The fish are "too big"

[Ron Clay]

Have any of you read Angling Times today? On pasge 5 is a report entitled "Small Carp Back - a popular move"!!!
A guy named Roger Sythe is quoted as saying : The fish are getting too big for conventional match and pleasure anglers tackle". Can you really beleive that? What is "conventional tackle"? If the fish are big, all it means is that you should step up your tackle and learn how to play them. Or maybe the standard of angling in the UK has now got so bad that anglers don't know how to handle big fish?
Not only that, I thought that the whole idea of angling is to catch a darned great fish. Our values have been changed topsy turvy if the statement by Mr. Sythe is true.
I can understand the match anglers who want to fish the pole, but why not stock with roach, instead of thousands of little carp?
That report just does not make sense. When I mentioned it to a friend of mine in South Africa on the phone this morning, all he could tell me was that the poms are stupid anyway.

 

[Carp Angler]

Now I don't want to give the wrong impression here Ron, but I tend to agree with you.

 

[Rob Brownfield]

Ron, the reason Roach are not stocked is because of what has been said before. The skill in angling is going, U stock a small muddy puddle with small, young carp and u are on to a winner. They are a very hungry, competative fish, and they dont seem to slow down in the winter. If you have ever kept Carp in a tank or pond, you will know what i mean about them being greedy.

Roach can switch off, you need a bit more skill to keep a shoal interested, and you cant amase large weights quickly. I hate seeing carp cramed in keepnets, but thats what these guys do.

I hope a match angler can put across his point of view here, i would be interested to hear what they think.

 

[John Tait]

I think that what they are saying is that it takes the match anglers too long to land a decent-sized carp, even on `carp-crunching` gear.

The buggers can't have it both ways, can they ?? They want big weights, in as short a time as possible - therefore, big fish are the answer. But the big fish take too long to land, or cannot be landed, and so they now want them all shrunk.

Oh, well . . . . . .

 

[GrahamM]

I've done a bit of match fish in the past and still do a little - it helps me to know what I'm talking about......

Match anglers want lots of bites. They also want the fish to be a reasonable size when possible, but not so big they spend half the match trying to land them while the fish plough through about half a dozen pegs either side of them.

The reason they don't use gear that will land them more quickly is because of the time of day they fish and the fact that they're fishing with an angler no more than 15yds either side of them and at least dozens of other anglers around the lake. Heavier gear doesn't get bites and win matches.

Because the competitive attitude to fishing isn't the same as the specialist attitude doesn't mean they're too dumb to know that heavier gear lands fish faster. They're good anglers and clever enough to know that heavy gear is no good unless you can hook the fish in the first place.

Competitive fishing also means that the total catch and the pot is far more important than the flowers around you and the means to win the pot. So match anglers are not bothered if they have one carp for 20lb or 10 carp for 20lb. By fishing light to attract bites it just means that it's a lot easier to catch 10 2-pounders than it is to catch one '20'.

So a lake full of 2-pounders is far more desirable than a lake one tenth full of 20-pounders.

In spite of the attitude I've described, Match anglers also enjoy their fishing, and enjoyment to them is lots of bites and smaller fish through the five hours they fish rather than four hours of waiting and one hour playing a fish.

So the move to provide the matchmen with more but smaller fish makes a lot of sense if you can just look at it from their point of view rather than anyone elses.

The fact that we might disagree with the concept is neither here nor there in the context of this debate.

 

[Rob Brownfield]

I get ditressed when I read articles about getting smashed 5 times before landing a fish etc. This "seems" to happen a lot if what I read is true.

I am sorry, but if I was getting smashed all the time, I would not want to broadcast the fact that I dont care about the fish with hooks and line in them.

What do u guys think?

 

[Rob Stubbs]

I have to agree on the getting broken thing. I can seriously say I've never been broken by a fish, except in the case of bars or snags. It is bad angling to keep getting smashed by fish, and also no good to the fish.

IMO Match fishing should be for smaller fish and not carp. If I go match fishing I don't want to catch carp, if I did I'd go to one of my syndicate lakes. You end up going down the road of big nets of big fish (which shouldn't be in a keepnet in the first place) etc.. The 'muddy holes in the ground' are not in keeping with the true spirit of angling and end up more akin to a put and take trout water.

Rob.

 

[GrahamM]

Most match anglers would agree with Rob, that match fishing should be for smaller fish. There is a lot more skill required catching lots of smaller fish than one bigger (not specimen) fish anyway in match fishing conditions.

And I agree that there is no merit whatsoever in being broken. It is not an indication of angling skill nor is it good for the fish. But losing fish isn't exclusive to matchmen by any stretch of the imagination.

