Andy Little.....WHY?????????

[Severn Wolf]

Being a bit behind the times I had a quick glance through the Anglers Mail (first time in years) dated 1st March.

 

A few pages in was a photo of Andy Little holding a 14+ barbel, fair play to the guy, its a great fish. Reading the snippet further it turns out that he caught the fish intentionally using a 1lb 14oz hooklength. Now, forgive me for taking a moral high ground on this but the guy should be chucked off the stretch if he thinks that is acceptable tactics for catching such fish. Ok, the Mail do say that he `has a lot of experience playing big fish on light gear` so that would indicate that this is not a one off but a regular practice. Just what sort of depths must he stoop to to get a hook in one of these creatures, using a pathetically undergunned hooklength should not be publicised, printing the fact in the national press is just as bad as Andys tactics themselves.

 

How many young anglers will be tempted to go and use a light hooklength next season because `if it`s good enough for Andy Little it`s good enough for me`? How many times will the stupid hooklengths come out the bag as soon as an angler goes half an hour without a bite?

 

I normally use hooklengths of that strength when fishing for roach on the river and am completely mystified why on earth an angler needs to be so desperate to hook a fish that you will have no control over just in the name of ego.

 

Andy Little, go back to carp fishing mate, you shouldn`t be allowed anywhere near a river.

[Alan Stubbs]

Hooray!

 

You've summed up my feelings about the irresponsibility of both some of the contributors and certainly the editor of AM.

 

I saw the last 2 copies - 2 week ago the Carp section was nothing more than a puff for Nash. Even the testimonials were given as quotes by Nash employees. (It made me wonder if that was because nobody had a good qord to say for Nash! But then again I am a cynic).

 

I wrote to the editor, Tim Knight, to make the point that with journalism that lazy, it totally undermines tackle reviews.

 

In his defence, Tim wrote back defending the thing - and he did it quite well. He did not, however comment directly on the Nash issue. His point about the Fox puff the previous week was that it was of interest to anglers as a whole and the trade particularly as they were releasing 250 new products in one go.

 

However, when a publication is as craven to the companies it's contributors act for in a consultancy capacity - and their article serve as a free advert for the tackle companies, it undermines their credibility as impartial judges.

 

In this particular case, I reckon Andy Little has done Fox no favours whatever, and the AM is just running true to form.

[Severn Wolf]

I have enough of `pick which hook is yours` after landing Severn barbel as it is, this is going to do the fish no favours at all!!

[Jim Gibbinson]

I remember Kevin ******** being criticised for fishing for (and catching) big carp (30lb plus) on 4lb line.

 

In appropriate circumstances, I have no doubt that Andy Little can successfully land big barbel on ultra-light line, and likewise that Kevin ******** can do the same with big carp - but 99.99 per cent of AT or AM readership do not have the expertise of anglers like Andy and Kevin. And that's the point.

 

I agree with those, therefore, who regard the publicising of such tactics as irresponsible.

[Peter M]

The reason that he uses such a light hooklength has more to do with presentation rather than putting fish off by the thickness of the line. I use 10 lb line minimum for all my barbel and carp fishing and i still catch. Andy was trotting and wanted a thin line so that the bait behaved naturally in the water. a fact that was not mentioned in the AM and an Art that most anglers are not used to using. the worries already mentioned in this thread are well founded, has anyone written to the AM on the subject?

[Severn Wolf]

Yup, I sent the post (slightly edited) to the Mail before it appeared on here.

 

The thing is if the conditions were such that fine hooklengths were needed then he should accept that the fish has the upper hand that day and go home. As soon as a bit of colour comes in the place give it another go.

 

For me there is no justification whatsoever for using tactics like this.

[Alan Stubbs]

Peter Martin:

the worries already mentioned in this thread are well founded, has anyone written to the AM on the subject?

Yes, but I won't hold my breath pending an apology or justification. 'A temporary lapse in sound judgment' as I described it in my letter was struggling to contain euphemism within the bounds of credibility.

 

I still can't see why he would have felt it acceptable to target a fish of that size on such light tackle, even less the merit in advertising it.

 

[ 09. March 2005, 01:45 PM: Message edited by: Alan Stubbs ]

[Peter M]

Alan saw your letter published in the Anglers Mail. Well done mate.

[slodger]

'I have no doubt that Andy Little can successfully land big barbel on ultra-light line, and likewise that Kevin ******** can do the same with big carp'

All the expertise in the world can't guarantee such feats, whether the anglers in question make print regularly or not. Of course there are some risks no matter what the tackle strength but most of us subscribe to the idea of not taking unacceptable risks. If this'd been a 'My way' article from a newcomer, they'd been crucified. Being a 'name' doesn't give you superhero powers.

[Alan Stubbs]

Peter Martin:

Alan saw your letter published in the Anglers Mail. Well done mate.

Pity it had been edited - a part added!

 

I was also amused that the editor was content to have the warning hidden on paragraph 4.