When I came back to Angling a little less than a year ago I was surprised just how many changes there had been.

A Carp Landing net was one with triangular arms about 30inches long.That was what RW used and although he was, at the time hoping to catch 20lb fish, a 44lb fish was landed in a net of that size.

I agree that if your waters contain fish of 50lb or 60lb then a 42inch net may well be a good idea, but, if your waters contain fish, as mine do, that never reach 30lb then 42 inch nets have a lot of disadvantages.

The only alternative that I have found is a 36 inch net, described as  a stalking net.

If a net is suitable for stalking then it must be OK, for all carp fishing.

Are the 42 inch nets simply what the tackle trade have decided we should all use or am I missing something? 

I use a 42 inch net  for carp , which seems ok for the size of carp on the " average" water , with carp up to 30 lb  , 40`s & 50`s , I can see the need for a 50 inch net .

But I don`t see the need to use deep nets for pike fishing , which I see all the time , to me the use of deep carp nets for pike are a danger to the pike and the reason behind this is :  you net a pike with a deep net , the chance `s are that as you net the pike , the hooks get caught in the net high up , with no support  , hence a hanging pike with a ripped jaw .

A bit off thread with this post Chris but something that I get pissed off of seeing .

Roto Fryer wrote (see)

big fish are very expensive and you should be prepared to catch the biggest fish in the lake and support it correctly if you catch it. 50inch all the time

Oh well, my 15" pan net will always suffice my needs then.

A 42" is more than enough for most waters in this country, I would have thought. I've seen carp to 30lbs landed in a 24" net and although they look a bit cramped, they haven't suffered any ill effects when returned. John Wilson nearly always uses a 24" pan.

My mate used a 36" for years until it fell apart - with a 40 in it. Tut-tut! Should have renewed it earlier - that was the greater sin.

Having once netted a 16lb pike (followed shortly by a 10lber) in an 18" pan - tricky but possible I find it hard to believe that a well designed 24" net (I use the JW designed Masterline ones) wouldn't handle 98% of the carp landed in this country. As for such large nets in fast rivers - forget it. I was struggling with the 24" net on the Avon at the weekend and a 42" carp net would be impossible to hold.

Furthermore the drawstring net is a lousy design for a number of reasons.

Les Clark ( not too proud to nick a good idea from anybody ) wrote (see)

A 24  pan Woody ? No way mate , that is way too small .

Les - Why?

24" is only the size of the opening of the net. If its a deep one (as JW uses) the fish easily fits comfortably inside. Its also much easier to control in the water. For me first choice when stalking.

I Will say though if I'm fishing overnight in a big open swim then a 32" to 40" triangular net would be first choice.

i use a similar 24 to mark and agree with his comments

Chris Yates used to net some really big ones in a tiny net..I think they even had some footage on the Passion for Angling series of a 30+ going in his tiny net if I remember correctly. 

Although I would not go as small as Mark is suggesting I think he has a point. In a river for example it can be a liability. I fish some places with some really big fish (sorry I don’t want that to sound macho it’s just a fact). I use a 42 inch net most of the time. In a current you try and handle a big fish and a big net…I have seen two anglers struggle…. even worse when most of your fishing is alone. One of the most laughable things I saw was a guy who whilst spouting off to me about the virtues of his brand new mega massive cat net (the thing was big enough to net Moby dick)  he had a run and then found it totally impossible to net it in the current as the net was too big, he simply could not hold the net and the rod. Someone should design a proper river Carp net unless someone out there already makes it….sure I could come up with a pretty good spec for one if any ones interested.  

I guess if you’re on a clean Stillwater with really big fish then a big net can be an advantage but even then I can think of occasions when a 42 inch net was almost too big to get between weed and the like.  

As maths was my strong point I have just drawn a to scale 42" net frame. A 24" round (slightly spoon shaped) just fits inside the 42" frame which has three wasted corners. A 30" spoon is actually bigger in practical terms. Furthermore you don't have the disadvantage of the cord which can bow under pressure and the spoon type net is far better in weedy water. The 42" nets looks big but it is an illusion.

I also stated 98% of carp landed. I see huge nets constantly being used on waters where a 20lb fish is a miracle if not a mirage and the average carp is often 6lbs with plenty of 10lb fish. These fish are much, much more common than 40lb fish that are not necessarily that much bigger in length terms than a long lean 15lb fish. I had a 19lb fish a few days ago that was probably longer than most 35lb fish caught in this country - it was long and lean (and mean!).

does it really matter what net people use? i quite often use one of my carp nets when trout fishing, just to raise a few eyebrows.....

what else can we moan about..... oh, i know

in the seventies, i used to use 4ft long banksticks. after some time away from the sport, i notice that people are using 12" ones. what is the world coming to?

last week unhooking mats

this week  landing nets

cant wait till next week to see what us carp anglers dont need !