Home | News/Events | News | The Go Fishing Show and Fish O'Mania 2009

The Go Fishing Show and Fish O'Mania 2009

By

Font size: Decrease font Enlarge font
Matt Hall, Fish O'Mania Champion 2006 and 2009 Matt Hall, Fish O'Mania Champion 2006 and 2009

Graham Marsden goes to Cudmore to see the show and the big match. Was it any better than at the NEC?

This was the first year the Go Fishing Show was to be held outdoors and following a few disappointing years at Birmingham's NEC everyone was wondering if the organisers had now got the formula right. And being as the show, which included the final of the prestigious Fish O'Mania competition, was being held at Cudmore Fisheries in Staffordshire, that lies a mere seven miles from where I live, I thought I'd better go along and see for myself.

So what is the right formula for the show? Ideally it has to be a showcase for British angling, inexpensive to visit, in a location that sits somewhere in the midlands, entertainment for all ages, comfortable and dry weather conditions, and a guarantee to please everybody.

Getting all those right is of course impossible, particularly the latter, and the weather is in the lap of the gods.

gofish09_01.jpg

                          Demo for preston Innovations

My visit, along with my grandson Calum and old mate Eric Barnes, was on the Saturday, mainly because we wanted to see the match lads in action in the Fish O'Mania final, so I can only give my views on that one day.

It was a good start to the day for the weather was dry and not too warm, at least it was until I left the show at around 3pm. We had watched the first couple of hours of the match and then decided to go back to my house to watch the remainder on TV.

gofish09_04.jpg

                   Dave Chilton with a demo of Kryston Bogey

The car parking was much better for the simple fact that it was free! OK, it was in a field and if you arrived an hour or more after the start of the show at 9am then you had a longish walk to get to the show area, for unlike the NEC there was no shuttle bus. I can't see anyone minding that after lashing out an outrageous seven quid to park at the NEC. Even following a few days rain around these parts the fields were no problem to walk on and in the gateways where you would have expected lots of mud they'd laid fine hardcore. On that theme the show area was muddy in places, but not to the point where it became ridiculous as it did at times in the old days at Chatsworth. Anyone who had any sense was wearing boots or wellies anyway.

gofish09_05.jpg

                          Matt Hayes draws his usual crowd

The stands were the usual mix of manufacturer displays and retail selling, but the demos by some manufacturers and celebrity anglers were much better as they were based on the banks of the many and various lakes that make up the Cudmore complex. The practical fishing demos I saw were well attended and it was easy to see what was going on as the banks sloped upwards giving everyone a good view.

gofish09_02.jpg

                                   The Shimano Stand

On the positive side the refreshments were cheaper than the NEC, but on the negative side there were far too few places to sit and have a beer or a cup of tea or coffee. We went into the beer tent to have a bite and a drink and had to wait quite a while to get a table and a seat. There was plenty of room for more tables and chairs and I think this is something the organisers should address another year. It's not too bad for the youngsters but us older fellas need to take the weight of our legs a bit more often without having to queue for it.

An hour after the start of the match we went over to watch the Fish O'Mania final. The set-up was impressive, not just the fishing but the technology that was used to beam the match into viewer's homes. The cameraman who was on top of the crane to get the overhead shot should be paid a king's ransom for that job!

gofish09_03.jpg

                             Steve Broad shows how it's done

The match anglers were a delight to watch, with obvious and tanglible skills being demonstrated as they fished hard for the £25,000 first prize. Many of the fish caught were barbel and it was interesting to hear one of them comment that those who have objections to stillwater barbel should come and see how the Cudmore barbel are thriving and the excellent condition they're in.

The video at the end of this report will give you a good flavour for the show and the match.

