When searching for a fly line, you will find that there are now a variety of manufacturers offering a confusing array of possibilities. For 80%-90% of trout fishing situations, a floating fly line is all that is needed; regardless of whether you want to use dries, wets, or nymphs. Over the years, three companies have been or have become the leaders in the production of fly lines.

Who's Got The Goods? -

Scientific Anglers (SA) has been involved in "modern" fly lines for "around sixty years;" with, as their name suggests, a design philosophy built around technological advancements. SA lines are marketed using phrases such as: 'breakthrough technology,' 'advanced hydrophobic agents,' 'patented dry-slick coating,' along with 'unique technological and performance advantages.' (see http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/Scientific_Anglers/Home/ )

Cortland has been around for quite some time; celebrating its 90th Anniversary a year or so ago. Given the company's longevity, it's no surprise that Cortland promotes itself based on "exceptional quality and long lasting durability;" while noting that technology is part of the commitment necessary in attaining said quality. (see http://www.cortlandline.com/ ) In point of fact, as uniquely representative of such quality and durability, Cortland can lay claim to the continued success of their Cortland 444 Classic; a design that's been around for, literally, forty years. (see The Cortland 444 Classic: It's A Peach )

Rio Products International, Inc. (also referred to as "Jim Vincent's RIO") is a comparative newcomer to the fly line industry; Jim Vincent and his wife Kitty having started the company in 1990. As noted in the company's 2006 catalog:

"...I come at fly line design from an intuitive rather than an engineering point of view; experience drives innovation at RIO. We don't hire guys in white lab coats to design a better way to connect a fish to a fly line..."

Alright. It's clear they don't want to be thought of as Scientific Anglers.

Further, the company's 2006 catalog states:

"...The product development process has to incorporate the input of fly fishers, guides and captains; and the hours, days, and years of standing in rivers, wading on flats, surf-casting or standing on the deck of a flats boat...every fly fisher's experience on the water presents numerous challenges...it is our collective experience and the expertise of our customers that drives RIO's creative products."

So much for adherence to 'tradition;' i.e., Cortland's identifying trait. RIO wants to promote itself as being "in tune" with contemporary needs; which explains why the company has quickly gained a loyal following among many new fly fishers and fly fishers using more 'modern' rod designs.

[Point of interest: On 9 November 2005, it was announced that: "Far Bank Enterprises, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Joshua Green Corporation of Seattle, Washington, today announced that it has acquired RIO Products Intl. Inc. of Idaho Falls, Idaho. Sage Manufacturing and Redington are also owned and controlled by Far Bank..." For the complete news release, see http://moldychum.typepad.com/moldy_chum/2005/11/more_industry_c.html ]

A quick and probably inaccurate count from Scientific Anglers, Cortland, and RIO catalogs (the three 'biggies') shows a minimum of 75 different, named floating lines for myriad fresh- and saltwater fishing situations. The reason for this rather outstanding number of variations? Some are for specialty situations such as large flies (bass bugs and streamers aren't very aerodynamic) or high winds. But, primarily, the differences can be found in the tapers and how they're designed to work with a specific type of rod; e.g., modern, faster action graphites, Spey rods, or the more traditional, moderate-slow actioned graphite/fiberglass/bamboo rods.

Which to 'Select' -

Such specialization vis a vis "fishing scenario meets modern fly rod technology" is precisely why there now exists dozens of different fly lines from a variety of companies. No longer does "one size fit all" when it comes to a fly line. While a particular rod might cast workably with, say, three or four different lines from as many manufacturers, there is usually one or two which will bring out the best in the rod's unique characteristics - the taper of the fly line, the grain weight, the line diameter, the line coating, and the double taper or weight forward attributes matching well with the rod's material, taper, and desired action.

Cutting to the chase, when it comes to more traditionally-actioned rods, I have been rather happy with the Cortland 444 Classic (Peach) or RIO's virtual clone of the 444 Peach... the RIO Classic. [The Classic has virtually the same taper as the 444 Peach, but also has a better coating - see http://www.rioproducts.com/pages/flylines_prodpage.asp?product=20298&useMet=0#chart ] Examples of these traditional action rods would be: the Scott Fibertouch (see Quality Fiberglass Fly Rod), the original Scott Pwrply/G series (see Traditional Class) - NOT the newer Scott G2 series introduced in 2006 - and the Winston IM6/WT series rods.

