Fluorocarbon pike traces

[Rob Ward]

Trebles.

 

For me, that is the most important consideration in whether to use wire or not. If using singles, I don't see that losing a hook in an accidental pike is any worse than losing a hook in any other accidental fish.

 

I've been bitten off by pike more times fishing at Wingham fish-ins than everywhere else put together, but we wouldn't fish for tench with wire.

 

My sentiments exactly.

 

Trebles = Wire.

Singles when not targetting Pike = I've got no problem using mono or fluoro.

 

Yes there's a chance you can block a Pike's throat with a lure and a single hook but realisitcally speaking is it going to be far away from the chance of getting broken off? Probably not. Also how does this risk weigh up against weighing and photographing Pike, food for thought maybe?

 

If people are that concerned about fish welfare then maybe they should consider not fishing at all. I'd always advocate best practices but there's some grey area here and best left to the individuals discretion. I wouldn't set out to fish for Pike with anything other than a wire trace personally but I wouldn't have a problem dispensing with wire when using singles for other species - if I was getting bothered by Pike so much in that instance I'd probably be fishing in the wrong place anyway.

 

Phone does have a point - they are just fish and somewhere along the line we all made the decision that it was acceptable to tether them and drag them from their natural environment.

Edited April 6, 2013 by Rob Ward

[Dales]

drop-shotting on the other hand can only be done properly using fluro and the risk of pike is minimal. It's a far more static method which doesn't seem at all appealing to them and the vast majority that do get hooked are so neatly in the scissors. Though I don't accept the following as a rationalization, a small single hook is likely to cause very little damage compared to trebles or jigheads etc..

 

 

Tom, congratulations on mastering the drop shoting for Perch and avoiding the Pike. I and a number of other anglers in my local area have failed miserably to catch anything other then Pike on it. My success with the method works out at about 10 Pike to every 1 Perch and so I have given it up as a "Pike fishing method" I think I am doing it right and in the correct places, down canalised banks, bridge pillars, lock gates etc but all I get is Pike and so even though my intention is to catch Perch it must be a Pike method with very thin fluro. From reading posts on AN I am not the only one who get plenty of Pike on the method.

 

I totaly get Andy's view and understand his reasoning, his stance is very clear. I also understand those who except they are targeting another species and so they accept that they need to tackle up for that species and so accept they will get bio catch. However I don't understand your view, it comes across as do what I say but lets make an exception for something I like to do but no one else can do something similar.

 

You claim the risk to "Pike is minimal" when drop shoting, so I assume you have set an acceptable level of risk, Yes? and is that level of risk set on your experience? I was surprised to read your comments on drop-shoting and few things came in to my mind.

 

1, Tom has never used the drop shot method

 

2, Tom is a total liar liar pants on fire

 

3, Tom genuinely does not experience problems with Pike when he uses the method.

 

Been open to new ideas and trusting that why would you try to mislead anyone, I accept that how you fish and on the waters you fish then Pike is not a problem. Base drop shoting on my experiences then it is an out and out Pike method. I am happy that there are those who do use fluro for Pike with out the problems that many claim like I accept that there are those that can drop shot with out catching mainly Pike.

 

To be honest I don't find fishing with spinners, jigs etc any better or worse then drop shoting without wire but then I am not telling everyone else that the way they fish is wrong.

[Andy_1984]

Ive found perch to hang around under pontoons more than any of the places you mention Dales, on my local canal that is, obviously it could differ elsewhere.

 

Single maggot with all the shot under the float allowing the maggot to drop slowly always resulted in perch coming out for a gander or a bite.

 

Then ive jigged lures in the same place and it's always pike that come out for a gander.

Edited April 6, 2013 by Andy_1984

[Steve Walker]

Wingham aside, the worse situation I've had with bite-offs was fly fishing for perch.

 

Trying to do this:

 

 

And getting this:

 

 

Pretty sure those little flies wouldn't work for perch with wire.

[Dales]

Ive found perch to hang around under pontoons more than any of the places you mention Dales, on my local canal that is, obviously it could differ elsewhere.

 

Single maggot with all the shot under the float allowing the maggot to drop slowly always resulted in perch coming out for a gander or a bite.

 

Then ive jigged lures in the same place and it's always pike that come out for a gander.

 

Yeah, I ended up using maggots and they where very selective. Perch only

[Andy Macfarlane]

I've said it elsewhere and this subject has been done to death on umpteen forums for a decade or so. There is no reason to try using fluoro for pike....period. It offers up nothing that can't be done at present with wire, so by that reasoning, there isn't a single reason for using anything else. A piker uses fluoro for pike for reasons that only he can dream up. He can try to justify it any way he wishes but there isn't a rig or method that benefits from using fluoro, so it's use tends to be little more than a short-lived experiment, rather than a sound reason for altering perfectly sound rigs, already in existence.