Results of the Fish O'Mania Final

Winner: Matt Hall 34.77kg
Runner-up: Rob Wootton 23.04kg
Third (and captor of the biggest fish): Mark Tullett 20.91kg

4. Adam Richards 17.54kg
5. Andy Power 15.96
6. Tony Curd 12.73kg
7. Edward Warren 11.85kg
8. Dave Swain 11.41kg
9. Mick Bull 11.15kg
10. Tony Robertson 10.75kg
11. Paul Christie 10.01kg
12. Chris Vandervleit 7.14kg
13. Peter Goodwin 3.26kg
14. Nathan Watson 3.07kg
15. Mark Stevens 2.95kg
16. Dave Roberts 2.65kg

Matt Hall, 47, from Awsworth, Nottinghamshire, became the first angler to win Fish'O'Mania twice and led from the second weigh-in. His first Fish O'Mania title was in 2003.

Matt won £25,000 and said:

"The title means a lot more to me than the money. To win it once is awesome but to win it twice is something else and I wanted it so badly. It's what I've always wanted since I won it once and no one had won it twice. I've pushed myself to do it and eventually I got there.

"The best thing in my eyes is Fish'O'Mania and I've been lucky to get through to the final four times. But I wanted to make amends after last year. A lot of people were saying to win 'I didn't see you catch any fish' but they weren't the only ones as I had to sit there not catching anything!"







By the Same Author



Rate this article

5.00




Comments (37 posted):

