Barbel or mullet

[Jim Murray]

when I mean deeper i mean around 3-5ft I've never had them over deep water and do not know any one who has.

Sounds like you don't have enough experience of the species then to discount anothers' opinion as "rubbish".

 

Moving on...what I was getting at was when you have a sizeable carp, pike, mullet or barbel etc. over very shallow water where there may be barely enough to cover the fishes' back then that is the scenario I was talking about. They just can't get enough steam up to build momentum and can be turned sometimes fairly easily.

 

Jim.

[Tony U]

Jim

It's not me that is trying to compare Apples with Pears; define for me deep water, 5ft is deep enough for me or do you mean over 20 fathoms?

Edited July 17, 2007 by Tony U

[Tony U]

Tony, You do now!

 

On one occasion we were out after tarpon and spotted some bonefish in water that ranged from about 6 to about 18 ft depth. A bit too deep to wade.

 

Fortunately I had a #6 outfit with me, and Norma and I took turns with it and got a dozen or so bones.

 

They were not that big, but the fight...........

 

I heard Norma describe it on the telephone to a friend "You think you have hooked a monster, and then when you get it to the boat, it's not much bigger than a herring".

 

Vagabond

My last Bone was caught off Cayo Paradon Grande it weighed all of 12-14oz took off on a fourty fifty meter run and took a good fifteen minutes to land on 8# gear this was in about 18 inches of water. Pity I could not find his bigger brothers and sisters. Another angler at our Hotel had and eight pounder the day before, his first Bone again in very skinny water.

My Cuban guides taught me that Bones will generally only confidently feed in shallow water as this reduces the risk of predation, I don't think they look for them over the really deep drop offs as they worry about Barracuda and the like. I will get them to have a look next time I am out there.

 

Tony

Edited July 17, 2007 by Tony U

[Steve Burke]

I've caught both mullet and barbel, but not enough to be able to give an expert answer. However on the basis of my somewhat limited experience I'd go for mullet - by a mile. They don't only fight hard, but often just when you think you've got them beaten they go berserk and you've got to start all over again!

 

I wonder if the water clarity is also a factor? Certainly perch in clear water often fight a lot harder, even from the same venue. Certainly a lot of visitors to Wingham have commented about the fight from my perch.

 

Any thoughts anyone?

[Dick Dastardly]

I would definately agree that water clarity has a marked affect on all fish's fighting abilities.

 

Been thimking hard about this one and maybe the best answer I could have given would have been that Mullet can fight harder than barbel but barbell are more consistant.I mentioned the couple of poor fights Ive had from thin lips and the more Ive thought about it I remember a poor one from at least one thick lip.These in reflection were all in cloudy water.Can't really say Ive ever had a poor fight from a barbel in any conditions (not caught a still water one though).

 

As for the depth issue,Ive caught Mullet in both shallow and deep water (50'+) in numbers and can confirm they fight as well (if not different) in both.

 

Worth bearing in mind that no fish can "sound" in shallow water so the only way they can put distance between them and the angler is to "run".Having caught several tropical species that have reputations for their fighting qualities I would say that shallow water fights are more spectacular where deeper water fights are more prolonged. As a previous poster (Dave/Chesters?) said its just down to the angles really.

[Tony U]

Budgie

Don't you find that as playing a deep sounding fish is more of a slugging match, you tend to remember the spectacular runs and jumps of a fish caught in skinny water.

I am not proposing that one is better than the other only, more memorable, which may be the point I crudely struggled to make to Jim (Sorry Jim).

 

Tony

[Anderoo]

I'm not qualified to comment on either mullet or barbel but I can confirm that the perch in Wingham fight far harder than bigger perch I've had elsewhere, even stripping line from a tight clutch! I also agree on the point about shallow water. The tench I used to catch at Frensham made long, hard runs in the shallow water, whereas tench from deep gravel pits are more 'ploddy'.

[Guest tigger]

Budgie

Don't you find that as playing a deep sounding fish is more of a slugging match, you tend to remember the spectacular runs and jumps of a fish caught in skinny water.

I am not proposing that one is better than the other only, more memorable, which may be the point I crudely struggled to make to Jim (Sorry Jim).

 

Tony

 

 

I've had quite a few Pike giving a good account for themselves in deep water and have often had a lot of tail walking. They where able to go high or low in the water making a good fight. They weren't slugging fights at all.

[Tony U]

Tigger

It mainly applies to sea fish (but it happens in freshwater to), you know when the fish just stays deep and its just pump and wind, pump and wind; landing it almost becomes a chore.

Where the Pike you hooked on the bottom or in mid-water? as that must make a difference to the nature of the fight?

Edited July 17, 2007 by Tony U

[corydoras]

Tigger

It mainly applies to sea fish (but it happens in freshwater to), you know when the fish just stays deep and its just pump and wind, pump and wind; landing it almost becomes a chore.

Where the Pike you hooked on the bottom or in mid-water? as that must make a difference to the nature of the fight?

I have only ever caught one biggish pike. I don't know how big it really was, it is more than 30 years ago but I guess it was 12-14lb. I caught it on a big bunch of worms, it did not fight, it was like dragging a bedsheet through the water.