro drag). I have and I suspect you have been in the situation where we suspected that there is micro drag, put on a longer and thinner tippet and the fish takes a fly that it has refused in previously. This happens often enough to me that I am confident that micro drag exists both by pure deductive reasoning and experimental confirmation.

This answers your second question as to how we can know micro drag exists even when we cannot see it. We cannot see micro drag, but the same solution that applies to drag we can see, cures a problem that we cannot see. The logical conclusion is that if the cure is the same, the problem must be the same. You could protest there could be something else going on that a longer and thinner tippet cured BUT by Occam's Razor (Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily), we need not postulate anything else.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html

Your final question is more difficult. Since there was no solution, one cannot be absolutely sure what the problem was. It could be something else.

You have suggested other possibilities like a masking hatch, rise form differences, etc, that could be causes. But evidence for those things can be evaluated and discarded by doing the things you suggest. A key truth is that the suggestion of other possibilities does not disprove the truth of the original theory, it only makes proof more complex.

A knowledgeable fly fisher would have evaluated for other causes of the refusal, AND if that same fly had taken other fish in reasonable proximity in time and location to the refusal; Occam's Razor will conclude that the most likely cause is micro drag. Since the fly has been tested, and other possibilities have been discarded as the likely cause of the refusal, what we are left with is micro drag as the most likely cause.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oldster

Since we are on this micro drag discussion, what do you think about using flourocarbon tippets which is less visable versus mono which is more supple. In your opinion which has an atvantage over the other, all things considered?

---

Fluorocarbon tippets are less visible ONLY when they are sunken and not when they are floating. When fishing a dry fly, we most often have the tippet float. A floating tippet is noticeable NOT because we actually see the tippet, but because we see the effect of the tippet which is the depression of the meniscus.

In fact fluorocarbon is a bit denser than nylon mono and so it depresses the meniscus a bit more than nylon. If anything, it would be just slightly more noticeable. In reality there is probably little difference. The key for me is that fluorocarbon tends to be a a little stiffer and this makes it less suitable for dry flies

It seems to me that going to a longer, finer tippet has other benefits besides reducing drag. How can we know that the elimination of micro-drag was the reason for success?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jayatwork

It seems to me that going to a longer, finer tippet has other benefits besides reducing drag. How can we know that the elimination of micro-drag was the reason for success?

---

What other advantages are you referring to?

"Occam's Razor will conclude that the most likely cause is micro drag." Since, at any point in time you cannot exclude all variables and since many of the variables change all the time (and I mean that literally) Occam's Razor does not apply. I opt to disagree with some of your other assertions too but neither you or I will get anywhere in any furtherance of our respective case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silver Creek

What other advantages are you referring to?

---

Finer tippet = less visible
Longer leader = more distance between fly and fly-line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jayatwork

Finer tippet = less visible
Longer leader = more distance between fly and fly-line.

---

Read about George Harvey's experiment that led George Harvey to design the George Harvey leader.

Here is a quotation from Harvey's Techniques of Trout Fishing and Fly Tying, revised edition, pages 20-21:

"I made my way to the head of a flat pool I knew held a good population of trout. I sat down upon the bank and started a chum line of [Japanese] beetles. It wasn't long until I had about a dozen trout taking every beetle that floated down. Now I took twenty-inch pieces of hard nylon of all sizes I had with me and inserted the end of the nylon into some of the beetles and sent them down the chum line. Since there was no drag on the nylon, the browns picked off most all of the beetles that were attached to the nylon.

This was not my idea. I had read of a similar experiment conducted by John Crowe and I wanted to check it for myself. Let me tell you, I was really impressed. Most of what we read today and what most fly fishermen believe is that the fine terminal part of the leader is more invisible and that this is the reason for using fine tippets. In fact many articles have been written that recommend that the size of the terminal tippet should be determined by the size of the fly one is using. This experiment blasts that theory because the stream-bred browns did not refuse a live beetle on the free-floating and drag-free pieces of nylon is sizes up to .015."

A shorter description of this experiment can be found in _George
Harvey: Memories, Patterns ands Tactics_, as told to Daniel L.
Shields, p. 71.

In rare circumstances a leader can spook fish by casting a shadow and reflections (from the depressed meniscus of a floating leader) on the stream bottom in very clear and shallow water. But this is a very specific situation that does not apply in 99%+ of fisheries.

In regards to the length of the leader, you can lengthen the leader using the same length of the same tippet without lengthening the tippet itself. You do this by lengthening the butt section. You will find that this rarely reduces the rate of fly refusal. In fact, using a shorter overall leader but a more flexible leader design of a furled leader will suffice. A proficient caster does not land the fly line in the window of the trout.