Mark Wintle on 22/07/2009 08:06:38
avatar
It's a shame it's so far away - an 8 hour round trip makes it just too far. But at least much of the rip-off of the NEC has gone. I enjoyed the video which was very high quality and the way to go for web content.
Merv Harrison on 22/07/2009 08:48:05
avatar
Watched the event on Sky, superb coverage, interviews whilst contestants were fishing because of 'hook-ups', to me, made it all the more enjoyable. Also friday evenings Tight Lines, on which Matt Hall was delighted to be fishing peg 16 an unfancied peg. Also pegs 14-15-16 providing the top three weights. As mentioned, the Barbel DID look in tip top condition. Re the venue, a circular pond with an island in the middle just does'nt do it for me, it just looked wrong.
Cakey on 22/07/2009 08:57:31
avatar
I watched it on sky also ,fell asleep here and there but overall it was good like your vid Graham nice to see behind the scenes
Mr Cholmondeley-Corker (PaSC) on 22/07/2009 08:59:45
avatar
a circular pond with an island in the middle just does'nt do it for me, it just looked wrong. Yep, me neither. It's 'that sort of fishery' that's done for angling what Macdonalds did for 'eating out'. In my minds eye I see fish swimming round in a cirlce like the rubber ducks at the hook-a-duck stall at the fair ground. ROLL UP ROLL UP.....
Graham Marsden on 22/07/2009 09:29:25
avatar
I agree about the circular pool, but you have to admit it's spot-on for the event, the cameras can zoom in for a front view on any of the contestants. Try to look at it from a match angler's/TV viewer's aspect and consider that match anglers, pleasure (casual) anglers, and non-anglers, are the target audience.
Poshpaul (Angling Trust and PaSC) on 22/07/2009 09:35:26
avatar
Good coverage Graham - think linking the Go Fishing Show with a fishing venue and event made sound "commercial" sense - sorry about the pun. Whilst these sort of venues are not generally my cup of tea; there are commericals which have made even the doughnut an attractive venue. Monk Hall Farm in Shropshire is a prime example of how a commercial venue can become "naturalised" by excellent management. Learned how to use my Heavy Metal from watching Uncle Dave rolling his bogies. However what was Nurse Cratchitt letting the two of you out .....rather a heavy responsibility for young Callum. And dressing Uncle Dave in light fawn slacks....tempting fate there! Excellent piece Graham Poshers:w
Rodney Wrestt on 22/07/2009 11:06:07
avatar
I watched it on T.V. too but I thought it was the slowest and least enjoyable one yet. I found the ones in Doncaster had a better atmosphere and there seemed to be more anglers catching in different areas. It was also strange that barbel were the main species caught over the head of carp.... and it was chopped worm and caster that held them in Matt's swim.
Graham Marsden on 22/07/2009 11:10:59
avatar
The barbel were in superb nick.
Rodney Wrestt on 22/07/2009 12:05:58
avatar
Yeah Graham, and they had packed in a lot of growing on since the last FishO, Tommy Pickering mentioned his surprise at how they'd grown on.
Mr Cholmondeley-Corker (PaSC) on 22/07/2009 12:11:33
avatar
But why did they NEED to put barbel in there? Surely the carp fulfill the large, hard fighting fish desire????
ED (The ORIGINAL and REAL one) on 22/07/2009 12:34:26
avatar
.....For a bit of variety,maybe ??
Mr Cholmondeley-Corker (PaSC) on 22/07/2009 12:38:17
avatar
Well if its for variety then they could throw in a few pike, catfish, zander, sturgeon, eels, mussels, terrapin, flounder, dog fish, cod, bass, etc too??????
Rodney Wrestt on 22/07/2009 12:52:35
avatar
Why not barbel? are they special?
Mr Cholmondeley-Corker (PaSC) on 22/07/2009 12:54:58
avatar
If you put barbel in a keep net for weighing later then there is a good chance that the first ray of its dorsal fin will get tangled in the net.
Cakey on 22/07/2009 13:00:30
avatar
thats why I asked on the Chavs v us thread about the 1/2hr weigh ins was for the barbel or for the TV
Graham Marsden on 22/07/2009 14:03:55
avatar
If you put barbel in a keep net for weighing later then there is a good chance that the first ray of its dorsal fin will get tangled in the net. I suppose that depends on what type of net you use. A fine mesh one like the match lads use for carp didn't seem to be giving any problems on Saturday. As for weighing in half-hourly at any of our matches I suppose it depends if we can organise it. Ideally we need a volunteer to rove the match length and do the job. I think it was for the TV Cakey.
Rodney Wrestt on 22/07/2009 14:22:01
avatar
If you put barbel in a keep net for weighing later then there is a good chance that the first ray of its dorsal fin will get tangled in the net. I see your point, their shape and length does seem inappropriate for keepnets, although they do have a separate retention system (I'm not sure if it's a wider keepnet or Queensford type setup) for fish deemed too large for the normal net and they can request an immediate weigh in of the fish, I'm not sure what the procedure is after that though. As Graham said though the materials used is fish friendly and knotless also the dimensions are larger these days than they used to be.
