I am puzzled

Ron Troversial Clay · Oct 5, 2004

In this week's AT, Des Taylor is saying NO to keepnets.

Not so long ago Des was championing the right for anglers to use them. He even stated that if you want to catch a decent bag of roach, a keepnet is vital or the returned roach will cause the shoal to take fright.

Personally I am not against keepnets for small shoal fish.

And Graham is one who has recently stated that the proper use of a keepnet does fish no harm.

However I get the impression that Des maybe trying to whip up some controversy.

I have seen him put barbel into keepnets before today.

Richard Lee 2 · Oct 5, 2004

I'm not sure he's trying to wind people up Ron, I think his experience seeing damaged fish in his net has caused him to rethink his stance. I believe he's ok with nets when used for short periods and when used with limited amounts of fish.

Ron Troversial Clay · Oct 5, 2004

Richard,

It's just that the section of Des's article which highlights: "Just Say No to Keepnets", gives me the impression that Des is now against keepnets - period!

Personally I am not against the use of keepnets. Match anglers use them all the time.

Baz · Oct 5, 2004

I have an old video with Des saying not to put barbel in keepnets,it seems He might like to change his mind now and again
I have seen and heard more controversy over the way some match anglers empty their nets than in any other section of the sport. And sometimes the amount they put in a net.
I think the word "MATCH" must put some kind of magic formula over the fish to protect them.
There are clubs where if a pleasure angler put fish in a keepnet, let's say in shallow water, they would be banned.
But it is okay when covered with the magic word "match".
Sorry match lads but it's true.

Ron Troversial Clay · Oct 5, 2004

Whenever I see the rule relating to keepnets: "except in matches" I often wonder what match anglers have that's so darned special?

It's outright discrimination in my view. To say what's good for certain types of anglers and not for others should not be tolerated.

What makes me even more upset is where you see a picture feature on a commercial fishery done by a certain "named" angler where it states that the fishery owner allowed the use of a keepnet in this particular instance.

Another case of blatant discrimination.

If it says "No Keepnets" lets have no keepnets, even in matches. And if the match anglers don't like it, let's have "No Matches."

Baz · Oct 5, 2004

At one time, if you caught a carp in a match, you called for the bank walker or official to weigh it for you, and it was put back straight away. Today it seems like too much trouble, so they get put in this magical keepnet.

Another piece of rubbish is when fishing for specimens, carp etc, a pleasure angler or specialist angler must have a suitable sized landing net and unhooking mat.
But a match type angler or somebody fishing a pole doesn't have to have any of these. Even though he may be useing number eights elastic, (just incase he catches a breem by the way.)
It's a load of crap.

Ron Troversial Clay · Oct 5, 2004

It truly is Baz.

I always carry an unhooking mat.

Peter Jacobs · Oct 6, 2004

Most of the match lakes that I have fished in the South have stringent rules to require TWO keepnets, one for Carp and a 2nd one for silver fish. Most of these lakes also require an unhooking mat as well. Take a look at Gold Valley for example they sell good quality inexpensive unhoooking mats as well as having a good stock of keepnets and landing nets.
I always set up TWO landing nets when in a match; one for shoal fish and another for the larger species and have noticed that this is the rule rather than the exception.

It seems like DT has had a problem with match fishing and match anglers after his disasterous claims (and equally disasterous results!) at the John Smith's match some years ago.

Any experienced angler knows that a well sited and properly staked out keepnet, used for limited periods, causes little or no lasting damage to shoal fish. For Carp etc. then a good sized keep sack or tunnel used for minimum periods w.r.t. setting up a photograph is aslo relatively harmless!

It is not keepnets that harm fish, it is INEXPERIENCED Anglers that do that!

Baz · Oct 6, 2004

More clubs/day ticket waters should follow that rule Peter. At least it would be an improvement.

Matt Brown · Oct 6, 2004

I'm really fed up with other angler imposing their beliefs onto others.

I'm currently fishing for nothing but Barbel, but will do some Chub and Grayling fishing when it gets really cold, so I don't use a keepnet currently.

However I think it's wrong of big fish anglers to impose laws on other anglers and I defend my right to use one should I wish to fish for Tench, or Dace, or Bream etc.

For many years I was a 'Pleasure Angler' and I used a keepnet most of the time. If I caught loads I'd weigh them, but otherwise at the end of the session I'd unstake the keepnet and let the fish swim out the submerged, open end.

As most people seem to agree, a properly 'operated' keepnet isn't much of an issue at all.

