The Flying Tench

Glad to hear it, Newt (your fishing pastor friend). I agree about Aramaic; I'm sure he could read (eg Luke 4: 16,17); and he may have spoken some Greek as well. DG, I can't see your face as you write, so I'm not sure if there's a serious concern behind what you're saying. For what it's worth, most clergy are still graduates, and it's likely to become a requirement - which I don't personally agree with. I'm MA (Oxon) in Engineering, though what I know about real engineering you could write on a postage stamp! My thing was business studies, and I got an MBA from Manchester Business School before messing about in junior roles in merchant banking and management consultancy and eventually going to 'vicar factory' and doing what interests me most. It's a fantastic and varied job, the only thing which takes away some of the fun being that I contracted chronic fatigue syndrome - not too seriously, but enough to make it hard to be as enthusiastic as I'd like at times - and it also limits my fishing trips a bit. The other thing about a job where you're very committed personally is that it's great when you're doing well, but I find it tough when 'business is poor'. I suppose I start to doubt whether it's true at all at such times. Then something brilliant will happen, like someone getting supernaturally healed, and I'm 'up in the clouds' again - very like fishing, in a way, when you catch a big'un after a long wait! I hope it's OK to have wandered slightly off fishing. I'd certainly be interested to hear whether you really 'bang up bandits' - if I recall your details accurately, DG!

Liam, I now understand your argument, and find it pretty convincing as long as you keep in the words 'to the same degree'. And Leon, I'm fascinated by your information which links up with Liam's case. I guess i might ask whether dolphins feel pain, but it seems to amount to a good case that pain is more relevant on land than underwater.

Peter, I found myself asking just this when I was in hospital recently. But you can ask the same thing about joy and happiness - indeed, about life itself. Does anything matter that doesn't last? I'm a christian (in fact a vicar) and you might think this would give me a boost and emphasise the importance of an eternal afterlife; but in fact I found it quite unsettling, and I'm still trying to get my head (and heart) round it all.

Sorry, I clicked something by mistake and finished the last post before I meant to. Just to say that I don't think there's a strong connection for me between my work/faith and fishing, except that, working from home when the telephone can go at any time, I find fishing provides a great way of getting my mind off work and people's problems altogether - I guess a lot of us find that in different lines of work. Oh yes, and the 'fishers of men' - don't forget we've got lady vicars now.........

DG - no photo of the chub, unfortunately. 'Fishing vicars' - aha, I wondered if your comment about walking on the water referred to that. There are a few of us around, though not like the 17th century when vicars could sub-let their 'livings' to a curate and spend most of their time shooting, fishing etc. You'll doubtless know the rudd record was held by a vicar till a year ago or so. Also, Isaac Walton was a very committed christian and churchman, having been converted by John Donne, the famous poet. He believed that 'the best' of Jesus' disciples were all anglers, and for some obscure reason considered that Amos and Moses were anglers, too!

I'm sorry to hear you live with pain every day, and it's great that you can handle it. John

Malcolm, can you remember by any chance whether the eye-hooked pike fought at all? I'm afraid you've lost me in your second para. The eye-hooked chub DIDN'T fight which was why my brother was worried that it felt a lot of pain. Were you thinking I was saying the reverse? Or maybe I'm just not understanding you?

Malevans and Liamsm You seem to be both coming from a similar tack, suggesting that natural selection somehow gives fish an ability to learn not to repeat being captured in different situations, as they link capture and release with danger and non-survival, without necessarily feeling pain. I don't quite understand how the mechanism would work, but I'm not a biologist - maybe they can advise on this, or maybe one of you knows a fair bit about this? (I don't quite understand about your S curves, Malevans, which probably means you know more about the biology than me). Just to be clear, I accept of course that natural selection has taught the fish to be wary of capture. The issue is how fish that are NOT initially hook-wary become so in a couple of years without there being time for natural selection to kick in. I can see that what they experience might be closer to fear than pain. But there's still the question of the chub hooked in the eye - surely, the level of fear (or inbuilt tendency to avoid capture) would be the same as for a lip-hooked fish, so we need to explain the different response. On a minor point, aren't you playing into my hands, malevans, bringing in Occam's Razor? As I understand it, this says that the simplest solution (the one needing least parameters) is the one to accept. I think pain is quite a simple solution! Or maybe you're saying that pain is an extra and unnecessary parameter, given that we know your suggestion of a built-in tendency to learn to avoid things which link with being captured exists? Whew! I'd still be interested to hear if anyone else has foul-hooked a fish in the eye!