The 'muddy holes in the ground' may not be in keeping with the true spirit of angling but they're doing more to attract youngsters into angling than any other type of water. They provide just what they need to start them off - plenty of bites, lots of fish, and an opportunity to learn tackle skills which are difficult to learn on waters where bites are at a premium.

Many experienced anglers may not like the carp holes, but they do fill a place in angling in this day where young people expect instant results in everything.

If they don't get instant results they take up something where they can.

 

[Rob Brownfield]

Graham, fair comment about attracting youngsters.

I am surrounded by man made trout waters and it makes me laugh to see some of these anglers. Every fish they catch is the same size, with no fins, and no clue!! Thats how I see some of these carp pools.

I know I may have some strong oppinions on the subject, but I hope something is done about grossly overstoked puddles, for the sake of the fish!!

 

[Ron Clay]

I have fished a number of stocked trout lakes. Some are downright awful. Others are truly superb and provide an excellent test of skill for the true fly fisher. I don't think it's possible to lump them all together.

 

[GrahamM]

You're right Ron, and the same thing applies to some of the 'carp holes'. There are some real shockers, overstocked as Rob says, with fish in poor condition. But there are others which are really well managed and the fish in excellent nick.

The answer, as always, is in the hands of the angler. Boycott the bad ones (and tell them why) and support the good ones.

Trouble is, how many anglers who frequent such waters actually care about the condition of the fish?

 

[Rob Brownfield]

Ron, I was refering to the trout waters here in the North East of Scotland. ?20 to catch a couple od 2 pounders with no fins!!...Bloody oil business here...makes everything very expensive.

 

[Ron Clay]

"Scotland" I thought you would have a plethora of rivers and streams up there on your doorstep. Seriously, around Sheffield we have some very nice trout fisheries where you don't pay more than ?13.00 for four fish plus catch & release. With one exception (and he has put his house in order lately) we don't get nasty looking trout. I regularly fish a small lake near Rotherham who charges me ?8.00 for two fish plus C&R. Last year I caught several fish over 7 lbs including a 13 pounder that had been in the water for nearly 3 years. An absolute belting fish, fully finned, it was taken on a dry fly (klinkhamer Special)

 

[Rob Brownfield]

Ron, we have the Aberdeenshire Dee, which is not a very good trout river at all, and the Salmon runs are terrible thanx to overfishing (by rod and line also!!), the Don, which is justifiably a very famous brown trout river, but, is syndicated out for much of its fishing, and various streams etc which hold small brownies. I love stalking a trout with a wee 6 foot fly rod, and even a 12oz trout is a joy if it is wild, but many waters are just no go areas. There is a concerted effort to open up more public fishing, but when u have retired majors queing for the fishing, its going to be a difficult journey. Money talks in these parts....too much!!

 

[Jon Moores]

Rob

I think you overstate the case. I am a member of a club in your area which offers great value Sea Trout and Salmon. In fact I keep the annual subscription going just to visit on holiday such is the value. There is good association water in many places which will yield more fish to an experienced local than the expensive beats will to a visitor.

 

[Birds Nest]

I've seen a couple of threads recently that seem to be having a pop at the younger generations, or people new to fishing today. Comments such as "Or maybe the standard of angling in the UK has now got so bad that anglers don't know how to handle big fish?" annoy me a little. If this is your oppinion why not aim to do something about it, I imagine the ACA are keen for new coaches. Grrrr.... And the dove's right up again....

 

[DAVE COOPER]

Birds Nest

I think you mean NFA or PAA, rather than ACA. But I take your point.

However, it's not only (or even) youngsters that need coaching. We have a lot of older people that go fishing that need help in all areas.

I for one would love to do a coaching course, but the PAA (Professional Anglers Association) only make them availabel to people who want to be professional coaches. I have another day job and don't want to coach professionally (well maybe if I thought I could make a half decent living at it). Is there any schemes that run coaching qualifications for non-professionals?

 

[Birds Nest]

Thats the combo of letters I was looking for...... I take your point about work and the likes..

 

[Rob Stubbs]

Graham,
My point with regards 'muddy holes' was really a reference to the overstocked match type waters that are a negative aspect of fishing today. The worse of these waters are wholly artificial enviroments and cannot be classed as fisheries (IMHO). As it happens the SACG have recently uploaded a couple of discussion documents on this issue on their site (www.sacg.co.uk). If you're interested I can let you have a copy for this site.

Rob.

 

[Jonathan Faro]

Hi
Um I think the carp lakes should be available for all. Come omyou can't expect some kid on his first trip down there to handle some 20 lb fish which has decided to emigrate. Its not gonna encourage them it's goiung to scare the living excriment out of them. Match anglers should stick to match pools and not go fishing in lakes with big carp and big carp should be moved out into a specimen lake. Anyway what with these new poles that are designed to hook a buffalo adn bhully them into the net the lines are getting blured.

Jon