Over the last decade or so, I have managed to acquire a few rods that are labeled 'fast' or 'medium-fast' action. Unfortunately, the "Classic" lines don't seem to load the rods quite as well as they need to; largely as a function of the traditional taper of the line which was designed around the traditional taper/actions of the rods they were intended for. So, I went in search of an alternative. I tried the SA GPX and found it unacceptable as a 'general' use line. I tried several of the SA Mastery series lines. These turned out to be very fine lines; except that they still didn't quite load the newer, faster, 'techie' rods the way I wanted, being "generally like" the Classic lines. In short, I wasn't having much success in selecting an alternative.

RIO had introduced the Selective Trout floating fly line in 2003; but, being somewhat more expensive than Rio's Classic line, the one I had been using since roughly 1998 or 1999, I had determined the price difference precluded the experimentation. However, given my growing frustration, within a year, I figured it was worth a shot; after all, it had just won the 2004 Editor's Choice Award from the free publication Fly Fish America... Alright, as I think was indicated, I was getting a bit desparate. (I'm normally loathe to rely on product recommendations from such publications. Tell the truth... How many times have you seen a publication such as Backpacker magazine or Fly Fish America print a negative review of products marketed by their sponsors?)

I first used the Selective Trout with a Winston LTX 5 wt.; a rod rated as 'fast' compared to other Winston graphite rods. Definitely 'slower' than most recognizable 'fast action' rods on the market (e.g., the Sage XP or the G.Loomis GLX), the LTX rods have a soft"ish" tip, with a stiffer butt section. The LTX rods didn't last long in Winston's catalog; mainly due to the fact that they require a specific casting stroke, with a very low margin of error, to perform. Unfortunately, most people weren't willing to take the time to learn or adapt their styles to the rod's action.

I had tried the RIO Classic with the LTX with only marginal results. Breaking down and resigned to spending the money on something or having to sell the rod, I sprung for the Double Taper version of the Selective Trout (currently listing at $58 for either DT or WF configuration). I had a local shop load the line on a spare spool and trundled off to a large, public lake with rainbow trout typically ranging from 12" - 22" and, just to add a little spice, the odd brown trout which will run up to about 10 lbs.

Backcast room is limited for bank fisherman in that the shoreline of the lake slopes immediately behind the angler. Add to this the challenge that fish normally cruise in a specific lane regardless of water depth - so, depending on time of year and/or water levels, you might only need to... cast 20'-30' or 60'-70' or "get a boat." Dries will work - sometimes. Emergers will work - sometimes. Nymphs, either stripped or under an indicator, will work - more often than dries or emergers.

Sounded like a legitimate set of criteria for a field test of a new fly line; especially since I'd already used the rod, strung with the Classic line, and just couldn't reach the majority of rising fish. Ohhhhh, that stung. Oh, the language used. Oh, how the fish laughed and made fun of me (I know they did! Get over the anthropomorphism.) Oh, the sniffling and the whining - nobody was looking. The line just wouldn't load the rod enough to get the distance.

Imagine my consternation, angst, and temperment when I arrived at the lake and found the water level even higher; putting the fish even a longer cast away. Oh well, the gas had already been used, I was there, a couple of fish were rising, and a dry fly that often works was tied on. Deep breath... Strip line from the reel... Stroke... Let out some line... Stroke... A little more line out... Stroke... BOOOOMMMMMMM.

I'm not what is referred to as an 'efficient caster.' I ain't gonna win no distance tournaments. But, on the third stroke, I let fly and the line just rocketed out; coming to an abrupt stop only because I hadn't stripped enough line from the reel. The fly settled to the surface somewhat short of the feeding fish... Or so it seemed.

Bingo!!! Fish on. Sort of. So shocked had I been by the cast, I totally flubbed the hook set.

