Barbel Fishing – Attacking the Swim

[cg74]

Save wasting the snotty ones, forward on here: The Tamar Otter Sanctuary, Launceston @ Cornwall Connect

As for the tench, nah it ain't worth worrying about; too small and a horrid pasty, washed-out example:
IT JUST ISN'T WORTHY!!

---------- Post added at 15:41 ---------- Previous post was at 15:29 ----------

I agree they are very important. Pound for pound they are the hardest fighting fish. But tench are the greenest and bream are the slimiest and most difficult to catch, so they are important too.

I hope/trust that you're referring to the tench when talking of fighting prowess?

As for bream being hard to catch; a myth dreamt up by bream anglers, even big bream aren't difficult; locate their feeding ground, fill it in with fishmeal based groundbait, small(ish) pellets, sweet corn, maggots or casters and chopped worms, fish in darkness......




...... You'll soon see how hard they are to catch; not very!

 

[Lord Paul of Sheffield]

Chaps - can we get back to barbel and stop discussing lesser species

 

[Mr Cholmondeley-Corker (PaSC)]

But you're easier to catch Colin

---------- Post added at 15:45 ---------- Previous post was at 15:44 ----------

Chaps - can we get back to barbel and stop discussing lesser species

Paul

It's the closed season, so now is the time to talk about normal fishing for while.

 

[Titus]

Bream......Now you're talking, my bream to barbel catch ratio is about 15:1 on the lower Severn and they average around 6lb with the bigger ones nearing double figures.
And these aren't your pale, insipid, snotty creatures you find on the lakes, these are the prize guys of the bream world, dark, muscular, heavyweights........
They still fight like a carrier bag though; you normally get three nods on the rod top, one as it picks the bait up, one as it swims off and a third when it falls over, then it's simply a case of cranking in the dead weight.

 

[cg74]

But you're easier to catch Colin

Who me, well ok you're right, I seldom try overly hard at being elusive.

 

[Dicky (Angling Trust PAC)]

Chaps - can we get back to barbel and stop discussing lesser species

Apposite as ever M'lud (thank gawd your bat-man has a way with dictated words...)

So do we have a concensus yet?

In the auld days debate was structured by many people proferring opinions and sharing experiences... and a balance of probality and concordance was reached...

The defence that 'you're not me, so you don't know' just didn't wash...

We have heard testimony so far on this thread from fisherfolk who have witnessed tethered fish found dead in the margins attached to this rig, a number of contributions from former match fishermen (80s-90s) outlining why they no longer use this rig, descriptions of much better fish-safe rigs, the usual barbel banter and FM bon homie and pPss-taking...

And still no reasonable explanation of why this rig offers an edge and should be resurrected?

 

[Mr Cholmondeley-Corker (PaSC)]

That's always the case ****y. Those that use the loop rig just make statements like "it's fine was use properly" or "it's fine when used with balanced tackle" - but never qualify what they mean by properly or balanced in this case.

At the end of the day if you do a risk assessment on the tether, er....sorry loop rig and a running rig then the the outcome is very clear.

When carrying out a risk assessment (in industry, but for any hazard for that matter), first you define the hazard.

In this case what is the hazard? The hazard is that a fish may become tethered by a snagged feader/lead after a mainline break.

So, what is the risk of this happening? The risk is the probability of the hazard occuring. This can be defined by a simple scale as follows:

Highly Likely
Likely
Probable
Possible
Unlikely
Highly Unlikely

So, lets do a risk assessment on a running rig and a loop rig.

What is the hazard?
A fish may become tethered by a snagged feeder after a mainline break.

What is the Risk (probability) of this happening?

Loop Rig - Somewhere between Possible to Likely. The fish will be dragging a fixed feeder around, so it's possible. If the location is snaggy then the risk of tethering is likely.

Running rig - Somewhere between Highly Unlikely to Possible. In the event of a mainline break the feeder the hook link and trailing line is able to pull free from the feeder, so the fish is only left with hook and line. However, if the feeder is somehow tangled and fixed AND the location is snaggy then it is possible for the fish to become tethered.

Conclusion - Although the running rig is not 100% fail safe (it may tangle) there is significantly less risk that a fish may become tethered when using it. On the other hand, the loop rig (by design) offers a relatively high risk of tethering a fish. This risk is increased in snaggy swims.

When the risk is identified (in industry) as anything other than low (unlikely/highly unlikely) then steps are taken to reduce or eliminate the risk. In this case there is a risk when using the loop rig.

What steps can be taken to reduce this risk? (the answer is easy, but over to you guys)

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

What is the hazard? A fish may become tethered by a snagged feeder after a mainline break.

