Would it become predictable?

[sagalout]

If you had a house where the garden backed onto the canal/river giving you a private swim to feed and fish, do you think that the ability to feed and fish the swim at will would make it predictable and spoil the enjoyment?

 

[Lord Paul of Sheffield]

yes i think it would , after a while you'd want to explore other swims

 

[little oik]

It would depend on how big the said house is and how much land it has .

 

[barbelboi]

I'm sure that I'd be able to deal with the problem if I was to find myself in that situation
Jerry
PS, ditto LO's post, Now the Wasing estate, nice big house, four miles of Kennet and two and a half of the Enbourne...........................:w

 

[itsfishingnotcatching]

Probably be determined by the cost of insuring property against floods

Regular feeding should draw different fish into the swim so not totally predictable but I'm with Lord Paul, sometimes you can have too much of a good thing.

"Now the Wasing estate, nice big house, four miles of Kennet and two and a half of the Enbourne..........................."
Downsizing Jerry

 

[sagalout]

I was thinking of a single swim sized plot. I suppose you could vary how well it fished by varying the feed. I suspect a single swim would become mind numbing.

Are the fish still "wild" if you feed every them day? Would you be setting yourself up for some new records?

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

**** Walker bought a house witha small river running by the back garden and his intention was to fish it. I believe that after feeding it for some time he felt that the fish were more like pets and never did cast a float for them.

Another chap who used to post on here had a place by the Thames in Oxford. In 1997 he found out the disadvantages of having a house by the river when it flooded. He did say though that he was baiting up a likely looking swim behind the settee.

My 'friend' has such a place now on the Kennet, he catches the barbel in there, good fish too. Don't know what his feelings are these days, if the novelty is wearing off or not. I'll ask him sometime.

 

[aebitim]

I was fortunate enough to be in this situation for a while and it was nice to sit by the river and not fish. From the fishing point of view a few hours fishing now and then was great, feeding the river increased the number and species up to a point. The best bit was being able to offer friends and their kids a chance to catch a few fish.

 

[Titus]

My father in law had a place bordered on one side by the Montgomery canal and on the other by the Severn, I did have the odd dabble for the trout in the river but I would no more fish the canal than I would fish my garden pond.

 

[chub_on_the_block]

It would be nice to find out if I could get bored with it. It would limit the roving approach unless you got on with the neighbours. Sods law dictates of course that the killer swim would be about three houses upstream beyond impenetrable snags/overhangs. The swim available would naturally be empty of fish except when you are away on holiday and the neighbours describe the huge chub and barbel they saw while you were away.

 

[little oik]

My Father nearly bought a house backing on to the Wey back in the early Sixties but it was well over budget by about 500 quid so couldn't get the finance. Had to suffer a normal pre-war semi instead

I this day and age that probably sounds ridiculous but hey ho

 

[barbelboi]

My 'friend' has such a place now on the Kennet, he catches the barbel in there, good fish too. Don't know what his feelings are these days, if the novelty is wearing off or not. I'll ask him sometime.

If I'm thinking of the same person as you Jeff I shouldn't think it's wearing off - certainly wasn't on the first day of the season anyway
Jerry