Okay. Lucky once. Bring in the line. Strip more from the reel. Stroke... Let out some line... Stroke... A little more line out... Stroke... BOOOOOMMMMMMM. Once again, the line just shot out of the top guide. The problem? I'd spooked the other fish.

To make a long story shorter, after about a 1/2 hour of fruitlessly casting dries, I switched to a size 12, weighted nymph about 5 ft. under an indicator. I had been enjoying the casting so much that I was reluctant to switch; but I also wanted to catch fish. Wondering how the line would handle such a rig, one much less efficient for casting than a size 18 dry, I went through the casting motions and... BOOOOMMMMMMMM. Then... BINGO!!! The nymph hadn't had time to sink very far and I was fast to a fish - what turned out to be a rather healthy, 21" rainbow that pulled line from the reel with a scream, dove for the bottom, wriggled, spun, and otherwise did everything it could to get off the line. I landed and released it. (I just knew something good was gonna happen when I realized I'd forgotten the camera.)

The next day, I ordered a 4 wt. DT version of the RIO Selective Trout. I've used it on a Scott SAS 8 1/2' 4 wt. and a Sage SP 8' 9" 4 wt. (both 5 piece) with much the same results as with the 5 wt. LTX. Both the Scott and the Sage are more modern, "medium-fast" graphite rods. Neither performed particularly well with the more "Classic" lines. But, both have come into their own with the Selective Trout.

Note: I have yet to try this line on one of the more, 'traditional' action rods. The RIO Classic just works too well on them for me to justify experimenting. (Add to this that I've created a small stockpile in the appropriate line weights due to the rule which states... "When you find something that works, buy at least two, given that they'll stop making it just because it works." Don't believe me? The RIO Classic is no longer available in the Camo Green [olive] that I prefer in the DT configuration.) But, a friend uses a 4 wt. DT Selective Trout on his 9' Winston WT and his 9' Winston BIIX; expressing the opinion that the line works equally well on both.

What's So Special? -

In their 2006 catalog, RIO presents the Selective Trout thus:

For discerning anglers and technical fishing, these unique weight forward and double tapers are designed for trout fishing, especially dry fly fishing. The weight forward line has a long front taper for delicate presentations and an extended rear taper for effortless roll casting. The Trout line is best for bamboo and all medium action trout rods. RIO has slightly increased the weight behind the front taper of the double taper for easy turnover. The Trout line is ultra supple and memory-free in winter. The AgentX coating makes these high floating lines incredibly easty to lift quietly off the water. The Super Floatation Tips have a welded loop except on the DT lines and 1 WT and 2 WT.

In a simplistic and slightly misleading sense, what RIO has done insofar as the Selective Trout is invent an aggressive, weight forward-style taper for both the WF and DT configurations. A fly line's taper works in conjunction with a rod's action and the angler's casting style to determine energy transfer, etc. in a cast. Remember, in flyfishing, you are casting the weight of the line rather than the weight of the lure/split shot/bait.

Most DT lines have a very short tip, a short front taper, a rather long and consistent 'body' followed by a 'back taper and tip.' It is this back taper/tip that makes the double taper lines so economical. The 'rear' of the line is a mirror image of the front; thus, when you turn the line around, it becomes a second, identical line. Two lines for the price of one.

Conversely, a WF (weight forward) line has a very short tip, a short front taper, a moderate length body, a back taper, and a thin diameter 'running line' which constitutes most of the length of the fly line. Some will argue that the WF design is better for distance casting. The reason? Due to the thinner diameter 'running line,' the weight of the line doesn't have to pull as much 'body' as with a DT line; theoretically allowing for a better use of the line weight vis a vis distance. This is true, but only to a point. It is not all in the WF designation, but in the design of the taper/body of the line itself; not to mention the efficiency of the rod's action as mated to the line and the angler's casting stroke and the conditions and...

But, I digress.

Let's look at a "Classic" DT line such as the Cortland 444 (Peach) in a 5 wt.

