Baiting swims an hour before,pva bags,back leads and fluorocarbon all no good!!

Anybody else read the "Improve your course fishing bankside bible" yet for this month .
It has an amazing section writen by Bob roberts who films barbel days and ways and has underwater proof that lotts of accepted methods for catching barbel are useless.

It shows that the bullying theory is not true and all the fish eat together .

Back leads creat an underwater trip wire to spook fish,on this subject does anyone have good results using anti spook tube with barbel yet?

Most ground bait and pellets get washed away very quickly in all but very few types of river bottoms leaving just a hook bait.

Fluorocarbon hook links are the worst thing possible to use as it spooks the fish more than anything else" yet they are not bothered by supple hooklinks even thick ones that they can obviously see".
"We filmed them with both weed and a braid hooklink draped over their noses yet they show no alarm"
"However, when they touch a fluorcarbon line,which is not only quite stiff but practically invisible in water ,it really spooks them ."

I could go on but I have gardening and other jobs to do in order to earn this evenings fishing .

The article is in this month's Coarse Fisherman magazine

The strange thing is that a short while ago Lee Swords wrote on here about testing Incognito Fluro and how using long hook lengths made of this increased his catches, I don't know Lee personally and have absolutely no reason to doubt what he says, he has had some excelent catches of Barbel from the Trent on this method. What seems strange to me is that two well respected anglers can have come to such differing conclusion over the same product.

Ray Roberts said:

The strange thing is that a short while ago Lee Swords wrote on here about testing Incognito Fluro and how using long hook lengths made of this increased his catches, I don't know Lee personally and have absolutely no reason to doubt what he says, he has had some excelent catches of Barbel from the Trent on this method. What seems strange to me is that two well respected anglers can have come to such differing conclusion over the same product.

Click to expand...

I have never been a fan of Fluro, but enough anglers whom i have great repect for catch plenty of barbel on it, so like you say Ray it is strange.

I may be wrong but i think it was **** Walker who first said that fish...in this case i think it was carp were less spooked by braid.....**** didn't have the modern range of braid we have either, he was probaly talking of a type of flyline backing.

Some anglers swear by backleads too...using it to stop the cheesewire effect in the feeding area by pinning down the line.....again strange.

Theres nought as contradictory as angling

Most of what Bob has written backs up my own observations, when watching barbel feed in clear, shallow water. See here for an article discussing these issues.

Fishing is an inexact science and we normally have to interpret what is happening underwater from indications on the rod tip and numbers of fish caught. Even when we can see what is happening we are often observing a fish's reaction to a unique set of circumstances: depth, water clarity, current speed, line, lead, bait, fish age, size, etc, etc

In my experience barbel can spook when brushing against any monofilament line, not just fluoro and they will often spook when seeing line entering the water. They don't seem to react in the same way to braid, when used as a hook length.

In shallow water I always use a long (about 3ft)hook length (usually a combination of my main line and a short legth of braid) and I pin it down to the bottom using tungsten putty.

I often smile when I hear the dogma spouted by some anglers, who catch fish despite using crude rigs. The issue is that we usually don't spook every fish that enters our swim, but we often spook the bigger and more wary fish. In my experience it pays to fish as though every fish is educated and nervous. You might not catch any more fish, but you do tend to catch bigger fish.

Ray Roberts said:

The strange thing is that a short while ago Lee Swords wrote on here about testing Incognito Fluro and how using long hook lengths made of this increased his catches,

Click to expand...

A couple of weeks ago Lee pulled nearly 50 barbel (+bream) out of the Trent in a session. He was using long Incognito hook lengths.

On the trent fish in - same approach and he was catching all night.

The thing is, the Trent is a big turbulent river with a heavy flow demanding big leads.

Were Bob's comments aimed at this type of fishing or on smaller, clearer rivers?

Why was he using fluro at night? What's the point?

When this topic came a a little while ago I think it was Cakey who astutely noted that;

Fish tend to be spooked by what they cannot see rather than what they can see.

Just a few points before people who haven't read the article go off on one!

• In this article Bob is speaking about fishing the Trent
• Bob is advocating feeding heavily, perhaps using 2 feeder rods and a bait dropper. He cites 4 short daytime trips in which he's had 46 barbel
• He doesn't say don't use fluoro, but he implies (as per Cakey) that it's the stiffness combines with it's invisibility that causes fish to spook.
• He does recommend a long hook length and his reasoning is spot on imho

I thought it was an excellent article with some real food for thought.

Jesus Christ I have been doing it all wrong !!

LOL!!!!

Barbel fishing is not an exact science, in fact it has its own branch called

Carbology.

:O)


I have used flouro at night but generally go onto 25lb black mantis come sunset as I can give it more tonk...I like tonk!
Flouro at night as a component of a combi-rig is used for its relative density rather than its invisibility...Which is moot as its gone dark and everything is invisible

:O)

I'm not sure, but the article in question is/will appear in the next issue of IYCF.

There are two words that I try and avoid when writing articles - always and never. There is no solution that always works although a bullet in the ear almost always cures paeodophilia, I'm told!

Just because I catch a fish on a given item of tackle, or someone else does, is no reason to say it was because of the tackle. What if I'd used something else. Would I have been even more successful? Or less?

In a swim stuffed with competing fish the tackle used becomes pretty much irrelevant. The more feeding fish you have in front of you the less important the tackle becomes.