 

As for drop-shotting. I'm sure drop-shotting does benefit from using fluoro and I can't argue otherwise but the hazards to pike are far less than they would be using conventional pike hooks and end tackle attached to fluoro.

 

By the same token, I know pike take lobworms but I wouldn't dream of using pike wire when targeting perch because I know the end tackle is tiny compared to conventional pike tackle and the risks are minimal.

 

I would also suggest that if that pike are present in large enough numbers that they'd become a nuisance on perch tackle, the perch themselves wouldn't be feeding anyway and I'd probably be elsewhere looking for perch that are feeding freely, without the constant worry that I'd put any considerable numbers of pike on the bank. Perch spook relatively easily and switch off the feed in an instant. Any considerable numbers of pike would simply be the end of the perch fishing. To persist would be a waste of perch fishing time.

 

If I was lure fishing for trout or perch and covering large enough expanses of water where encountering pike was likely, I'd use 24lb 49 strand, which in my mind, is more than discreet enough when using a moving target.

Edited April 7, 2013 by Andy Macfarlane

[Anderoo]

I certainly accept that if pike are the target species, it makes no sense at all to anything other than wire.

 

However, I do maintain that if other species are the target, it's often acceptable to use mono/flouro instead. Saying that wire should always be used in case a pike comes along is like saying you should always use 15lb line, a big strong hook, and a powerful rod for roach, just because the biggest fish in the pond is a 30lb carp.

[John Weddup]

comes along is like saying you should always use 15lb line, a big strong hook, and a powerful rod for roach, just because the biggest fish in the pond is a 30lb carp.

 

As Dales quite rightly said put this on a one species forum and you would be slated for even considering using such light tackle on a water containing carp. And even though you are roach fishing you must have a 1metre square unhooking matt 42 inch landing net and carp medicare kit just in case.

 

A pike forum has been discussing the same tv program and fluoro. Amazing how those that break lots of others rules on live bait, no's and spacing of rods, guesting as they call it when poaching etc can be so high and mighty about using fluro when after perch.

 

John

[tomhaggett]

 

 

Your last paragraph is interesting, particularly as I mainly fish vintage tackle on freshwater and often in salt....I use old rods and reels, sometimes old lines, but, I invariably fish modern terminal tackle and, if I'm fly fishing for shark for example I use the latest state of the art gear..I could use piano wire traces and broomstick rods etc...but I prefer not to...it's called progress. Some people have no problems with alternatives to wire some do, as time progresses methods and materials evolve and are accepted...take 3lb test curve rods for carp for example, lobbing out bloody great sea leads...in stillwater! (ok, hardly evolution, more a retrograde step but you should get the drift).

 

Discussion of knowledge gained through experience is one of the benefits of this forum. There is no "end of" (and it is also awfully bad use of grammar).

 

Tight lines

 

I completely understand that things progress but I think that's irrelevant in this case. When a "progression" is putting our quarry at risk it can't be seen as appropriate. As Andy says, it offers no real benefit but does have the potential to do serious damage. Why take the risk?

 

 

 

Tom, congratulations on mastering the drop shoting for Perch and avoiding the Pike. I and a number of other anglers in my local area have failed miserably to catch anything other then Pike on it. My success with the method works out at about 10 Pike to every 1 Perch and so I have given it up as a "Pike fishing method" I think I am doing it right and in the correct places, down canalised banks, bridge pillars, lock gates etc but all I get is Pike and so even though my intention is to catch Perch it must be a Pike method with very thin fluro. From reading posts on AN I am not the only one who get plenty of Pike on the method.

 

I totaly get Andy's view and understand his reasoning, his stance is very clear. I also understand those who except they are targeting another species and so they accept that they need to tackle up for that species and so accept they will get bio catch. However I don't understand your view, it comes across as do what I say but lets make an exception for something I like to do but no one else can do something similar.

 

You claim the risk to "Pike is minimal" when drop shoting, so I assume you have set an acceptable level of risk, Yes? and is that level of risk set on your experience? I was surprised to read your comments on drop-shoting and few things came in to my mind.

 

1, Tom has never used the drop shot method

 

2, Tom is a total liar liar pants on fire

 

3, Tom genuinely does not experience problems with Pike when he uses the method.

 

Been open to new ideas and trusting that why would you try to mislead anyone, I accept that how you fish and on the waters you fish then Pike is not a problem. Base drop shoting on my experiences then it is an out and out Pike method. I am happy that there are those who do use fluro for Pike with out the problems that many claim like I accept that there are those that can drop shot with out catching mainly Pike.

