Where do you draw the line?

I've been reading about the various dive videos there are on the market. I believe the Korda carp boys made the first?


Thinking about this aspect of modern angling:

Is it beyond the pale? I mean how far should we go to learn about the creatures we fish for? It seems a bit like cheating (For want of a more appropriate word.) to me. I have similar ambivalent feelings about the use of bait boats.

Isn't the big appeal of angling that there is always that element of the unknown? I know when I got 'hooked' it was the intrigue of what might be below the surface of the water that appealed mostly to me. Those hidden monsters and myths. These videos seem to take away a big part of the angling enigma to me.

If we wanted to catch fish at all costs we'd be using dynamite wouldn't we?

Just curious as to other people's perspective on this.

I know exactly what you mean Chris.

I find the videos that I have seen with underwater footage facinating, but I also want to retain that certain 'je ne sais quoi' that the barrier provided by the water's surface provides.

It is kind of like doing last week's crossword with the answers in front of you.

Each to their own though I suppose and I cannot fault someone for wanting to know how things work.

I agree, I've never been keen on "stalking" a fish in clear water, or seeing a fish take the bait. As Chris says, the enjoyment to me is the element of the unknown, pulling something up from the depths and not knowing what it is till it surfaces is what fishing is all about.
The videos are interesting and give a good idea what's going on under the water, but for me that's going far enough.
Each to his own though

Completly agree ,they put me off after watching one ,It kind of ruined a bit of the magic.Plus who want there brew making interupted all the time by fish after fish .huh.

I agree and the few I have watched begged for a decent float angler

Chris Hammond ( RSPB ACA PAC} said:

I've been reading about the various dive videos there are on the market. I believe the Korda carp boys made the first?

Click to expand...

I draw the line at the 'fish porn' aspect of the Korda vids...

Three men snuggled tightly in a tiny bivvy with a playback monitor going... 'suck it up', 'take it, take it, take it' and 'go on you know you want it!'

Just plain wrong, more Amsterdam than Angling... :wh

As to the pratical/mystery aspect, I have no problem with underwater film; fish are so contrary and act in different ways on different days that all you are really learning is what rig not to use.

Not watched any of them, does nothing for me, in fact i dont watch anything on TV fishing related, i hate it, just me i think. Enjoy doing pretty much my own thing.

I find them fascinating, i have heard all the "experts" saying this rig, or that rig works in such and such a way, then I watch some of the underwater videos and realise it varies everyday with every fish.

It gives me the courage to try some different things and not stick with the standard method for each occasion.

The footage of bream feeding last year was an eye opener. Most anglers imagined bream getting their heads down and hoovering but this film showed they cruise around a foot ,18" or so above the bait and drop down to pick up individual baits. In the film the angler was using a tip rod and a longish hooklink. The bream actually picked up the hookbait and swam around with it in its mouth, the picture showed no indication on the tip rod. Hence I now use short hooklinks for bream.
Otherwise the Hugh Miles stuff is fascinating on catching the impossible.

I like to believe that all anglers retain the ''magic'' of that little kid's wonderment at their first foray's fishing. It's the mystery of it all, and I for one don't want the mystery replaced by ''cold hard facts'', in all aspects of angling.

In much the same way as Christmas is ruined for the child by the spiteful brat, who having discovered there is no ''Father Chistmas'', and wishes he hadn't found out, has to spoil it for other children, by telling them.

I want and need some mystery.

Derek Gibson said:

.........
I want and need some mystery.

Click to expand...

ok, send me your pay packet and i will send you back a mysterious amount from it

Derek Gibson said:

I like to believe that all anglers retain the ''magic'' of that little kid's wonderment at their first foray's fishing. It's the mystery of it all, and I for one don't want the mystery replaced by ''cold hard facts'', in all aspects of angling.

In much the same way as Christmas is ruined for the child by the spiteful brat, who having discovered there is no ''Father Chistmas'', and wishes he hadn't found out, has to spoil it for other children, by telling them.

I want and need some mystery.

Click to expand...

Thanks to everyone for their responses.

Derek sums it up perfectly for me here.

You guys romancing about you're elements of the unknown, its your prerogative and I'm not saying you're wrong but where do you draw the line?

If floater fishing for carp, do you look away from the bait, waiting for the line to be pulled from between your fore finger and thumb because watching the bait will teach you a bit of how your quarry feeds and reacts to hooks, line etc, surely?

