Last year I bought some 50 lb. Stren fluorocarbon line for hoochie leader material and decided to check out the invisibility claim. I put a piece of 50 lb mono and 50 lb fluorocarbon in a glass of water and expected to see a clear difference. I didn't see any---they looked exactly the same.

So, I went to the websites of Yo-Zuri, Seaguar and Stren and sent them an email using their "Contact Us" button. I asked them, "Is your fluorocarbon line less visible in water than mono of the same diameter? If so, why is that?" Stren got back to me and referred me to their website to read all their advertising. I answered asking for their backup data. They don't have any. They referred me to a distributor in Florida who never responded to my request for more information. They also referred me to a magazine where a writer did his own evaluation and said he saw a difference when he put a colored background behind his test tank. Fact of the matter is, Stren has no data to back up their advertising. Seven months later, I have yet to hear anything from Yo-Zuri and Seaguar. So much for customer service. I would think if they had solid proof, they would be eager to share it. And I would be happy to see it.

What I see in the advertising for fluorocarbon line is that what the advertising says is all true, but what it implies is not true. Is fluorocarbon line almost invisible? Yes. Is mono almost invisible. Yes. Is fluorocarbon more invisible than mono? No advertisement makes that claim. However, it is clearly implied. Is the refractive index of fluorocarbon line closer to water? Yes. Does that make the line less visible than mono of the same diameter? The wording of the advertising cleverly avoids the comparison. Here's what a Seaguar ad says, "its low-light refraction properties render this line almost invisible in the water." The same can be said for mono.

The refractive index only indicates how light is bent when it passes into the line and out the other side. All of the light is still there. The bending removes none of the intensity of the light nor does the bending make the line look like water more than mono looks like water. But the clever use of words in advertising has convinced a lot of people that fluorocarbon line has been proven to be less visible than mono while never actually saying it.

If you are happy using it and are convinced that it works, I say more power to you and I wish you nothing but success. Confidence in your gear is important. I'm happy using four scents on my salmon gear and some guys would undoubtedly call that overkill and way over the edge. As long as it works for me, I'm sticking with it.