Are we becoming blasé.

Derek Gibson · Jan 4, 2018

Talking with a couple of anglers recently I was taken aback by their distorted views on what constitutes a big fish.
It would appear that the sizes of fish they aspire to beggars belief. On questioning them further it would appear that fish that I always considered as notable wouldn't raise an eyebrow nowadays, ie- thirty plus Carp and twenty five plus Pike are just two examples of fish quoted.
What I find odd is that neither of these individuals personal PBs come anywhere close to those examples quoted.
Could this be a direct consequence of the angling press, given them a distorted view of fish available in this country.

maggot_dangler · Jan 4, 2018

You Hear it all the time these days Huh that aint worth catching mate and i think it is partly the result of pressure from the Angling press to continually want bigger and bigger as opposed to Healthier fish , Take for example the monster carp that are bien caught they are FAT blubber not healthy fit fish .

I would far rather catch the smaller carp from the club pool that are not fed on boilies in fact are not fed extra at all just the natural food in the water plus what you are fishing with ( no boilies allowed and only limited amounts of GB)

PG ...

thecrow · Jan 4, 2018

30lb carp not big 25lb pike not big? I have caught both well in excess of those weights but would still consider fish under those weights to be big fish. I cant understand where anglers get these things from? Maybe 20lb carp are more available than ever but thats the standard I go by pike anything over 15 is what I have always aimed at to do otherwise must result in a lot of disappointment for the angler.

Not all waters are capable of producing massive fish so imo whether a fish is big or not should be kept in proportion to the water it came from, a 1lb roach from a water where the average is 8oz is a really big fish for that water.

This attitude to fish weights seems to be some sort of macho thing that is I believe partly added to by the press only printing about big fish and also by the tackle/bait trade.

terry m · Jan 4, 2018

Re: Are we becoming blaz'e.

Whilst I would not label the approach as blasé, I do think it is a matter of fact that fish can be found at much larger sizes than back in the - for example - 1970's.

As a young angler a double figure carp was a good fish, a twenty was very special. Today really needs to be 40+ to make the serious grade.

Tench are another. I remember catching my first four pounder and being over the moon. Today it needs to be double that to raise the same interest. Chub similar.

Not so sure about pike. I still think a twenty is a good fish, even today.

Times and aspirations change, but the availability of much larger fish across many species is undeniable.

Peter Jacobs · Jan 4, 2018

Having been actively engaged in fishing for over 60 years now I would say that, with the exceptional advances made in rods, reels, terminal tackle and indeed baits, together with the advent of the ubiquitous "commercial fisheries" that we have all become very blasé about our venues, our target weights or index fish and indeed our own experiences and dare I say, even our abilities?

S-Kippy · Jan 4, 2018

I think you're absolutely right, Derek. There is little disputing the fact that far bigger fish exist today than when I was serving my apprenticeship....and in many cases from waters that are [relatively] easily accessible. But the suggestion that you've simply got to rock up to catch them is a nonsense.

What really annoys me is the attitude that dismisses anything less than close to the waters max potential as not worth catching. People with that sort of attitude are indeed blase and would do well not to belittle the efforts of us mere mortals who are delighted to catch the odd decent fish. I dont get envious of people who work hard at their fishing and reap the rewards....as long as they dont look down their noses at me.

I'm afraid I meet more than one or two bankside that are extraordinarily dismissive of other peoples efforts.

peterjg · Jan 4, 2018

Crow mentioned that it's a sort of macho thing and he is absolutely right. It is now acceptable to have your picture taken if you're holding a big carp but not if you are holding a specimen roach?! The attitude is; fish for carp if you are well 'ard, fish for roach and you are obviously a noddy, innit!

sam vimes · Jan 4, 2018

On a national scale, there's little doubt that many species of fish are bigger than they were. However, the increased interest in specific species, at the higher end of the weight spectrum, strikes me as fairly damaging. I feel that it leaves many areas, that can't match up, increasingly ignored. It's leaving plenty of water underfished and others hugely overfished. I know anglers that barely, if ever, fish in their home regions. That's because they can't satisfy their cravings for fish of a certain size, or certain species. I suppose that, to a certain extent, it was ever thus. Angling tourism has gone on for centuries now. What I don't believe was quite so prevalent was it being at the total exclusion, for some, of fishing their local waters.

mikench · Jan 4, 2018

I blame the media, its so called journalists and their desire for sensationalism !

The more overtop the article, comment, view, action the better. A TV programme I have not watched is entitled "carp wars"

What is that about. Idiots kissing fish and second rate celebrities behaving like football hooligans promote a sort of machismo image that only large fish, dangerous dogs, excesses generally seem to satisfy!

Social media is equally responsible ! Any large fish grown naturally and in good health is a prize not some bloated unhealthy, sad apology for a carp!

nottskev · Jan 4, 2018

Yes, fish in some regions and some waters do reach bigger sizes than previously, so maybe the definition of a “big” fish creeps up. But I'm not too bothered about sizes, pb's etc. I judge my catches against what other anglers on the same water catch, both that day and generally, and I like to come home feeling I've fished well, but that's a different matter and doesn't depend on the fish being this or that size – it's all relative to the water, the conditions and what you are trying to achieve.

I think you can get a distorted sense of what anglers generally catch from the media. Every week the papers feature big fish of most species. I'm out fishing 3 or 4 times a week over the year on local waters , and I don't see anyone putting such fish on the bank where I fish.