Bob Roberts on 22/07/2009 16:37:19
avatar
Having officiated at several matches on commercial fisheries I cannot see how anyone differentiates between the serated dorsal of a barbel and that of a carp. They both have them and small carp in particular are notorious for getting hung up in keepnets. On the subject of retention I have only ever witnessed one barbel die in a retaining system and that was in a Queensford of all things. I've yet to see a barbel keel over in a properly staked out keepnet and if I'm being perfectly honest with you, a Queensford is merely a small keepnet with a zip along the top rather than an open end. Whether it is even legal to use one is debatable because it doesn't meet the criteria laid down for minimum keepnet lengths. It is fashionable to afford barbel 'special' status when it is no more precious than any other. In my current blog: [url=http://www.bobrobertsonline.co.uk/]http://www.bobrobertsonline.co.uk I broach this very subject. Articficially reared barbel may yet be the saviours of angling, particularly on those river systems where natural recruitment is poor. But this comes at a price. Someone has to fund the breeding project and manage the surplus production in a way that is ecconomically sound and humane. Sales to commercial interests keep the price down and make the entire process viable. The option is to slaughter the surplus fish stocks. Which would you rather happen? Without stillwater barbel the future for running water barbel is jeopardised. Without running water barbel what's left in our rivers? Where are the shoals of small chub and dace, of bream and roach. Those goliaths we catch today are not getting any younger and face increasing threats of predation. Carp at the levels we see today are potentially unsustainable. They are not indigenous to the UK and the risk of currently known diseases and potentially ones we don't even know of yet could lead to a catastrophic collapse of our fish stocks. And then what do we have let? Bio diversity is essential to future viability of fish stocks and for angling itself, be that in still or running water. To ring fence one species does no-one any favours.
Rodney Wrestt on 22/07/2009 20:43:23
avatar
That's surprising Bob, the Q.R.S. has always been viewed as a safer prospect for specimen fish (as long as it's staked out correctly and the fish is facing the right direction), much safer than the older sacks that were/are? used.
The Piker on 22/07/2009 22:17:15
avatar
Barbel should be left in rivers.. They are not suitable for over stocked match mud holes..:mad:
Cakey on 22/07/2009 22:22:37
avatar
I wouldnt think anything is suitable for an overstocked match mud hole
peter crabtree on 23/07/2009 08:37:48
avatar
If KHV gets much worse,I think we will see most commercials stocking barbel instead of carp in the future.
Peter Jacobs on 23/07/2009 10:39:55
avatar
If KHV gets much worse,I think we will see most commercials stocking barbel instead of carp in the future. Which is probably the reason why they have been stocked recently - commercial interest over the well being of the fish. But then, in the last 15 years, what's new? I really am becoming quite disillusioned over with the way Coarse Fishing seems to be going.
Mr Cholmondeley-Corker (PaSC) on 23/07/2009 10:55:57
avatar
I really am becoming quite disillusioned over with the way Coarse Fishing seems to be going. Me too. I've used the analogy before, but look what Macdonalds have done for eating out in the UK. 'Give em what they want' and WE ALL end up with the same c r a p !
Rodney Wrestt on 23/07/2009 15:51:01
avatar
Barbel should be left in rivers.. They are not suitable for over stocked match mud holes..:mad: If you mean the barbel in Cudmore Fisheries I don't see any evidence of your argument, the fish are thriving, and growing well?
Cakey on 23/07/2009 16:53:14
avatar
Im with you Rodney and I wouldnt call Cudmore a mud hole
Bob Roberts on 23/07/2009 17:44:13
avatar
"That's surprising Bob, the Q.R.S. has always been viewed as a safer prospect for specimen fish..." Aye, but who's views are they safer? Few actually own one if truth be told. Most of those who promote their use are simply repeating the indoctrinated mantra. It's not based on experience. My own experience of the Queensford is indeed limited but one dead barbel was quite enough for me. I don't own one and wouldn't accept one if the manufacturers paid me to use it. Take a good hard look at at a Queensford and then ask a non-angler to compare the same QRS to a large match/carp keepnet and then ask the person who knows absolutely nothing about fish or fishing which offers more benefits to a fish... Chances are they'll say the big keepnet is surely better than that titchy little thing that has no ribs to support the middle. Will someone kindly tell me how the Queensford is not a keepnet in disguise? Is it made of different materials? Does