Andy Nellist

If I was stuck with onebait forbig Perch it wouldhave to be lobworms. Fishing whole or half lobs on the hook and baiting with chopped lob and maggot.

One of my mates a few years back had a chinese that didn't agree with him. He jumped up the bank and ran down the other side (on a reservoir)but didn't make it tothe bushes. Although he only lived a mile away he had s**t from his neck to his ankles by the time he got home. Apparently the suit along with everything under it went straight in the bin. )

Personally I'd go for a Harrison 12' 1lb 12oz interceptor.

I've listed below the range of weights I had this summer for various lengths. 16 1/2 3lb 3oz 17 1/2 3lb 13oz 18 4lb 1oz 18 1/2 4lb 2oz - 4lb 6oz 19 4lb 5oz 20 4lb 8oz A formula to calulate weight really needs to include length and girth.

I've had a sundridge Igloo II for two years which I use together with a two piece sleepskin fleece. I've used it an awful lot in that timne in all sorts of weather. It has never let in any water, dries quickly, the material is quiet, its very comfortable and it keeps you lovely and warm. When it eventually wears out I will buy another.

I think Dunk has summed it up well. this year i've used between 1, 2, 3 and 4 rods depending on what i was fishing for, where i was fishing and how I was fishing. There are times when 2 rods can be too much and others when having 4 is a real plus.

I have a cygnet grand snyper extreme which comes with three and four rod buzzer bars for around 200 quid. It is lightweight, extremely stable even in 60 mile an hour winds and can cope with any banks.

I wouldn't rake unless you are not catching despite Tench rolling/bubbling. Pre-bait gets the fish used to feeding on a specific food in a specific place. to that end I would suggest pre-baiting at 6am for several days before you fish with casters and maggots. When you fish loose feed maggots but only a few casters and fish caster on the hook. I would advise hair rigging two or three casters on a 16 (super-glue to hair) Good Luck !

Whoops.... that should have read Expandanet at http://www.parklandproducts.co.uk

http://www.parklandproducts.com

Mist rising off the water on a June morning, rounded dorsal momentarily glimpsed as it cuts silently through the surface, the hard dogged intellegent fight combined with a majestic beauty .... Tinca Tinca

Phone Charlie at Chiltern Tackle in Tring

Phone Charlie at Chiltern Tackle in Tring

If you woul dlike a copy of the three Passion for Angling video titles or a boxed set contact D Wyvill at Parthenon Entertainment Ltd 0207 554 2518

If you woul dlike a copy of the three Passion for Angling video titles or a boxed set contact D Wyvill at Parthenon Entertainment Ltd 0207 554 2518

I am not presently a member of the SAA or the ACA (having previously been a member of the NASA and the ACA) and will not join either until they sever their ties with the CA since I do not wish to be counted as a supporter of hunting with dogs. If you need to kill foxes/stags etc. then shoot them!

I am not presently a member of the SAA or the ACA (having previously been a member of the NASA and the ACA) and will not join either until they sever their ties with the CA since I do not wish to be counted as a supporter of hunting with dogs. If you need to kill foxes/stags etc. then shoot them!

I agree with Peter. As far as shooting is concerned I would like to tell a little tale: I was fishing at Wilstone last year when some passers by asked what the square rush things on the middle bank were. I told they were shooting hides for when the duck shoots were held on the reservoir each year. They responded with distain "How cruel". My response was to ask them whether they ate chicken to which they replied yes. "Do you insist on it being free range?" I asked to which the reply was no. Well said I the ducks on here live a free on the reservoir. Those that are unlucky enough to get shot during one of the shoots are collected up and taken away to be sold as free range duck for human consumption. They have a much better life (and death) than their farmed compatriots and certainly a much nicer life than the chickens which the passers by were happy to consume. It was clear that they had not thought about this issue in a clear objective way. And therein lies the point of my post. We should support that which can be supported and not that which cannot. In the 21st century I can justify shooting and fishing with ease but setting dogs on an animal.... enough said !!!

