|11-11-2005 07:27 PM|
The IGFA rules make it hard, and one can compare efforts and catchees with anglers in the past. If that is important, then playing the game could be worth it.
The main dissadvantage is the short shock. It makes leadering a big fish MUCH harder.
I can't really understand people who lobby the IGFA to lower the bar. Poker isn't that much fun when twos and one eyed jacks and black queens are wild.
I have fished both ways, and both are still fun, just different games.
|11-11-2005 12:32 PM|
I rig to "sort-of" IGFA specs but not for record purposes. I certainly don't handicap myself with regulation length shock tippets. I have used heavier class tippets in the past but managed to bust a couple of flylines - admitedly not 'purpose-built' blue water lines with the kevlar cores that would probably test a lot stronger.
I'm not sure of the IGFA rationale behind the actual specifications.
|11-11-2005 06:13 AM|
I've just tied up a bunch of IGFA leaders for a trip and am wondering about the pros and cons of flyfishing offshore by IGFA rules. On one hand, who needs a bunch of fuddy-duddies to tell me how to fish, yet on the other side, most sports make sense when played by common rules.
I can't seem to decide whether the 20# max. tippet is a safety issue or an agreed-on handicap. It's be hard to believe IGFA's not aware of the big-fish fly opportunities out there, and yet' no tippet class over 20#. Admittedly, it's hard to pull 20# with a fly rod.
Similarly, the bite tippet regs and the need to have the tippet so close to the hook really put a ding in shark fishing. Is this by intent, snobbery or oversight?
Be that as it may, I think I'll give it a shot with IGFA leaders this winter, and see what happens. Is there anybody here who goes offshore with IGFA fly leaders