it have better bracing or maybe lend itself better to staking out? Personally I cannot see any great advantages other than it having a zip in the top and a better system of release already exists. The concept of a keepnet that had a quick release bottom end has been around for years. It had no bottom and you simply twisted the bottom ring round twice and clipped it onto the ring above to seal it, unclip and untwist to release - which avoided fish having to be rolled up the net or lifted out in the oppsite direction to their scales and fins. We've been here before but those with their heads in the sand can't see that they're not only defending the indefensible, they're openly promoting it. I can't recall the last time I retained a barbel in anything but the landing net head - and then only briefly. But if you are going to do it then at least do it in the best retaining system available. And just in case you've not grasped what I and anglers like Keith Arthur have been saying for years, it's a properly staked out keepnet facing upstream.
Rodney Wrestt on 23/07/2009 20:04:08
avatar
"That's surprising Bob, the Q.R.S. has always been viewed as a safer prospect for specimen fish..." 1) Aye, but who's views are they safer? Few actually own one if truth be told. Most of those who promote their use are simply repeating the indoctrinated mantra. It's not based on experience. My own experience of the Queensford is indeed limited but one dead barbel was quite enough for me. I don't own one and wouldn't accept one if the manufacturers paid me to use it. 2) Take a good hard look at at a Queensford and then ask a non-angler to compare the same QRS to a large match/carp keepnet and then ask the person who knows absolutely nothing about fish or fishing which offers more benefits to a fish... Chances are they'll say the big keepnet is surely better than that titchy little thing that has no ribs to support the middle. Will someone kindly tell me how the Queensford is not a keepnet in disguise? Is it made of different materials? Does it have better bracing or maybe lend itself better to staking out? Personally I cannot see any great advantages other than it having a zip in the top and a better system of release already exists. The concept of a keepnet that had a quick release bottom end has been around for years. It had no bottom and you simply twisted the bottom ring round twice and clipped it onto the ring above to seal it, unclip and untwist to release - which avoided fish having to be rolled up the net or lifted out in the oppsite direction to their scales and fins. 3) We've been here before but those with their heads in the sand can't see that they're not only defending the indefensible, they're openly promoting it. I can't recall the last time I retained a barbel in anything but the landing net head - and then only briefly. But if you are going to do it then at least do it in the best retaining system available. 4) And just in case you've not grasped what I and anglers like Keith Arthur have been saying for years, it's a properly staked out keepnet facing upstream. Hello Bob, You've made several interesting comments in the last post, to be fair I do agree with most but to answer some of your questions: 1) In my case, I took the opinion of members on here whom I respect as people and admire as anglers, it would be up to them to step forward if they felt it necessary, who knows, they may have revised their opinion by now, but, I actually have 2 of Wol's version of the Q.R.S. they're excellent quality and I'm glad I got them when the opportunity arose (thanks again Wol) I'm not specifically a specimen hunter (the chance would be a fine thing up here) however I have found them useful in tight swims on occasion. 2) I'm not sure what you mean, the point with asking a non angler surly is that they wouldn't know what the benefits of either were? a bit like asking them the difference between fluorocarbon and standard mono?. 3) As above, I really don't know what to say to that???? 4) I do prefer to use a keepnet (as per my previous post) the direction of flow, depth of water and stability of the stakes are all imperative for either retention method but the reason I mentioned the Q.R.S. at the start of my posts was for it's benefits regarding outsized fish, match keepnets are getting bigger in both length and diameter but the length goes against them (IMO) as smaller fish can be persuaded to swim along the net to the mouth before release where as the aforementioned outsized fish cannot maneuver around, obviously lifting them straight from the top entry on the Q.R.S. removes this concern.
Bob Roberts on 24/07/2009 12:45:08
avatar
Hi Rodney The reason I suggested a non-angler is that they would use simple logic without any prejudice or tendency to support a widely promoted fashion. What are the dimensions of your QRS? Is this indeed a little bit smaller than a keepnet (in all three dimensions) or a whole lot smaller? Does it have any intermediate support rings? Would it meet the legal size requirements if it was called a keepnet instead of QRS - after all, they are made from identical materials, aren't they, including the sacking which has replaced mesh on many commercial keepnets today?