If chub fishing on a crystal clear river and you get an opportunity to watch them feed unhindered, would you not do so?

I know my eyes don't often stray away from a floating I have in the water.

I also know that many hours of my time has been spent watching chub feeding in the rivers Blackwater, Upper Wey and Itchen.
Very enjoyable hours too but the real reason for me doing this wasn't cos my sport is fish spotting but to help me understand how my favourite quarry behaves, to the extent I have placed baited rig in the water (hook tips removed) to further enhance my understanding of how they react to different hook rigs etc

So what is the difference to watching them on a river with unrivalled clarity or watching the same thing on a dvd?

If pike fishing with a stationary dead bait, do you present your bait with your hooks pointing from the head end to the tail in the knowledge that pike take the bait head first, if yes, why??
I'm guessing if you answer yes, and its because someone has told you or you've read somewhere that this is the case, what odds would it be if you watched this first hand in a water, on a dvd or read it in a book?

All lead to the same end, knowledge, just different forms of gaining this knowledge; written, verbal or visual (whether on a screen or first hand), seems more that you just don't like the new ways by which others transfer knowledge than ought else??

I've watched a lot of these videos esp the Barbel orientated ones. What never ceases to amaze me is how differently we interpret what we are seeing. The guy on the video is telling me, they are doing this or that because of this or that and quite often I just don't see it that way at all. So the mystery remains, for me anyway.

Could this be the future??

Barbel - A Future Tale


.

For the last 18 months or so I've done a lot of stalking trout on crystal clear stillwaters. When conditions allow you can see virtually everything thats going on, where and how a given fish is patrolling, it's reaction (or not!) when you present the fly and the actual take (sometimes!). Many hours are often spent just watching and learning, perhaps not even casting, and that aspect is all part of the experience and satisfaction.

I have learnt so much about all aspects of that style of fishing and thoroughly enjoy it. But now know enough to say that almost every day is different. On any given day there are so many variables.

There are also many parallels with my occasional barbel sessions where I'm able to see my quarry and similar lessons are repeated.

I find the DVDs can be interesting but agree with Mark about the interpretations. I'm far more likely to read about fishing rather than watch it.

A few years ago, I spent quite a few hours watching how Barbel reacted to baiting up with hemp and maggot. I put in quite a few baitdroppers and sat back from the bank and watched.
I have to say it was a real learning experience as they would keep circling the bait for an hour before they would tentatively pick at a couple of bits, then leave the area and come back again and again with slightly more confidence each time.
After about 3 hours I got my rod in and had 4 out in an hour. Not huge fish but up to 9.2lb. In the gin clear water, the hooked one was also followed by a few others as it careered around the swim. Strange behaviour, or normal?
Is it cheating to watch?

Matt

Matt , those Barbel were most likely feeding as they would with or without tackle in the swim ,I look at birds feeding in the garden and imagine that fish behave in a similar manner as far as caution is concerned , apart from apex predators most fish have very good reason to be wary.

Yes, I am sure thats right.
But I would have thought that when fish have been allowed to gain confidence in feeding, whether a bait and wait, or dribble feeding for Roach. Then that confidence can result in increased catches or bigger fish.
I have sometimes wondered if dribbling in hemp for 3 hours before casting would see the biggest Roach feeding confidently enough on my river, in which normally I can get a reasonable bag of 6-8oz fish, with maybe one 3/4lb fish.
Will have to test the theory sometime.
Matt

"...seems more that you just don't like the new ways by which others transfer knowledge than ought else?? "

No I think you've perhaps slightly misintepreted my post. (Or more likely I've explained myself poorly.) I am more than happy to embrace new fishing tackle and techniques. What I was questioning, on a very individual basis of course, was at which point a method or tackle implement contravenes the unwritten ethics of angling. As interesting as the clip I've seen of the Korda DVD was to me, at least from a natural history perspective, I just feel the film's intent contravenes my own personal notion of what is or what isn't cricket. ...Err... fishing I mean. And I wondered what others thought.

I don't mean to condemn anyone else for their outlook, so apologies to everyone if my original post sounds too judgemental.

---------- Post added at 14:11 ---------- Previous post was at 14:04 ----------

BTW Surely there is a distinction to be made between making perfectly natural observations from above by looking into the water, and observations made by watching footage taken by a camera placed next to a rig -where the action would otherwise be hidden from our sight -is there not?