The DT weighs 140 grains in the first 30 feet of line; the physical weight of this first 30' must fall within a specific range to qualify for the "weight" designation (that range being 134-146 grains for a 5 wt.). The tip is 6" and the front taper is 8'. However, this is followed by 73 feet of fly line body, then 8' of back taper, finishing with 6" of tip.

By comparison, the RIO Selective Trout 5 wt. in DT comes in at 140 grains in the first 30 feet. There is a 6" tip and a front taper of 9'. Now we see a significant departure... There is a body length of 8' followed by a 'running line-style' (much smaller diameter) body of 56'. Then you have the mirrored 8' body, followed by the 9' taper and the 6" tip.

Compare this to the WF design of the Cortland 444 (Peach). The 444 Classic 5 WF Rocket Taper weighs 140 grains in the first 30 feet of fly line and has a 6" tip, an 8' front taper, a 20' body, a 4' back taper, followed by 57 1/2' of running line. This means that almost the entire front taper of 140 grains is used to pull the narrower running line during the cast.

Which set of classic specs does the Selective Trout DT seem to come closer to - the DT or the WF design?

What this does exactly is dependent upon how you think about it. As noted above, RIO states in its catalog that this has slightly increased the weight behind the front taper of the double taper for easy turnover. Another way to look at it is that they have simply created a DT line with the characteristics of a WF line. A concept so simple you wonder why nobody seems to have done it before.

As a thought, it hasn't been that long that WF and DT lines shared "equal" grain weights for the same line weight designation. Although they fell within the range cited, the DT line would be ever so slightly heavier. The reason for this had to do with rod design. In the not so distant past, fly rods were designed around the WF lines. So, many fly rods used to be designated as a 3/4 or 4/5 or 5/6, etc. While this type of designation can still be seen on increasingly few, lesser expensive rods, it is something that, by and large, has gone the way of the Dodo.

Take the 4/5 labeled rod. Such a dual designation meant that the rod was intended to be used with either a 4 wt. DT line or a 5 wt. WF line. For example, a 4 wt. DT line can list at up to 126 grains, while a 5 wt. WF line can list down to 134 grains. That's a fairly narrow gap. It's also part of the reason why we see lines such as the SA GPX and the RIO Grand. The RIO Grand 4 wt. comes in at 133 grains in a strictly WF taper design. This puts it 1 gr. under the AFTMA standard for a 5 wt. designation. The SA GPX line isn't quite as heavy, but it too is outside the strict AFTMA range limits for any particular line weight. (It's also why I use an SA GPX 3 wt. line on my Lamiglas 7' 3/4 wt. "Brush Creek" fiberglass rod.)

Today, many rod manufacturers have gone to designing rod actions around the center of the weight designation range (where the old DT lines used to be fixed). Such "dialing -in" has resulted in line manufacturers scrambling to catch up; and has also forced them to produce a diversity of products to more efficiently work in conjunction with the myriad rod designs now available. Which brings us back to the "minimum of 75 different, named floating lines" already mentioned.

Of course, here's where the RIO Selective Trout also breaks with convention. Rather than being the 'traditionally' lighter version, the WF design of the Selective Trout comes in at 145 grains versus the 140 grains of the DT configuration in the 5 wt.; putting the WF line nearly at the top end of the AFTMA range for 5 wts. instead of the lower end. Starting with a 6" tip, there follows a 7' front taper with an initial, 18' body, then a smaller diameter, secondary body of 14', with a back taper of 9' to a very small diameter running line of 42'. In other words, RIO has created a weight forward taper that truly is weighted forward within the line weight range designation.

[Note: The specs for the RIO Selective Trout lines can be found here... http://www.rioproducts.com/pages/flylines_prodpage.asp?product=20001 ]

Huh? -

What does all this "tech speak" mean? Well, to my mind...

1. With its aggressive, weight forward-style taper, the RIO Selective Trout is, effectively, a modern WF line that's available in DT configuration.

2. The DT version is well suited to medium and medium-fast action rods such as the Winston IM6/WT, the Sage SP (now the SLT), the Scott A2 (formerly SAS or Alpha), maybe even the Scott Pwrply/G series (even probably better suited to the newer, Scott G2 series), or similar rods. It also works well on 'soft-tipped' fast action rods such as the Winston BIIX or the older Winston LTX. I don't know, but assume it will also work reasonably well with the 'graphite-like' actioned Diamondglass rods.