Some interesting points. Malevans, I accept that natural selection has given us fish which learn quickly. But there's still the question of why they would want to modify their behaviour. You're suggesting it might be because they find getting caught is an inefficient use of energy. I admit that's possible, but isn't feeling something like pain another possibility? And which one would most ensure their survival? Budgie, my point is that, where anglers keep their catches, it will tend to be the more cautious fish which survive to pass on their genes. Glenn has made the same point, I guess, in more detail. I've found this an interesting thread. As one of those who's been arguing that fish might feel pain, I want to say that, obviously, I hope they don't! and I've been encouraged by several arguments the other way - for example by Nik, from observing his tropical fish. But it's one thing to say that, in normal angling practice, they don't feel much pain. It's another to argue that, whatever we do to them, they can't feel it. I feel we'd need to be very sure of our position to say that. One point no-one has picked up on - the chub that was hooked in the eye which didn't fight. Admittedly this was a one-off case. But the theory that it didn't fight because it was painful would make sense, whereas some of the others don't seem to fit that case. Has anyone else foul-hooked a fish in the eye? Or got any theories on that? the good news is that, if it's true, although it indicates that fish can in principle feel pain, it would argue that lip-hooked fish don't.

Because I'm a masochist. Though not to the extent of some anglers, who'll wait out all night for one bite. It's also a bit like golf, which I took up for a short while. I'd go out, play dreadfully, and ask myself why I bothered. But then I'd start to think of ways I could do better......... In addition, I'm a member of the 'Crabtree generation' who read a book which captured our imaginations. As a teenager I used to dream of misty mornings fishing for tench, of 'sail-away bites' and all the other 'atmospheric' angling jargon that lives on in anglers'net. It's all to do with dreams. I also used to dream of the Kennet, for some reason - and then I came to Newbury (on Kennet) - strangely getting a job I never applied for.

Diamond Geezer - how do you do that 'originally posted by johnclarke' bit, with 2 horizontal lines? Do you type it yourself, or is there a button to click? The answer to your question is that the only bit of the canal that I'm aware of where the controlling angling society allows fishing in the close season is a stretch belonging to Hungerford Canal AA, and it's one of their rules - no spinning April to Aug, no livebaiting ever. A nuisance, 'cos I feel like doing some spinning at the moment. Steve, I missed you on Screaming Reels. Wish I'd seen it. I've learned several things from your post, and it's particularly interesting that the perch are likely to be higher in the water when it's coloured. Thanks

I've occasionally met people who say they've 'bagged up' spinning when the perch are gorging fry. For example, someone got a perch-a-chuck up to 2lb, apparently, in my local canal in Newbury in late Feb 2003 when the dace had spawned early. I'm not sure if I've seen this phenomenon, but I saw something like it yesterday evening at my nearest open canal at Hungerford. On my previous visit the canal looked dead, but yesterday there were 'rings' all over the canal with little fish (I don't know which species), and every now and then a couple would jump out of the water. The water is very muddy and cloudy. I just went with ledger tackle, and caught very little, but now need to decide on the next trip. Problem. Spinning and live-baiting are banned. I wonder if spinning includes jigged worm and wobbled gudgeon? I guess one could fish with a big worm mid-water, but would this attract when the perch are focussed on fry? For some reaason, most of my worm fishing for perch has been ledgering. Does it work suspending a great lobworm in midwater? And another question for those more used to this phenomenon. How long is it likely to go on? John

Thanks, everyone - it's not as easy, this canal fishing, as some might suspect. One final question for david and Glenn. Fishing so close (eg 6") to the far bank means, I assume, that you're fishing with a straight lead with a reasonably short tale? john

John, thanks for the advice, specially on the groundbait. I guess my target is decent roach. My only pole is a cheap, rather heavy, telescopic one which i really bought for accurate groundbaiting, but it would be interesting to try fishing with it! What I'm really into this close season is trying some of Archie Braddock's ideas - I seem to remember you're a fan - dead maggots, flavours etc, with the feeder. But I'm glad i don't have to target the far shelf, because my casting isn't accurate enough and I think I'd get caught up in the bushes opposite, specially when there's a gale blowing like my last trip. But there's another issue during this week (Easter week) when there are a lot of boats. I wonder if people find the fish feed more at night when there are a lot of boats? I was going to raise the question of casting to the far shelf, 'cos I'm even more likely to get lost in the bushes at night! But I think you've already convinced me it's best to start with 6-8 metres.