I do wonder about some people weighing and photographing fish though, especially large bags of fish.

How many times have I seen in the angling magazines where a nice bag of Bream or Roach as been neatly lined up to all face the same way?

Baz · Oct 6, 2004

I read the article on Des Taylor on the use of keepnets.
Is he trying to say that he never noticed any damaged fish when he used to put them in a net in years gone by?
Only when he has his own lake, he notices it?
Typically, I know a couple who fished the match circuits for years, happily putting their catch into a keepnet. Then one day they bought their own fishery, guess what? They banned keepnets. But still fish matches elsewhere and are happy to use a keepnet on someone elses water.
As for putting tench in keepnets, that is something I have been brought up not to do, or carp.
In fact it is in many a club rule book not to put either of these species in keepnets.

Baz · Oct 6, 2004

I also read in this weeks A.T. the story of cheating.
I know of one person in particular, who is a nobody anyway, but he couldn?t fish straight if he was set in concrete.
He cheated regularly on his mates, and they all knew it. To start he would always scrounge lifts to venues, and never use his own car, and this went on for years. The draw for the match was on top of a car bonnet, by picking youre peg number. I found out that his favoured peg number was always the one nearest the car ariel. So the organiser was in on it as well, which he was. I asked one week if the numbers could be put into a bag and shook up. All hell broke loose, accusations were being flung at me by the organiser, asking if I thought he was cheating. I told him it was a simple request and there was no need to get upset. But he still fiddled the draw, because himself and his co-bandit were always drawing the favoured pegs. The fiddles that went on were disgusting, and all for a ?6 win.
The organiser left through ill health after a while, and somebody else took over the running of the matches. This time it was a honest person. His first job was to get rid of the co-bandit, which he did. He caught him using a barbed hook. A small thing I know, but that was all the excuse needed after the years of cheating he had done on the other lads. He got banned from the club. He still is a horrible little shit.
BTW, he is claiming incapacity benefits as well, even though he goes laying 3x2 flags on the quite. I am only waiting to find out one of his jobs, and I will stitch him up good style. A lot of us know people like this, why do we let them get away with it?

The Monk · Oct 7, 2004

I`ve offen wondered why keepnets are round, why not a square keepnet, which would act like an underwater fish tank. It could be designed with strengtheners built in so that it was easy to fold

Matt Brown · Oct 7, 2004

Most of them are round nowadays.

Matt Brown · Oct 7, 2004

I meant square! Not woken up properly (Technically I've been up for hours, but no operating on full power!)

Jeff (Cheeky Monkey) Woodhouse · Oct 7, 2004

Square are better in rivers against a current where they might sit more firmly on the bottom. Round are better for fish as there's no corners for them to sit in.

Honest!!!

Gary Knowles 2 · Oct 8, 2004

Keepnets are fine when used sensibly. Like anything else though they are open to abuse.

Mark Wintle · Oct 8, 2004

Having read Des's article, it has the same conclusion that I came to many years ago with big roach. If you want to catch more roach in the long term in perfect condition rather than more on a particular day then don't use nets. See my article "Over fishing - May 2004" for the whole story.I took Des to task over his support of nets in Waterlog some years ago, seems the message got through.

My biggest concern is that many nets still in use today are very poor in quality, the "mono" change from the original soft knitted type invented by C J Field is the reason. Some of the latest "Fishery Approved" are much better, but how do you stop the use of the abrasive mono ones? Bream waters decline noticeably when nets are used extensively; this is hard to square with allowing match fishing on them.

Matt Brown · Oct 8, 2004

I still think almost all the damage being done is when the fish are weighed in bulk.

I've seen many match anglers slide the fish down the net and into a basket for weighing.

Alan Tyler · Oct 8, 2004

One of the best things I learned when I started fishing club matches was the way to empty a keepnet by pulling one side of the bottom-but-one ring through all of the others (having gathered them in one hand)to make a chute down which the catch can slide into the weighing-net.
BTW why shouldn't a fish sit in the corner of a net? If somebody booby-trapped my lunch, I'd probably want a corner to sulk in for a while!

I am puzzled

Ron Troversial Clay

Guest

New member

Ron Troversial Clay

Guest

Banned

Ron Troversial Clay

Guest

Banned

Ron Troversial Clay

Guest

Moderator

Banned

Member

Banned

Banned

The Monk

Guest

Member

Member

Jeff (Cheeky Monkey) Woodhouse

Guest

Gary Knowles 2

Guest

Well-known member

Member

Well-known member