I can think of one sense in which “blase” is true: before the commercial boom, if you caught a five pound carp it would be a memorable capture, probably played out on light gear, and anglers would come from down the bank and ask to look at it. Now there are waters where match anglers expect to put one of these in the net every few minutes. It just devalues the fish, for me, so I leave that type of thing alone.

no-one in particular · Jan 4, 2018

Re: Are we becoming blasé.
Not me, wish I was though but my reality keeps getting in the way and the HDYGO thread keeps me grounded as welt; its a great help. Apologies and thanks- Pulling your legs

flightliner · Jan 4, 2018

Back in the mid to late seventies circumstances forced me to pack up match angling, something I was extremely fond of .
I pleasure fished for a season or two and around '79 I bumped into an old aquintance who invited me to join a specie group here in South Yorkshire.
Why not? A different approach and mindset was intriguing so join I did.
The group had a list of fish that were considered "big", a few I remember then were~~~
Chub- 4lb
Tench-- 5lb
Pike-- 15lb
Roach-- 1lb-8oz
Carp-- 10lb
Barbel-- 8lb (if I remember right )
Bream-- 6lb
And so on and so on .
Almost forty years on and these fish weights can be bettered virtually any day of the week in the right conditions yet back then they were the yardstick of some very good big fish anglers.
Today at a commy near my house I can see near or ten lb carp being caught by virtually any angler fishing the water things have changed so much.
A day on the Trent sees no eyebrows raised when a guy lands a ten lb Barbel (mind you they are easy meat generally speaking) but in the early eighties I was sat with a group of guys Bream fishing when one of them had just returned from the Royalty and taken a ten pound fish , when he turned up all of the others present stood up and started clapping for what was considered a truly humongous specimen.
Today it,s all changed, bigger fish abound by comparison to those of yesteryear.
These days tho I still enjoy the big fish scene I get equal pleasure from a biggish net of stamp roach on the stick float on running water!.

steve2 · Jan 4, 2018

It’s not just with large fish I know of plenty of anglers, if that what they are, who wont fish commercial waters unless they are guaranteed a 100lb of fish. Anything less and it’s classed as a bad day.
The match organizer for the league I use to fish now virtually apologies for low weights if no one catches over 100lb.
I am just glad I left this weight chasing behind me years ago and can now just enjoy my fishing when can I get out.

S-Kippy · Jan 4, 2018

A 10lb barbel may be "easy meat" on the Trent, Mick but its not on the waters I fish. Yes...I should put myself out a bit more maybe but i will never, ever regard a double figure barbel as easy.

nottskev · Jan 4, 2018

S-Kippy said:
A 10lb barbel may be "easy meat" on the Trent, Mick but its not on the waters I fish..

Nor on the ones I fish, including the Trent! I've fished a couple of dozen times and more on my local Trent this season, and whilst the dace and roach fishing has been very good, I haven't had a barbel nor seen anyone catch one, although I've often fished for roach, especially early season, near anglers fishing for barbel. When I've bumped into anglers over-nighting for barbel, they've not had any either. This is not to knock the river, just to say that some areas are plainly well-populated with barbel whilst on other stretches they are rarely seen and then most likely at night. It's not the case that you only have to cast into the Trent to come out with a 10lb barbel!

flightliner · Jan 4, 2018

Skip, Kev, I was talking in general terms about Barbel not just doubles.
I often fish a Trent trib with loads of Barbel if you know where to look , a venue that rarely disappoints but I still have to see my first double in my net.
I'd still rather have a double figure Bream tho anytime

nottskev · Jan 4, 2018

flightliner said:
Skip, Kev, I was talking in general terms about Barbel not just doubles.
I often fish a Trent trib with loads of Barbel if you know where to look , a venue that rarely disappoints but I still have to see my first double in my net.
I'd still rather have a double figure Bream tho anytime

I know what you're saying, Mick. And I hope to be fishing where they are thicker on the ground next year. Twenty miles downstream of here.

Just pointing out the patchy distribution, so Skip doesn't feel too deprived and I don't look so bad for never catching any this year!

Graham Elliott 1 · Jan 4, 2018

Nottskev. I guess you are fishing upper Trent.

Tbh on my trips it's normal over two 10 hour sessions to catch a few doubles. Not boasting, just fact. Around Fiskerton, Notts area.

I tend to target bigger fish because although certain amount of luck involved, I simply find it more of a challenge, with sometimes a change from the accepted methods and success brings satisfaction.

That doesn't mean I don't enjoy the odd days on the Wye after more modest sized fish. But a search for a bigger fish on a tougher river would be my choice.

Clodhopper · Jan 4, 2018

On the rare occasion that I land a fish of any signficant size, I hardly ever show any interest in its weight.

That way, I reason, it is unlikely to ask me mine.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

thecrow · Jan 4, 2018

One thing that these anglers that think a fish has to be a certain size to be big is that mostly its as easy to catch a 30lb carp as to catch a 10lb carp, bigger doesn't mean more intelligent it just means that there are more 10lb fish than 30lb fish.

My biggest barbel wasn't any harder to catch than the other smaller fish I had that day it just made a mistake and took my bait as did the others, maybe they should read Derek's thread about big pike not being hard to catch and replace pike with whatever species they want it might just change their thinking.

Are we becoming blasé.

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Moderator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member