Glenn, in answer to your last post suggesting natural selection as the answer to how and why fish learn from being caught. Natural selection takes many generations to take effect. I can see it would explain how, in a country where anglers kept their catches, a new breed of fish came into being which were very wary of hooks and lines. But individual fish learn from being caught within a year or two, and there must be something about the experience they don't like. Malevans and Liamsm - I see your point about avoiding the term pain, and I certainly hope they don't feel pain like we do. But we can't be sure. The fact they don't have the parts of the brain that process pain in mammals (the cerebral cortex) doesn't prove anything. Maybe we just haven't discovered the part of a fish's brain that fulfils this function. The use of the term 'flight reaction' is interesting, but that is the response, not the cause. What causes a fish to develop a flight reaction if it doesn't find the experience unpleasant? I'm fairly convinced by people's arguments that lip-hooking doesn't cause too much 'pain', but what about the case mentioned earlier when a chub hooked in the eye didn't fight at all? On the one hand it supports the view that, by comparison, lip-hooked fish don't feel much pain. But what other explanation do people have to explain why the eye-hooked fish came in so meekly? Not instinct, not flight reaction I suggest, but something a bit close to what we call 'pain'.

Glenn, the reaction in the lobworm is what I'd call a simple reflex reaction, and I agree that's no argument for saying they feel pain. In the case of the fish, though, how do you explain the fact that they seem to learn from the experience? Is there no parallel with a child learning not to touch hot things? If not, what is it that causes big roach to be so wary, and fish in some venues to change their feeding times to avoid the anglers? It may not be exactly like our pain, but surely there's something in them that says 'I don't want that to happen again'.

The close season has found me fishing a canal I don't know very well, and there have been plenty of long-boats to scare the fish. Where should you fish? I remember reading ages ago that the more boats that go by, the more the fish move to the margins. So the answer would seem to be the far bank shelf, but that leaves a question. If the fish are spooked by the boats, are they going to be comfortable feeding in very shallow water? Wouldn't they prefer a bit of depth? Another article I remember reading said that the boats encouraged the fish to feed by churning up the silt, implying that you should fish 'down the track'. What do canal fisherman advise re these two apparently opposite views?

Re Liamsm, it's an interesting question how you can compare whether humans feel the same level of pain as each other. Are some people better able to withstand torture because they're braver, or less sensitive, or both? I asked myself this question in hospital recently when, for admittedly just a few minutes at a time, I experienced what I considered really serious pain, and all the nurses would give me was a paracetamol! I realised there was an admittedly imperfect way of comparing pain - how much would I and others would pay not to undergo it. The strange thing is that, when I asked myself whether I'd pay £1,000 not to undergo the few minutes of bad pain again, the answer was 'no' - which perhaps showed that it wasn't as bad as I thought! Re 'the Tangler', I agree that the fact that fish fight well when hooked in the lip is an encouraging sign (compared with, for example, the case I mentioned when one was hooked in the eye), but that doesn't mean they don't feel pain - just that the desire to escape is stronger than the pain. I'm reassured that most of us are accepting that fish MAY feel pain, as it means we'll do all we can to minimize that.

In my view the arguments are less clear than some would like to think. I've just had my brother staying who is a brain scientist, and well aware of the arguments about fish not having a cerebral cortex, for example. He was finally put off fishing a few years ago when he foul-hooked a chub in the eye, and it didn't fight at all, and he had the impression it must be feeling a lot of pain. For my part I'm encouraged that I can sometimes catch the same small perch 2 or 3 times in a session, and that certainly suggests they're not too worried by the hooking experience. But you can take that argument another way. Some argue that fish nerves just lead to reflex muscle responses, but in that case why do they learn to avoid hooks? The fact is big roach, for example, have learned to be very wary. The point of pain is to teach! Surely, they must have found something in the hooking experience sufficiently nasty to teach them to avoid lines and hooks in the future - and, in a comparatively simple creature like a fish, it seems to me the most likely answer as to what they experience is something fairly simple - like pain! Nobody knows what the subjective awareness of other creatures is like. On balance I hope and believe that what they experience is substantially less than we do as humans, and an additional argument for angling is that, on balance, it benefits the fish - pressure for unpolluted waters etc. BUT I believe we should accept that we don't know for sure what fish feel, and should do everything possible to minimize pain. Peter W, I was concerned to hear that you've gutted fish when they're still alive. Surely, wouldn't it be wiser to give them a bang on the head first, to play safe?

Dave, maybe you'd clarify your original post of 1 April. I'm not too knowledgeable about what's on the market, and I don't quite understand what the products are you use. For example, is 'Double Squirt' a product you buy, or are you saying you used 2 squirts of one of the products? It certainly sounds successful!

Thanks - I'll follow your advice

Thanks, Liamsm. This ought to be more widely publicised. Presumably it's deadly for ducks and swans? Although I must say I haven't seen many dead ones due to the maggots they inevitably eat.

Thanks, very helpful