Finally, the proof of the pudding as far as micro drag is concerned is to NOT change any part of the leader or tippet but to change the cast itself. A parachute cast/mend done from upstream of the fish will catch the is demonstrating that micro drag was the cause.

http://fishfliesandwater.com/2010/02...-aka-reach-up/

The downstream parachute cast/mend is the solution to this problem.

Position yourself up and slightly across from the feeding fish. Then make a parachute cast down and across and the feeding lane. The fly lands upstream of the fish. Skate the fly into the proper feeding lane, and then drop the rod tip to "feed" the fly to the fish in rhythm with his rise. Trying to remove all drag with a slack line, being highly accurate, and timing the fly for a rhythmical feeder is nearly impossible when casting from below the fish.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIqvVH5hpDU

On still water with no current or drag whatsoever, I have gone from consistent refusals to consistent takes by only changing the size of my tippet. That may not be the case most of the time, but it proves to MY satisfaction that tippet size can have an effect besides drag.

I'm not completely discounting micro-drag, but I see nothing posted here that proves or disproves micro-drag as major factor in fishing success.

Still water is a different situation. The fish has a long time to inspect the fly from very close up with essentially no energy expenditure for additional time spent. Nor does the fish have to constantly adjust it's position to keep the fly in the Snell's window.

To do that in a river would take the fish further a way from it's holding spot, and would require more energy to swim back upstream its "lie". So fish must make quicker decisions in flowing water. Otherwise, they waste energy.

Silver wrote about 'still water': "The fish has a long time to inspect the fly from very close up with essentially no energy expenditure for additional time spent."
Exactly! That's why this so-called 'micro drag' is a bunch of b.s. If on still water the fish has the time to perform a complete inspection of the insect(real or imitation), then the logic would be that on moving water the fish has, based on: the speed of the water, the current, the wind, and anything else that effects its vision and how fast the target is out of range, very little time and must react quickly if not immediately upon seeing the target. Therefore 'micro drag', which has been described as invisible, means nothing insofar as the fishes reaction. Not talking about a drag with a wake, although some flies fished like that have been proven 'killers'. Then again, it's as good as an excuse as many. And you're perfectly entitled to your opinion.

Micro drag is invisible to us because of the fishing conditions at that time. It is not invisible to the fish.

Fish strike a fly for various reasons. The two major types of feeding are opportunistic feeding and selective feeding. They are not the same. Nor is there alway consistency within a pod of fish. Population dynamics indicate diversity. Just like some fish may be feeding on emergers and others on duns within a close proximity to each other, some fish may be feeding very selectively and others may be less selective and even opportunistic.

A swinging fly is likely an opportunistic reaction strike because the movement suggest life. Inanimate objects cannot move. So motion can suggest life. To say this contradicts that drag is a deterrent to selective feeding misses that crucial difference.

When the a fish is selective and the food item does not move, the lack of drag/movement does not match the hatch. Will this put off all fish all the time? Probably not. But this does not mean it does not put off some fish or in a selective population almost all the fish.

When the population sample is large, the attribute and behaviors of a population approximate a bell curve distribution. The attributes can be widely dispersed as in the case of a wide standard deviation (blue) or more clustered with a narrower standard deviation (pink).

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y18...bellcurve1.png

If selectivity is graphed on the horizontal axis with the right side of the graph being more selective, as selectivity develops, the standard deviations tightens and the median (center) of the graph moves to the right. Blue to pink on the graph below.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y18...nce/images.jpg

So the behavior of a single fish is just that. It is a single sample. When several fish act the same way, it is a trend. So when a fish refuses we try various strategies to see why the fish refused. If the fish takes when we change strategy, we have evidence as to why the fish refused. But if we cannot catch the fish, we need to fall back on our experience and apply that reasoning.

For example, early in my fly fishing years, I was fishing a chocolate spinner fall on the Yellowstone River in Yellowstone Park. I knew that they were taking chocolate spinners because of the rise forms and the spinners in the air and in the water. Yet I could not catch as single fish. I went to a longer tippet without any success. It was dark and with a chocolate spinner, I could see any dragging of my fly.

The next day I was in Blue Ribbon Flies in West Yellowstone. I mentioned my problem to John Juracek, who owns BRF with Craig Mathews. He asked where I was fishing. John said he was in the identical place fishing a chocolate spinner. He asked what my tippet was and I was using 5X because of the size of the fish. He said that he was using 6X and that he needed 6 X to get a drag free float.