So, how do you fish a float? A float that is trapped to the line by two shots (better if it's two sliding rubbers) or it's a stick float fixed to the line with 3 (or more) tight rubber bands. Then you have any number of heavy shot quite firmly fixed to the line so as to avoid them flying off at every cast and strike, so firm that smaller fish couldn't shift them.

Like I said in the opening of my article, there is no such thing as a 'safe' rig in fishing. Unless you -

• Don't use any heavy weights
• Don't use any hooks
• Don't use an line whatsoever
• And preferably don't use any rod or reel

That is the only rig recommended by P*TA. :wh :wh :wh


Got to say though, I do like the loop with the ring idea.

 

[cg74]

What steps can be taken to reduce this risk? (the answer is easy, but over to you guys)

Use barbless hooks:
Which have been shown to be fairly easily manipulated out of a fish's mouth, albeit the video footage I've seen shows carp ridding themselves of the hook but seeing as a barbel's gob works in a very similar fashion it's extremely plausible that the same outcome will be attained - a dropped (shed) hook.

The fish's ability to achieve this is grreatly improved with a short hook link (2' or less) and a point of resistance immediately above said hook link, (in your words) "over to you."

 

[the wise one]

I've always found barbless hooks to cause more damage to soft mouthed fish like Tench, than Barbed.

From my observations, the barbless hooks tend to twist and move, which 'cuts' rather then holds in one spot like a Barbed, but I'm sure you will have some snappy retort which shoots my theory down in flames

T.W.O

 

[Mr Cholmondeley-Corker (PaSC)]

Colin, your answer is going down the right lines to reduce the RISK of tethering. Using barbless hooks is a sensible, realistic measure that can be taken to reduce tethering.

On the other hand Geof's is a stupid answer and clearly not one of a thinking angler. Yes you are quite correct about the float Jeof, but we are talking about the risk of tethering regarding a feeder rig - no rig is 100% safe, but the point I am making (which you always conveniently, choose to overlook, is that the loop rig presents a greater risk of tethering than many other safer rigs (running, helicopter, etc).

Jeph, your posts on ths matter just reinforce my opening line on my last post.

---------- Post added at 11:44 ---------- Previous post was at 11:42 ----------

the barbless hooks tend to twist and move, which 'cuts' rather then holds in one spot like a Barbed,

How? The force applied to a hook is the same and in the same direction whether it's barbed or barbless.

 

[bennygesserit]

That's always the case ****y. Those that use the loop rig just make statements like "it's fine was use properly" or "it's fine when used with balanced tackle" - but never qualify what they mean by properly or balanced in this case.

At the end of the day if you do a risk assessment on the tether, er....sorry loop rig and a running rig then the the outcome is very clear.

When carrying out a risk assessment (in industry, but for any hazard for that matter), first you define the hazard.

In this case what is the hazard? The hazard is that a fish may become tethered by a snagged feader/lead after a mainline break.

So, what is the risk of this happening? The risk is the probability of the hazard occuring. This can be defined by a simple scale as follows:

Highly Likely
Likely
Probable
Possible
Unlikely
Highly Unlikely

So, lets do a risk assessment on a running rig and a loop rig.

What is the hazard?
A fish may become tethered by a snagged feeder after a mainline break.

What is the Risk (probability) of this happening?

Loop Rig - Somewhere between Possible to Likely. The fish will be dragging a fixed feeder around, so it's possible. If the location is snaggy then the risk of tethering is likely.

Running rig - Somewhere between Highly Unlikely to Possible. In the event of a mainline break the feeder the hook link and trailing line is able to pull free from the feeder, so the fish is only left with hook and line. However, if the feeder is somehow tangled and fixed AND the location is snaggy then it is possible for the fish to become tethered.

Conclusion - Although the running rig is not 100% fail safe (it may tangle) there is significantly less risk that a fish may become tethered when using it. On the other hand, the loop rig (by design) offers a relatively high risk of tethering a fish. This risk is increased in snaggy swims.

When the risk is identified (in industry) as anything other than low (unlikely/highly unlikely) then steps are taken to reduce or eliminate the risk. In this case there is a risk when using the loop rig.

What steps can be taken to reduce this risk? (the answer is easy, but over to you guys)

On all the assessments I have done I would have replaced hazard with business impact , that might be financial loss , loss of reputation , risk of injury etc.

The plain fact is however you fish there is a risk to the fish , so the plain fact is that soe would not see tethering a fish or the risk of tethering a fish as that much of a problem , especially if they have fished a potentially unsafe rig for years and not seen anything tethered.

Virtually every commercial I fish now insist on only running rigs, that makes economic sense , but I can understand how some might see a rig that is only potentially unsafe as really not being that much of a problem , after all they are only fish.

 

[barbelboi]

Colin, your answer is going down the right lines to reduce the RISK of tethering. Using barbless hooks is a sensible, realistic measure that can be taken to reduce tethering.

