I haven't read on the board one person mentioning the enviornmental impact of Flourocarbon tippet material. Yes, I agree it's expensive, hides very well in the water and thus is thought of as a better answer to our nylon stuff (which is still very debatable), but the nylon stuff will break down. And that alone should force us to think twice about introducing Flourocarbon into environment. The stuff (and there are recently many articles in various FF mags about this topic) is impervious to anything mother nature can throw at it, and therefore we have mammals and birds at greater risk of entanglement. With the advent of rods that can now cast a mile, flies that can fool even the swallows that come down and pick up our dries, increased knowledge of food forms and how they act in relation to the trout, it might be time to step back and re-evaluate the true "need" of flourocarbon. Let's just say we can catch a few more trout on flourocarbon--but probably just a few more. Does this outweigh the enviornmental risk? Just wondering.

__________________
Mike Ulrichs