That was my introduction to micro drag, drag that I could not see because of the fly and the low light conditions. The fish are looking up into a brighter sky and can easily see the fly silhouetted against the sky. I was looking down at the dark water trying to see a dark fly so I could not see the drag. That is the definition of micro drag. It is not invisible drag. It is drag that the angler cannot see because of distance or light conditions but that the fish can see because they are closer to the fly and looking up at the fly silhouetted against the sky.

If it was daylight and the fly a parachute, I would have noticed the drag but the conditions and the spinner in the film made the drag invisible to me. It is the same amount of drag but in one case it is visible and the other cast it is invisible. It is NOT the actual magnitude of drag that defines "micro" drag. It is that the drag is not observable under the conditions at that time. It is micro as in "less" than observable.

Silver,

Again you write something where you contradict your own opinion and support the basic premise of this thread:
"The next day I was in Blue Ribbon Flies in West Yellowstone. I mentioned my problem to John Juracek, who owns BRF with Craig Mathews. He asked where I was fishing. John said he was in the identical place fishing a chocolate spinner. He asked what my tippet was and I was using 5X because of the size of the fish. He said that he was using 6X and that he needed 6 X to get a drag free float".
Mr. Juracek used the phrase "drag free float". I take that to mean that he was able to visually see that he was able to create a cast and presentation that resulted in a drag free float by adjusting his terminal tackle, especially the tippet. Thereafter he and apparently you did better then you had been doing and you give credit to the micro drag drift that you were unable to see. "That was my introduction to micro drag, drag that I could not see because of the fly and the low light conditions. The fish are looking up into a brighter sky and can easily see the fly silhouetted against the sky. I was looking down at the dark water trying to see a dark fly so I could not see the drag. That is the definition of micro drag. It is not invisible drag. It is drag that the angler cannot see because of distance or light conditions but that the fish can see because they are closer to the fly and looking up at the fly silhouetted against the sky." Perhaps Mr. Juracek, when he spoke of drag free float, simply meant one that could not be seen by him. Because if he could see drag with 5x and so could the fish, and then he went to the 6x and could no longer see the drag and neither could the fish, at what point did the tippet become 'invisible' to him and then to the fish?
Oh, and I can tell you plenty of anecdotal stories/observations where people were fishing close enough to have conversations without yelling, fishing similar or the same flies and yet with different weight terminal tackle. It was not unusual for the person using the heavier tippet to catch fish at a greater rate then the person using lighter weight tippet. Sometimes the reverse happened.
So again I say, by all means go for drag free drifts. But 'invisible micro drag' is just an illusion.

Mr. Juracek told me he did not see the fly dragging either with the 5X tippet so he used the 6Xr tippet to correct for the drag.

Think of all the specialty casts and mends there are. The reach mend, the parachute cast, S cast, curve cast, curve mend, pile cast, puddle cast, tuck cast, etc. They all have one purpose. To reduce drag.

When we have the right fly (I know that is a big if), I believe the number one reason for refusal is drag. I believe a fish that is inches away from a floating fly can see drag that we cannot see from 30 feet.

The readers can decide what is the more reasonable. That fish are able to detect drag that we cannot or that we can always detect drag regardless of the conditions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Allan

...
So again I say, by all means go for drag free drifts. But 'invisible micro drag' is just an illusion.

---

Hi Allan,

After reading the whole thread, I think you and Silver agree on the definition of micro-drag:

drag that the fish can see, but the fisherman cannot see.

In common fishing conditions, running water, glare, over 15' away, a fisherman can often barely see the fly, much less detect every bit of drag. The fish can see much smaller drag from a foot away.

How can you say that micro drag doesn't exist?

For that to be true, the fisherman would have to see every bit of detail that the fish sees.

To fight micro drag I firmly believe in longer, thinner tippets for this simple reason: At the end of the cast I do not want my leader to perfectly turn over and land in a straight line. Sometimes, a well-executed cast is a detriment to catching trout.

This is the best book I've read about fighting micro drag:
http://www.amazon.com/Fishing-Film-F...shing+the+film

Randy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randyflycaster

To fight micro drag I firmly believe in longer, thinner tippets for this simple reason: At the end of the cast I do not want my leader to perfectly turn over and land in a straight line. Sometimes, a well-executed cast is a detriment to catching trout.

This is the best book I've read about fighting micro drag:
http://www.amazon.com/Fishing-Film-F...shing+the+film

Randy

---

Thanks Randy, I'll look for Borger's book.