Jump to content

balaced tackle


Guest barry ford

Recommended Posts

Guest barry ford

Hi I am new to this forum my name is Barry.

Did anyone read the article by Martin Bowler in angling times?

 

Do you think 30lb line and a 1lb test curve rod are safe and balanced tackle? Or do you like me think this kind of set up is quite danggerous? Also do you think rolling meat is safe as my experience of useing this method has resulted in to many foul hooked fish.

Cheers Barry Ford

 

tongue.gif

Well the bait has been rolling, what no takers has everyone stopped useing 30lb braid? Are no responses coming so that we the unenlightened can be shown the merits of this method??????

Barry

 

[This message has been edited by barry ford (edited 08 September 2000).]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Gordon Scott

Barry,

YES, I did read the feature you mention.

YES, I do consider the tackle described safe, although not 'balanced' in the normal sense. It is however much safer than a powerful rod/weak line combination. It's not difficult to work out why.

NO, I don't think the set-up is dangerous, nor is the method. I've fished hundreds of hours I would think, using moving baits for barbel with few problems. So too have many of my friends and they also have reported no increased incidence of foulhooked fish. Add all this together and you get thousands of hours fished for thousands of barbel. IMO foulhooking is chiefly caused by striking at line-bites, something that can never be totally avoided. However the greatest risk of foulhooking occurs when there are lots of barbel in one swim tearing into prebait. Savage linebites are common in this scenario and some fish will get themselves foulhooked.Using the method that Ray and others have perfected minimises this risk as the fish are not concentrated by groundbait.

If you have a problem with foulhooking barbel Barry, I suggest you examine your methods closely, rather than criticise others.

Gordon

Gordon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest barry ford
Originally posted by Gordon Scott:

Barry,

YES, I did read the feature you mention.

YES, I do consider the tackle described safe, although not 'balanced' in the normal sense. It is however much safer than a powerful rod/weak line combination. It's not difficult to work out why.

NO, I don't think the set-up is dangerous, nor is the method. I've fished hundreds of hours I would think, using moving baits for barbel with few problems. So too have many of my friends and they also have reported no increased incidence of foulhooked fish. Add all this together and you get thousands of hours fished for thousands of barbel. IMO foulhooking is chiefly caused by striking at line-bites, something that can never be totally avoided. However the greatest risk of foulhooking occurs when there are lots of barbel in one swim tearing into prebait. Savage linebites are common in this scenario and some fish will get themselves foulhooked.Using the method that Ray and others have perfected minimises this risk as the fish are not concentrated by groundbait.

If you have a problem with foulhooking barbel Barry, I suggest you examine your methods closely, rather than criticise others.

Gordon

Gordon      

Balanced tackle

 A bit tetchy aren't you Gordon.I asked a perfectly valid question and asked for responses, there was no criticism directed at anyone.

 

It would seem that any question related to barbel anglers is treated as criticism are you all tetchy?

Perhaps as an "expert" you could explian just how you determin a line bite from a real bite when a bait is on the move? As in my experience if the line crosses a barbels back and the fish moves of the result is a full blooded pull and you have no indication that it is in fact a liner.

 

Lastly perhaps not all anglers who fish this method are being honest about the number of fish they foul hook?

Barry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Steve Randles

Barry...Having just spent the afternoon with Mr Walton, I feel I need to comment on a couple of things.

 

Firstly, Ray "Buries" the hook in the piece of meat that he rolls.Impossible to foulhook fish.

 

Next, he uses braid for its bite detection qualities and he uses this on a centrepin.

 

Ray recounted to us all about when fishing the river wye how it is full of boulders and when retrieving "normal tackle" they would snag up, pull for breaks, and therefore leave baited hooklengths in the river,he did not like this option, so he went for braid.

 

He uses the braid all the way through to the hook, and uses plasticine on the braid as weight therefore lessening the chance of snagging up and leaving baited tackle in the river....rather forward thinking to me !

 

Finally,30lb braid has the same thickness as a 6lb mono, this is used in the flow to move the bait through the swim and when a fish strikes it can freely take line from the "pin".

 

Tight lines

 

Steve Randles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Gordon Scott

Tetchy, me, tetchy? Never!All sweetness and light me...I simply tried to answer your points to the best of my abilities. N.B. I do not regard myself as an expert, although I'm flattered that you think I am, even one in inverted commas! " biggrin.gif"

You've actually confirmed in your answer some of the points I made; there are occasions when line bites are all but indistinguishable from the real thing. If the line gets caught around a barbel's fin, normally the pectoral, and it bolts (like they do) it stands a good chance of being foulhooked. This risk has got be greatest in a baited swim when lots of barbel are thrashing around like mad things.

By the way, I'm only a part-time 'roller' unlike RW. The older I get the more sitting in one swim all day appeals to me, so I think I can see this issue from both sides.

Last point Barry. When trundling/freelining the bites often do take some reading. I assume this is because the barbel is less suspicious of a bait moving naturally in the current, and is not all 'hyped up' as they tend to be over a big bed of hemp or whatever. Only experience will help you sort the genuine bites from the liners. Anyone who has ever sat through one of Ray's marathon slide shows will realise how much he promotes barbel conservation. To suggest he would use a method that enhances the risk of fish damage is laughable. If you get a chance to see one of Ray's talks, Barry, I suggest you do so (but take some sandwiches...)

