Fluorescent materials

[DonO1]

What are your views on fluorescent and phosphorescent fly materials and fly patterns? Have you compared fishing identical flies except for fluorescent materials? Has it made a difference with the fish? Just a touch, blended into the dubbing, a fluorescent soft hackle? Fluorescent ice dubbing?

What about phosphorescent (glow-in-the-dark) materials. Any success stories? Fishing at night? Saltwater?

[johnstoeckel]

I get a little confused about fluorescent, phosphorescent, UV and now I see UV2. I'm not sure I really understand the differences or pros / cons of each.
However, I do like some brightness and flash in flies at times especially those that are fished deep or those that are used in stained water. I have used quite a bit of UV Ice Dub in recent years and I do like it. It seems to work very well. I sometimes use it mixed with natural or other synethic materials or for a flashier fly, I use it straight,

[Rick Z]

I use some phosphorescent materials in dirty water. Either I fish them with more confidence or the fish see them better.

Rick

[hap]

Nothing I have ever seen fishing had the cool factor of watching a glow-in-the-dark smolt pattern swing down below me and disappear into a lake trout maw. I will always have them and use them when night fishing just to see the takes.

I have become a huge believer in UV materials, especially for trout and salmon. One particular pattern tied with one particular UV color last year so completely dominated every other color it "proved itself" to me.

Fluorescent colors I like, but have not seen them produce radically more fish.

Locally, I would say UV is slowly catching on, especially compared to other places.

[Allan]

Can only speak for trout fishing. I've not used any of the 'glow' functioning materials straight or mixed in dubbing. IMHO, if they did work, I'd have an opinion similar to the one I have about using scented materials in flies or placing a scent on a fly - I consider the use of these artificial or additives cheating.
Just my personal opinion that no one else needs to share.

Allan

[hap]

I sort of understand, but draw a different line in that we are only talking about color... and making it more visible to fish than with another color. For example, many materials, especially feathers reflect UV that birds can see and we do not. Many birds we see where the sexes look the same color actually look different color when a UV light sensing apparatus is used.

[johnstoeckel]

One particular pattern tied with one particular UV color last year so completely dominated every other color it "proved itself" to me.

So are you going to give us the particulars or are those secret?

I really like the UV Shrimp Pink Ice Dub. I use it straight for scuds and as a "hot spot" on other nymphs. I also blend it with about 40% yellow dubbing for an amber scud and with 80% tan or 80% gray dubbing for more more subdued scuds.

[hap]

So are you going to give us the particulars or are those secret?

I really like the UV Shrimp Pink Ice Dub. I use it straight for scuds and as a "hot spot" on other nymphs. I also blend it with about 40% yellow dubbing for an amber scud and with 80% tan or 80% gray dubbing for more more subdued scuds.

I could tell ya... but there is that other thing...

[Allan]

Just asking a question and wouild like to hear if anyone tried any 'non-scientific' test using any of the materials mentioned. By 'non-scientific' test I mean: Has anyone taken a fly, with the the body material described, and fished alongside someone else who was using the exact same fly that had a standard body material? Was there a difference in the 'takes' and were the abilities of the 2 fly fishers roughly equivelant?
A friend and I did this with a different natural material and there was a marked difference so I know that an un-scientific test can show some type of effective result. But has anyone tried to perform a test with the materials being discussed here?

Allan