The DT is, to my way of thinking, the best value and most utilitarian. The 'tradition-like' nature of the WF taper design makes it suitable for use with traditional action rods. But, the aggressiveness of the taper allows it a functionality with modern, medium-fast action rods that more 'classical designed' fly lines just don't have. We may no longer have a "one size fits all" fly line, but the DT variation comes as close as you are going to for trout fishing with the myriad rod designs now on the market.

3. The WF version of the Selective Trout is a heavier, even more aggressively tapered line which should work reasonably well with truly fast action rods such as the Sage XP, the Scott S3, G.Loomis GLX, or similar. I do have some reports of the WF version working reasonably well with the Winston BIIX and at least one version (sorry I don't know which one) of St. Croix rod.

Personally, I would not recommend the WF version for more traditional action rods such as the Scott Pwrply/G series, the Winston IM6/WT, or some of the fiberglass rods now on the market. I'm sure it would work for some casters with these rods; but, generally speaking, the WF version of the Selective Trout is not a good match for the traditional action rods. I would, however, give the WF line a serious look for some of the lesser expensive, dual line designated rods such as the Redington Crosswater series. (This is one of those times when you'll literally pay as much for a line as you will for the rod.)

Parting Thoughts -

The Selective Trout is marked "SFT" and "AgentX." Sparing you the techno-babble, SFT stands for "Super Floatation Tip." The SFT label indicates that the line is infused with a chemical that gives a floating fly line a low specific gravity, resulting in higher buoyancy. On the WF lines, this treatment is combined with a welded loop unique to RIO that, purportedly, "stops water wicking up the core" of the line; thereby, producing a line with a tip that should never sink. That is unless you don't want the loop and cut it off for the more traditional nail knot connection between fly line and butt section/leader.

"AgentX is a manufacturing process in which two coatings are applied to the fly line at the same time. As a result of these coatings being produced simultaneously, they fuse together in what RIO calls 'Fusion Technology,' forming a seamless single coating that will never separate or break down. The advantages of Fusion Technology are vast. The 'under coating' not only seals the core and covers any blemishes in the braid; it also adds a super low density proprietary coating. This under coating fuses to the outer coating, resulting in the smoothest, slickets, highest floating fly lines ever made. The combination of these processes ensures that the outer coating is perfectly centered around the core and allows for greater durability, less dirt pick up and longer casts.

Wait a minute? What was that about not hiring "guys in white lab coats" and breaking with Cortland-like emphasis on "traditional values" such as durability and long-lasting design? Is it possible that RIO is trying to combine the selling points of both the SA and Cortland companies?

What it boils down to is that I have yet to have a serious problem with a RIO line. They haven't cracked on me. (Although I did note a small gouge in my new, 5 wt. Selective Trout's coating after that 21" rainbow pulled it over some submerged, limestone structure. Said gouge did not penetrate to the line's core and has not seemed to cause any problems with floatation.) They're reasonably easy to clean (I tend to use Dawn dishwashing liquid in a bucket of water with a rare treatment of line cleaner). And, despite mewls to the contrary, I haven't noticed that the tips sink any more frequently or worse than other lines. (I have yet to find a truly 'unsinkable' floating fly line.)

The RIO Selective Trout floating fly line has very quickly become a favorite among many fly anglers. Coming in both Chartreuse and Camo Green (Olive), the line weights available are for light to 'heavy' trout fishing: DT 1 - 6 & WF 1 - 6. If you favor WF lines (which do happen to outsell DT lines in standard configurations), then the Selective Trout offers you, effectively, a double taper line's economy in a WF line design. And, while it may not be a "Classic" design, it is selected specifically for the needs of trout fishing and today's non-traditional action trout fly rods. It just so happens to also work reasonably well as a 'traditional-like' WF line for the traditional action rods. So, while you and the trout may be selective, this line isn't.


Recommended: Yes