Changing attitudes.

[Guest TheDacer]

It's not Elitism, Bruno, it's Purism.

 

Elitism excludes people. I don't think anyone posting on this subject has said that bite alarms should be banned. (And if they have then shame on them!)

 

Purism, on the other hand.. well, that's about not using noisy things like bite alarms and bait boats and stuff like that.

 

I'm surrounded all day with enough modern trappings - angling, to an extent, gets me away from it all.

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by TheDacer (edited 06 December 2001).]

[Guest Gaffer]

Hi all, can I just ask this question without being jumped on, why does this question/topic keep arising time and time agian in one form or another?

 

 

 

------------------

All the best, Gaffer

 

Anglers' Net Members Club

[Guest TheDacer]

Guess it's like comparing the old-style Mini with the new-style Mini. Or the music of the 1960's with the music of today.

 

People like to talk about the things they prefer when it's related to a subject they're interested in.

 

And the same old subjects crop up because AN is always attracting new users.

 

Also, anglers cross the full range from the 'Bent Pin and Stick' brigade at one end to the 'Must Have It' modernists at the other.

 

Thankfully, most of us are somewhere or other in the middle...

[Guest dexter]

I personnally don't see what difference it makes what method (as long as they are legal) somebody employs to fish.

 

I think the real issue here is why do people fish. Cos I don't know about anybody else but I certainly don't actually catch (except on the occasional day) that many fish.

 

For me its something different every time. Some days I'll wander, some I'l launch the feeder out and sit back. Last season I went for a session on the Dane when I got out the the car the temperature was -10 not a hope of catching anything, but I still enjoyed it. But thats what I like to do.

 

Others like to do different things. I think I would enjoy session angling cos I love it out doors. There's nothing better than kipping under the stars. To do this and fish at the same time you need different tackle. Try watching a 'tip for four or five hours at a time and you start to get eye strain (i know I do) and a float's even worse.

 

This style of fishing (session carp) has given so much to the rest of fishing, hair rigs, flavours and additives, bolt rigs, braid the list goes on. I don't employ all these methods but I have certainly benefited from some and I guess most have.

 

Not all fishing is the same, but neither are the fishermen.

 

Nuff said

 

D

 

P.S. Gaffer read your excellent rewiew on M-Tech boilies. Do you think they'd catch barbel and chub? Cos I'd use 'em.

[Guest Wordbender]

Originally posted by Gaffer:

Hi all, can I just ask this question without being jumped on, why does this question/topic keep arising time and time agian in one form or another?

 

 

Easy, mate. It's because carp fishing and its exponents are pushed to the fore by the angling media - due largely to the popularity of this type of angling.

 

With bivvy-boys holding lumps for the cameras all over the place, there's bound to be a reaction - and our speciality is knocking each other, is it not?

 

It is you know. :wink:

 

If photos of pole-caught, mega-hauls were more in vogue, we'd be forever 'debating' the merits of 'catching fish the easy way, coz they don't really cast or use reels like wot proper anglers duz.'

 

It's a plain old lack of fish-and-let-fish, I'm afraid. Other sports have their versions of it, too.

 

S'larf, ay?

 

Terry

[Guest Steady On]

Where do you draw the line at technology? History is littered with the stories of those who decide "this far and no more", here are strange sects in the U.S.A. who stopped the clock in the 19th century and will have no telephones, cars, electricity or any othe rmodern trapping in their community.

 

How ironic that the internet, that most modern medium, is used as a vehicle to complain about how technology has spoiled it all! Each complainee picks their own point in technological evolution to draw their own line. How the greenheart rod devotees must have felt at the introduction of the evil split cane; how pole anglers loathed the coming of the reel; and those ancients versed in the capture of fish with bone hooks must have despaired at the invention of iron!

 

I wonder if they would insist on being treated with 1950s medicine in the event of an illness or accident.

 

You can see these stalwarts of angling tradition from time to time, stalking barbel on the beautiful river Teme in Worcestershire. Cane rod and centrepin in hand, quietly moving along the banks, contemptuous of those sat with two carbon feeder rods in all the best swims. Our hero peeks from behind bushes through exppensive polaroid sunglasses, seeking his noble quarry - which were introduced into the Severn sytem after his tackle became obsolete and the so-called "golden age" was over. His luncheon meat bait - a sixties innovation - will be shown to a few tired barbel through the course of the day and he will drive home satisfied that he has been upholding the finest traditions of the sport, in his V-reg Toyota!

 

The world moves on, and I for one am glad that it does.

[Guest TheDacer]

Have I been reading a different thread?

 

I'm not sure anyone is knocking bite-alarms are they? Or technology, for that matter.

 

I wouldn't use bite alarms - because I use my sight and touch (as Bruno puts it) in order to detect a bite... and that works just about fine. Why have an audible bite alarm too? I don't need one.

 

Also, the way I fish is too active to need one. But for those that want to sit for hours and wait for bites - they must be ideal.

 

Likewise with a bait boat. Why would I ever need one of these on a river? If I can't throw the feed to where I want it, I can use a catty or a feeder. But on big gravel pits I guess they must be ideal.

 

In short, some developments in angling are just not relevant to some styles of angling.

[Guest phonebush]

Bruno,

I would not call it elitism. Since all, or most all would conceed we do not fish for food I believe the issue would be degree of participation. Angling vs fishing. To "angle" has little to do with to "catch".

I believe most anglers (as opposed to fishermen) would find satisfaction somewhat to the degree they "sport" for the quarry. Many modern appliances make fishermen out of anglers. It is OK, it is just that fishermen should not call themselves anglers. Technology now makes a vast distinction between the two.

Phone

[Guest Peter Waller]

Originally posted by Gaffer:

Hi all, can I just ask this question without being jumped on, why does this question/topic keep arising time and time agian in one form or another?

 

As the fellow who brought it up, let me explain, as best I can.

 

In the past, when said subject has reared its ugly head, it has probably been in the form of an attack. Most of the AN regulars have moved on from that style.

 

Just read the answers to the question, apart from one poster's reply, these have all been balenced and mostly well thought out. Most posters have stated their opinion and preferences. Perhaps a few more opinions with reasons would have been interesting.

 

In the past some would have taken great offence whilst others would have counter attacked. Me, I am genuinly interested in the opinions of others.

 

It does seem to me that there is a major change of attitude to whats gone before. Keep the word 'carp' out of it, its a question relating to attitude.

 

Perhaps the question could have been 'why do you choose to fish as you do?' For many of us it is the style of doing rather than the result that matters.

 

Phonebush's comment that the use of technology sorts out the angler from the fisheman is an interesting point. A tad extreme but perhaps that is what Venables was driving at.

 

But is there not a danger of superiority creeping in here? 'You can't possibly call yourself an angler, you're using a fish-finder, you unsporting cad you!'

 

I think I would be a mite more generous on this one. Perhaps its okay to use it, but just don't be a slave to it.

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by Peter Waller (edited 06 December 2001).]

[Guest chesters1]

oooh lots of contention in this posting i wish i`d thought of it!

its all a matter of taste why do some people like the colour blue and yet others hate it, why do some people like blondes whilst others like brunnetes,

in a perfect world ( and it almost is ) everyone eventually gets what they want, so long as they dont stop other people getting what THEY want we should all coexist together more or less happilly , and so on , and all is well in the bluebell glade of eden (except if you dont like blue or glades of course)