ED (The ORIGINAL and REAL one) on 24/07/2009 22:55:09
avatar
Barbel should be left in rivers.. They are not suitable for over stocked match mud holes..:mad: Aren't the barbel used for stocking commercials raised and bred in stillwater --and if so they're not really a river fish are they??
Bob Roberts on 25/07/2009 07:49:50
avatar
The majority of barbel in the UK today outside of the Trent catchment and some Yorkshire rivers are stocked fish, bred in captivity or removed from one water to populate another. Many, arguably most, river stocks wouldn't exist at all were it not for the EA breeding programme which uses river fish to strip eggs and milt but thereafter the entire process is carried out indoors. Contrary to perception the offspring do swim against an artificial current in the growing-on tanks so they are not reared in stillwater as some suggest. However, the entire operation is part funded by the sale of surplus production, in other words commercial fisheries go some way to funding the stocking of barbel into rivers. The alternative to selling surplus stocks is to kill them when they are two-three years old. Is that a better option than putting them in stillwaters? One more barbel in a pool is one less carp and the disease risk that it carries. And dare I ask, on rivers where barbel 'purists' target individual fish, queue up for prime swims, prebait heavilly with high oil and fatty baits, use multiple rods and erect bivvies for the purposes of long stay fishing round the clock, do these persecuted barbel 'swim wild and swim free' or do they receive MORE pressure than those in a lake? There seems to be a lot of hypocrissy spoken where 'the prince of our rivers' is concerned. :wh
Rodney Wrestt on 25/07/2009 19:11:21
avatar
Hi Rodney The reason I suggested a non-angler is that they would use simple logic without any prejudice or tendency to support a widely promoted fashion. What are the dimensions of your QRS? Is this indeed a little bit smaller than a keepnet (in all three dimensions) or a whole lot smaller? Does it have any intermediate support rings? Would it meet the legal size requirements if it was called a keepnet instead of QRS - after all, they are made from identical materials, aren't they, including the sacking which has replaced mesh on many commercial keepnets today? Hello Bob, Sorry about the delay in replying but I didn't want to guestimate too much as I haven't been fishing for a couple of years and my memory isn't the best :rolleyes:. I see where you're going with the non angler view but if it was explained about the problems encountered with outsized fish and limited maneuverability (even in a match) then they may revise there opinion. The dimensions are approximate but L36" W22" D18" it doesn't have intermediate rings but has top and bottom cords for staking both front and rear, the material is more like a soft carp sacking but the front and back have larger mesh to allow the water to flow through quickly. I think we may be talking at cross purposes here as I'm viewing the Q.R.S. as an addition to a keepnet not a replacement, for example in a match a double figure fish, yes it will go into a keepnet, yes, it'll be fine on it's own but when bringing in the net for weigh ins then the problems may occur, where as a double figure fish in a Q.R.S. on it's own or with one other companion the removal for weigh ins or photographs if not a match situation holds less difficulties .
steveb on 25/07/2009 22:49:39
avatar
The majority of barbel in the UK today outside of the Trent catchment and some Yorkshire rivers are stocked fish, bred in captivity or removed from one water to populate another. Many, arguably most, river stocks wouldn't exist at all were it not for the EA breeding programme which uses river fish to strip eggs and milt but thereafter the entire process is carried out indoors. Contrary to perception the offspring do swim against an artificial current in the growing-on tanks so they are not reared in stillwater as some suggest. However, the entire operation is part funded by the sale of surplus production, in other words commercial fisheries go some way to funding the stocking of barbel into rivers. The alternative to selling surplus stocks is to kill them when they are two-three years old. Is that a better option than putting them in stillwaters? One more barbel in a pool is one less carp and the disease risk that it carries. And dare I ask, on rivers where barbel 'purists' target individual fish, queue up for prime swims, prebait heavilly with high oil and fatty baits, use multiple rods and erect bivvies for the purposes of long stay fishing round the clock, do these persecuted barbel 'swim wild and swim free' or do they receive MORE pressure than those in a lake? There seems to be a lot of hypocrissy spoken where 'the prince of our rivers' is concerned. :wh Well said - I did not realise that most of the young stock is a result of over production from selling to commercials. Its very troubling that our rivers have such low recruitment of young fish. They must be too clean. I was on the Avon yesterday and there was a good number of fry about but not what there used to be 2+ years ago before the floods.