Gordon

P.S. What am I doing running the Ray Walton fan club? He's big enough to - no, on second thoughts...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest barry ford
Originally posted by Gordon Scott:

Tetchy, me, tetchy? Never!All sweetness and light me...I simply tried to answer your points to the best of my abilities. N.B. I do not regard myself as an expert, although I'm flattered that you think I am, even one in inverted commas! "  biggrin.gif"

You've actually confirmed in your answer some of the points I made; there are occasions when line bites are all but indistinguishable from the real thing. If the line gets caught around a barbel's fin, normally the pectoral, and it bolts (like they do) it stands a good chance of being foulhooked. This risk has got be greatest in a baited swim when lots of barbel are thrashing around like mad things.

By the way, I'm only a part-time 'roller' unlike RW. The older I get the more sitting in one swim all day appeals to me, so I think I can see this issue from both sides.

Last point Barry. When trundling/freelining the bites often do take some reading. I assume this is because the barbel is less suspicious of a bait moving naturally in the current, and is not all 'hyped up' as they tend to be over a big bed of hemp or whatever. Only experience will help you sort the genuine bites from the liners. Anyone who has ever sat through one of Ray's marathon slide shows will realise how much he promotes barbel conservation. To suggest he would use a method that enhances the risk of fish damage is laughable. If you get a chance to see one of Ray's talks, Barry, I suggest you do so (but take some sandwiches...)

Gordon

P.S. What am I doing running the Ray Walton fan club? He's big enough to - no, on second thoughts...

Your obviously a Ray Walton groupie Gordon rolleyes.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest barry ford
Originally posted by Steve Randles:

Barry...Having just spent the afternoon with Mr Walton, I feel I need to comment on a couple of things.

 

Firstly, Ray "Buries" the hook in the piece of meat that he rolls.Impossible to foulhook fish.

 

Next, he uses braid for its bite detection qualities and he uses this on a centrepin.

 

Ray recounted to us all about when fishing the river wye how it is full of boulders and when retrieving "normal tackle" they would snag up, pull for breaks, and therefore leave baited hooklengths in the river,he did not like this option, so he went for braid.

 

He uses the braid all the way through to the hook, and uses plasticine on the braid as weight therefore lessening the chance of snagging up and leaving baited tackle in the river....rather forward thinking to me !

 

Finally,30lb braid has the same thickness as a 6lb mono, this is used in the flow to move the bait through the swim and when a fish strikes it can freely take line from the "pin".

 

Tight lines

 

Steve Randles

 

Hi Steve

Thanks for your response,however I do not agree that burying the hook stops all foul hooking as you suggest,and the use of 30lb braid may help against water pressure but it is nomaly used because it allows stonger lines to be used because of the lower diamiters. Gordons argument that a 1lb test rod and 30lb braid is safer than a stonger rod and lighter line is in my view a flawed statement fo obvious reasons.

Cheers Barry.

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by barry ford (edited 03 September 2000).]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest STEVE POPE

Hi Barry,

 

You have raised a very interesting topic, one which has many ramifications. I'm just on my way out to pick up a copy of A.T.,(I left my copy at my caravan on wednesday.)to read exactly what was in the article.

I've spoken to Ray about this question of balanced tackle before so he is aware of my views. I'll be back soon...........

 

See Ya,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Steve Randles

Barry...Your quite right, no matter how you bury a hook you will not stop foul hooking.

 

It has to be then said that this method is on a par with others in the chances of snagging a fish.

 

In Rays defence, he did not give all away as to how he hooked his bait, but yesterday he fished two swims...5 or 6 casts in each and the bait did not come off untill he took it off!

 

I too read the article and thought this method was flawed, not any more.

 

Gordon is right in saying that Ray is very conservation minded, he explained the reasoning behind his tackle (ooh er) and no-one was left in any doubt whatsoever.

 

Ray did not "bait up" as most anglers do,prefering to trundle the bait to waiting and watching fish with a lump of meat totally encasing his hook.

 

He uses a sidecast centrepin so no violent casting would dislodge the hook from the bait.

 

After watching him fish and hearing his explanations for all that he was doing I would have to say that it is probably much safer to the fish than many other rigs that seem to be condoned in the angling press.The double loop feeder rig springs to mind here.

 

Ray is offline at the moment for various reasons, but will be back soon to post here.Maybe when he is you could revive this thread and talk direct to him.

 

Tight Lines

 

Steve Randles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Gordon Scott
Originally posted by barry ford:

...Gordon's argument that a 1lb test rod and 30lb braid is safer than a stronger rod and lighter line is in my view a flawed statement for obvious reasons...

What I meant by this is that regardless of the line you are using, be it 10 - 30 - 300lb. bs, you will only exert a pull on the fish that the rod is capable of. No-one but a total doughnut is going to pull and pull until the rod explodes! Whereas if you were using say a 3lb. T.C. rod and 5lb. line you'd run a very great risk of breaking off. No more than this. Sorry, perhaps I'm thick as well as being a tetchy "expert", but I can't grasp the 'obvious' reasons that you mention that this is a flawed statement. Could you elaborate?

Ta, Gordon (the T.E.)

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by Gordon Scott (edited 03 September 2000).]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We and our partners use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences, repeat visits and to show you personalised advertisements. By clicking “I Agree”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However, you may visit Cookie Settings to provide a controlled consent.