 

To be honest I don't find fishing with spinners, jigs etc any better or worse then drop shoting without wire but then I am not telling everyone else that the way they fish is wrong.

 

I used the words "risk OF pike" not risk TO pike. One altered word and the statement takes on an all together different meaning.

 

My views are based mostly on my friends experiences. I'm happy to admit that I've not used the method 'extensively', so to speak, but I have seen it used enough to come to my own conclusions. I've only encountered 2 pike, both of which were hooked neatly in the scissors as everyone I'd conferred with on the method suggested they would be.

I have a fair few friends that I consider HAVE used the method extensively and they've experienced exactly the same.. very few pike and even fewer bite offs.

I stick to using small hooks for peace of mind but you can be rest assured that I wouldn't do anything that I thought may endanger the fish. Surely that's obvious from my strong stance on the subject?!

 

I totally agree with the statement regarding hooks but perhaps we should refer back to the title, "Fluorocarbon pike traces". That to me suggests using fluorocarbon as an alternative to wire for trace material and in my experience most traces incorporate trebles...

 

I stick to my view that anybody intentionally fishing for pike with anything but wire is in the wrong. They're one of the least hardy fish in British waters, why put them at any more risk than we need to?

 

Please understand that I would never preach to anybody about the way they fish in a normal situation, that's none of my business and far removed from my personality. Only when fish care and welfare is compromised do I feel the need to voice my opinion.

 

Apologies to anybody that thinks I may have come across as a bit of an elitist. I do tend to get carried away in the heat of the moment .

Edited April 8, 2013 by tomhaggett

[Worms]

 

 

 

I completely understand that things progress but I think that's irrelevant in this case. When a "progression" is putting our quarry at risk it can't be seen as appropriate. As Andy says, it offers no real benefit but does have the potential to do serious damage. Why take the risk?

 

 

 

 

I used the words "risk OF pike" not risk TO pike. One altered word and the statement takes on an all together different meaning.

 

My views are based mostly on my friends experiences. I'm happy to admit that I've not used the method 'extensively', so to speak, but I have seen it used enough to come to my own conclusions. I've only encountered 2 pike, both of which were hooked neatly in the scissors as everyone I'd conferred with on the method suggested they would be.

I have a fair few friends that I consider HAVE used the method extensively and they've experienced exactly the same.. very few pike and even fewer bite offs.

I stick to using small hooks for peace of mind but you can be rest assured that I wouldn't do anything that I thought may endanger the fish. Surely that's obvious from my strong stance on the subject?!

 

I totally agree with the statement regarding hooks but perhaps we should refer back to the title, "Fluorocarbon pike traces". That to me suggests using fluorocarbon as an alternative to wire for trace material and in my experience most traces incorporate trebles...

 

I stick to my view that anybody intentionally fishing for pike with anything but wire is in the wrong. They're one of the least hardy fish in British waters, why put them at any more risk than we need to?

 

Please understand that I would never preach to anybody about the way they fish in a normal situation, that's none of my business and far removed from my personality. Only when fish care and welfare is compromised do I feel the need to voice my opinion.

 

Apologies to anybody that thinks I may have come across as a bit of an elitist. I do tend to get carried away in the heat of the moment .

A fair post.

 

Would it not also be fair to allow experimentation in angling? After all we have reached the stage that we are at in modern angling technology through experimentation.

 

As I posted earlier I have caught many tope to 48 lbs using just hard mono, an equivalent line such as fluorocarbon, if proven to be abrasion resistant to the mouth/skin of a fish must surely be acceptable?

 

A number of skippers refuse to allow wire on tope trips, if a line is cut then the fish is left with a length of wire dangling from the mouth...as well as the hook. I have had hooks straightened (stopped using those hooks) have used barbless hooks (caused mouth damage so I stopped using those). I use what the skippers recommend, barbed single hooks with heavy, leader quality mono. I'm sure fluorocarbon will soon (if not already) reach the same strengths.

 

As I said earlier, i use vintage tackle wherever possible. I also use modern gear and usually fish very light. The best way to land the target fish is to be well prepared and pay attention at all times. Angling presents itself as many things to many people but, I think that on AN most are anglers that care for the quarry and also appreciate the sport aspect. Experimentation is not bad and is rife in all aspects of our pastime. Saying no to a method/technique because it has failed in the past is not necessarily a reason to reject it out of hand.

 

My point about turbot is relevant I think, ok, they don't have masses of tiny abrasive teeth but, with modern fluorocarbon, dragging it across sharp sand or shale and then hooking a sharp toothed fish and landing it successfully must point towards progress in modern line design.

 

Don't get me wrong but, the absolute criticism of a material that is being developed and proving successful in rigorous conditions does smack a little of...well...an attitude slightly older than most of my tackle?