Peter Jacobs on 26/07/2009 10:26:45
avatar
Hi Rodney The reason I suggested a non-angler is that they would use simple logic without any prejudice or tendency to support a widely promoted fashion. What are the dimensions of your QRS? Is this indeed a little bit smaller than a keepnet (in all three dimensions) or a whole lot smaller? Does it have any intermediate support rings? Would it meet the legal size requirements if it was called a keepnet instead of QRS - after all, they are made from identical materials, aren't they, including the sacking which has replaced mesh on many commercial keepnets today? Firstly, let me say that I have no association with any tackle manufacturer. Now I was interested in Bob's comments enough to go and measure my Q.R.S. (which incidentally I've never 'lost' a fish in) and then compared those measurement with my Preston Innovations (Approved Lilly Water Mark keepnet - the results were: Q.R.S. h) 15" x w) 20" x l) 40" Preston Keepnet: h) 15" x w) 20" x l) metres (I didn't take it out of the bag totally) - but then one doesn't need to as the argument as presented appears to revolve around h) Height and w) Width. The staking arrangements make it unnecessary to have any intermediate rings - so that part of the argument is also moot potentially. As I said, I have no association with any tackle manufacturer, nor do i receive any good or items for "testing" so my experience is that of myself, alone, and based on many days when I've used both methods: a Q.R.S. for individual specimens to either recover or for me to arrange for weighing/photographing, and the Preston Keepent on many, many matches. As to meeting the requirements of a keepnet, it doesn't have to, as it is not a keepnet (a rose is a rose by any other name?) so that argument is somewhat moot as well. In the final analysis, I bought my Q.R.S. on the recommendations of a number of anglers on FM, who's opinion I hold in great respect, and have never suffered any problems when using mine. So, there you are, not the logical (?) views of some non-angler but mine and mine alone, but then what do I know, I've only been fishing for a little over 45 years.
Bob Roberts on 26/07/2009 19:42:28
avatar
Have to keep this short as I'm doing a little job for the better half on the computer but couldn't resist looking in (big mistake). We can call a QRS a birdcage if we like but there's no doubt in my mind it's a keepnet and although I'd agree it's superior to a conventional carp sack it sure as hell appears to be an illegal item of fishing equipment. The defence of, 'I've never lost a fish in a Queensford' begs the question, 'And how many have you lost in a keepnet?' Those barbel landed in the Fish'O final, by all accounts (I didn't see it), were in excellent condition and they are regularly retained in keepnets. Perhaps we should ask them to use Queenfords in next year's final and see what the reaction is? ;)
Rodney Wrestt on 26/07/2009 20:41:55
avatar
Have to keep this short as I'm doing a little job for the better half on the computer but couldn't resist looking in (big mistake). We can call a QRS a birdcage if we like but there's no doubt in my mind it's a keepnet and although I'd agree it's superior to a conventional carp sack it sure as hell appears to be an illegal item of fishing equipment. The defence of, 'I've never lost a fish in a Queensford' begs the question, 'And how many have you lost in a keepnet?' Those barbel landed in the Fish'O final, by all accounts (I didn't see it), were in excellent condition and they are regularly retained in keepnets. Perhaps we should ask them to use Queenfords in next year's final and see what the reaction is? ;) Bob, Are you reading the replies or just the parts which suit your argument?
Peter Jacobs on 27/07/2009 09:51:41
avatar
The defence of, 'I've never lost a fish in a Queensford' begs the question, 'And how many have you lost in a keepnet?' Sorry for the delay but it took me a while to search my records: I've lost 2 Barbel in keepnets, a 9lb plus fish that fought very hard in a strong current and despite nursing it for over 2 hours it simply wouldn't 'straighten up and fly right' so to speak, and a 4lb plus fish that was in the net for the last 20 minutes of a match - a match incidentally where I only manged 3 fish in total, the Barbel and 2 small 3/4lb Carp. After losing the large Barbel I sought some informartion from some of the long standing members here on FM and the nobtained my Q.R.S. Others will of course have had different experiences, I can only recount mine.


Add a comment

  • Email to a friend Email to a friend
  • Print version Print version
  • Plain text Plain text

Tagged as:

No tags for this article

Follow FishingMagic!