On the other hand Geof's is a stupid answer and clearly not one of a thinking angler. Yes you are quite correct about the float Jeof, but we are talking about the risk of tethering regarding a feeder rig - no rig is 100% safe, but the point I am making (which you always conveniently, choose to overlook, is that the loop rig presents a greater risk of tethering than many other safer rigs (running, helicopter, etc).

Jeph, your posts on ths matter just reinforce my opening line on my last post.

---------- Post added at 11:44 ---------- Previous post was at 11:42 ----------



How? The force applied to a hook is the same and in the same direction whether it's barbed or barbless.

Surely there is more movement with a barbless, with a barbed/micro barbed hook all movement stops at the barb. With a barbless hook movement can continue as far as the point where the fish may be lost.
Jerry

 

[the wise one]

Colin, your answer is going down the right lines to reduce the RISK of tethering. Using barbless hooks is a sensible, realistic measure that can be taken to reduce tethering.

On the other hand Geof's is a stupid answer and clearly not one of a thinking angler. Yes you are quite correct about the float Jeof, but we are talking about the risk of tethering regarding a feeder rig - no rig is 100% safe, but the point I am making (which you always conveniently, choose to overlook, is that the loop rig presents a greater risk of tethering than many other safer rigs (running, helicopter, etc).

Jeph, your posts on ths matter just reinforce my opening line on my last post.

---------- Post added at 11:44 ---------- Previous post was at 11:42 ----------



How? The force applied to a hook is the same and in the same direction whether it's barbed or barbless.

Its nothing to do with 'force', it to do with the twisting and turning of the fish, and how a barbless hook 'moves' around more than a barbed hook.

I suppose if we're going to get picky, a micro barb would probably be the best happy medium.

 

[cg74]

I've always found barbless hooks to cause more damage to soft mouthed fish like Tench, than Barbed.

From my observations, the barbless hooks tend to twist and move, which 'cuts' rather then holds in one spot like a Barbed, but I'm sure you will have some snappy retort which shoots my theory down in flames

T.W.O

The (getting) Wise(r) One, this will probably surprise you but I am in agreement but a barbel (the target species) has a tough rubbery, even leathery mouth, so negates the risk of the hook chaffing in its mouth, so barbless or micro barbed hooks are a good option for not damaging the fish and giving good scope for a tethered fish to free itself, IMO.

 

[Mr Cholmondeley-Corker (PaSC)]

A barb stops a hook slipping out when it is not being pulled into the fish by the FORCE exerted on it via the line.

Are barb does not prevent the hook waggling side to side.

 

[cg74]

Its nothing to do with 'force', it to do with the twisting and turning of the fish, and how a barbless hook 'moves' around more than a barbed hook.

I suppose if we're going to get picky, a micro barb would probably be the best happy medium.

Bloody hell, I find myself in agreement with you twice in consecutive posts and strangely enough picking up on your final (highlighted) line.
Has Dave R. done enough to counter the risks associated with his rig selection?
Yes, IMO he has!





I'll leave you guys to nit pick over the details, I'm finding this debate increasingly insipid.

---------- Post added at 12:26 ---------- Previous post was at 12:23 ----------

A barb stops a hook slipping out when it is not being pulled into the fish by the FORCE exerted on it via the line.

Are barb does not prevent the hook waggling side to side.

Oh bu99er it, one more post; are you certain of that?

 

[Mr Cholmondeley-Corker (PaSC)]

Yes, my education gave me a basic understanding of physics (no where near as advanced as Ron's of coarse, just enough to get me a degree in mechanical engineering and an engineering company) and the principles of force, pressure, stress, strain, statics, dynamics,kinetics, etc.

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

if they have fished a potentially unsafe rig for years and not seen anything tethered.

Exactly. The trouble with Mr Cracker is that he hasn't had that much experience of fishing in general (PaSC are just a bunch of very incompetent amateurs bulling themselves up) so just uses what he conceives to be 'safe' rigs and condemns anyone else that doesn't do as he says. One of the traits of megalomania, he must get this from somewhere.

I have never lost a fish by the mainline breaking during the fight, EVER. Hence my comment - used properly. That means a clean swim with NO snags. Using fine lines that balance, i.e.: a .20 - .23 mainline and a .14 - .18 hooklink - no stronger. Tie the knots to ensure that if a break occurs it is in the hooklink and as close to the hook as possible. Know the limit of the size of fish you're likely to catch from that venue. If anyone feels that the above is not for them, don't use it, but please don't condemn the many thousands of successful and highly experienced anglers throughout the decades that have used the methods safely.

 

[bennygesserit]

It should really be the choice of the fishery owner or those who run whichever club etc whose waters you are fishing , since the impact is felt directly by them ( discounting the fish of course ).