I agree with Peter. As far as shooting is concerned I would like to tell a little tale: I was fishing at Wilstone last year when some passers by asked what the square rush things on the middle bank were. I told they were shooting hides for when the duck shoots were held on the reservoir each year. They responded with distain "How cruel". My response was to ask them whether they ate chicken to which they replied yes. "Do you insist on it being free range?" I asked to which the reply was no. Well said I the ducks on here live a free on the reservoir. Those that are unlucky enough to get shot during one of the shoots are collected up and taken away to be sold as free range duck for human consumption. They have a much better life (and death) than their farmed compatriots and certainly a much nicer life than the chickens which the passers by were happy to consume. It was clear that they had not thought about this issue in a clear objective way. And therein lies the point of my post. We should support that which can be supported and not that which cannot. In the 21st century I can justify shooting and fishing with ease but setting dogs on an animal.... enough said !!!

Thanks for the info Dave it is interesting to get a scientific perspective on a story that has obviously been manipulated by the press simply to flog more copy. Having said that at least the public are now more aware of the problem even if they are not well informed as to the range of possible causes. Heres to the hope that that will lead to greater funding and appropriate action to deal with the problem in the not too distant future.

Thanks for the info Dave it is interesting to get a scientific perspective on a story that has obviously been manipulated by the press simply to flog more copy. Having said that at least the public are now more aware of the problem even if they are not well informed as to the range of possible causes. Heres to the hope that that will lead to greater funding and appropriate action to deal with the problem in the not too distant future.

Brian you said "Andy, there are too many anglers on the outside who do nothing and put nothing back into angling, like yourself. At least these groups especially SAA try and get some things done for the better. Join and contribute something positive." You assume incorrectly that just because I am not a member of any organisation that I do nothing. In fact I simply chose to do my bit outside the the umbrella of an organisation.

Brian you said "Andy, there are too many anglers on the outside who do nothing and put nothing back into angling, like yourself. At least these groups especially SAA try and get some things done for the better. Join and contribute something positive." You assume incorrectly that just because I am not a member of any organisation that I do nothing. In fact I simply chose to do my bit outside the the umbrella of an organisation.

I was just reading something in the Am of a couple of weeks ago which was talking about the fuss that greated the abolition of size limits by the LAA. Seems that in the last thirty years we have not learnt to deal with contentious issues in a more civilised fashion. For my part I don't believe that the abolition of the close season on rivers will have the impact that is claimed. however i am happy to accepot that if the majority are in favour of retaining it then so be it. It seems to me that all of the angling organisations are getting bogged down in politics. Instead of doing anything you are all too busy arguing about how to do it. What you guys should be doing is identifying the areas of common ground and then cooperating with each other. Where you do not agree with each other you should agree to disagree. As I stated in an earlier post I for one will not become a member of any of your organisations (and I am sure there are many others who feel the same) until you become a great deal more pragmatic in your approach to working for the benefit of angling in general. I look forward to the day when I will feel that I should and can join some of the organisations mentioned because they will be fighting in a positive manner for the future of angling.

I was just reading something in the Am of a couple of weeks ago which was talking about the fuss that greated the abolition of size limits by the LAA. Seems that in the last thirty years we have not learnt to deal with contentious issues in a more civilised fashion. For my part I don't believe that the abolition of the close season on rivers will have the impact that is claimed. however i am happy to accepot that if the majority are in favour of retaining it then so be it. It seems to me that all of the angling organisations are getting bogged down in politics. Instead of doing anything you are all too busy arguing about how to do it. What you guys should be doing is identifying the areas of common ground and then cooperating with each other. Where you do not agree with each other you should agree to disagree. As I stated in an earlier post I for one will not become a member of any of your organisations (and I am sure there are many others who feel the same) until you become a great deal more pragmatic in your approach to working for the benefit of angling in general. I look forward to the day when I will feel that I should and can join some of the organisations mentioned because they will be fighting in a positive manner for the future of angling.