For example, anglers used to bag up on roach in Ireland fishing to hand, long pole, size 12 or even 10 hook, 4lb line, 4 maggots and only changing the bait when it was a blob of skins. They caught roach by the hundredweight. On the Trent these same anglers struggled for bites on a size 24 hook to 12oz bottoms.

I'm quite pleased that folk question what I write because it means they've joined in the thinking process. Too many anglers and too many writers (judging from what I've read in recent times) are happy to trot out the same old doctrine that's been written a thousand times before.

They do not base their fanciful articles on hard facts and evidence. They base it on bits of kit given to them by sponsors (in the worst case examples) or they chant the mantra plagiarised from whoever was flavour of the month when they got the idea they could write, too.

Sorry if that sounds harsh and it's certainly not a pop at Lee - far from it.

Over the past two years Stu and I have gone where it matters, into the barbel's dining room. We have watched them feeding from just inches away and we have recorded the evidence on our camera. Some of you have seen two DVDs, we have another two in the can with upwards of 45 minutes of unseen dynamite underwater clips.

My recent barbel articles have been written based on these factual observations. You see, I can back-up my statements with hard evidence. It isn't theory, it's fact. Or at least, facts as we interpret them.

So, based on observations and controlled experiments, I sincerely believe that braid is a superior hook link material to fluorocarbon when fishing for barbel. However, braid has poor abrasion resistance and this has to be taken into account when choosing a hook link in many areas of a rocky river like the Trent.

Success is measured not so much in how many bites you get but how many you convert into fish on the bank. My current CF article (which you may be confusing this with) and the one that follows, looks at precisely that .

Regards
Bob Roberts
www.bobrobertsonline.co.uk

I subscribe to IYCF so my copy arrived on friday .

Cheers for the article thought it was one of the best I have read .

I started this thread as a as way of creating contraversy as I have read so many articles that contradict what you said but yours has evendence ,not that lots of other articles are bad .

I am not a very experianced fisherman and don't pretend to be but I am on a barbel campaign so it all helps .

The trick is to get the fish feeding

and then they will even make a spaz like me look good

the best hooklength for barbel in relation to ratio of pick ups in my opinion is Fox Mega Silk

It is also the shittyist piece of caq in relation to abrassion resistance...I lost a couple of big monsters on that stuff

But saying that I also bagged numerous 100lb bags plenty of 2x doubles and 3x doubles plus 2x a 4x double bag up sessions

But it did fail me too many times....Which is a shame but nothing is perfect

I read on the large multiple catches and just cant relate to them(only in the past),on the Thames you can change your tackle as much as you like,feed as much as you like,doesnt make a jot of difference because as Lee and Bob say you need competing fish,which are lacking.

I read the article too in Coarse Fisherman and enjoyed it, as I did the Gary Knowles article in the same edition. Two very different methodologies for two different types of fishing (if I remember correctly ). Both Bob and Gary had excellent results and both provided food for thought. It would be interesting to see Bob and Gary's techniques applied conversely, i.e. in the opposite situation to that used in the articles. After all, there are a variety of reasons, apart from the rig, that can influence success.

Really good magazine as well. Keep up the good work.......

I've also used flouro (long hooklengths - up to 8 foot) during the day and caught loads more barbel (on the Trent) than amost all if not all anglers fishing near me (though I tend to go where it is a bit quieter if possible). Night time I'll switch to a flouro / braid combi rig or a partially stripped coated braid with no real change in efficiency but it does give me a bit more security if a real biggie grabs hold.

Not bragging but the Trent really isn't difficult due to the sheer volume of barbel present; 46 barbel in 4 short trips is fairly easy to achieve in the warmer months, the trick is getting through the schoolies to the big girls.

I've never seen the need for backleads, leaders, etc etc on the Trent. In fact it will cause you more problems with snags. I'm sometimes amazed by some of the rigs I've pulled in either attached to a fish or broken off on a snag - you'd think some anglers on the Trent pick up the latest carp mag and then (badly) copy the rig before chucking it in the river.

Interesting to see that braid 'is a superior hook link material to flourocarbon'. I would also include ordinary mono-filament lines in that catergory, due to the stiffness in their qualities as the breaking strain increases. Whereby the suppleness of braid provides a more natural presentation of the bait. And as barbel find a lot of their food using their 'barbels', are they not more likely to be spooked by these stiffer lines catching on their whiskers.

Saying that though, I'm reluctant to use braid on snaggy rivers like the Trent with the strong currents wafting the braided hooklength into every nook and cranny.

Stu and I finished the voice-overs and links for Volume 4 yesterday (Vol 3 still has a little way to go) and when it is released (May 2010) you will be able to watch barbel interacting with all manner of tackle items including back leads, braid, fluorocarbon, coated braids, etc.

The results may prove as alarming to you as they are to the fish...

Successful anglers like Bob, Swordsy, Gary etc. write about the methods they employ to catch fish in a river, all of which is learned through trial and error and therefore experience. Using their approach as a starting point gives you a head start over the chuck it and hope approach and if you can vary it and improve it then you too will be as competent as them.

I have the greatest respect for successful anglers like the above just as I had respect for successful match anglers in my day and I would have no qualms whatsoever in following their advice but as Bob says nothing "always" works which is when you have to vary your approach and this includes yours rigs as well as bait and feed.

I am surprised at you Lee, knowing a line is very suspect yet persevering with it and losing fish regardless tut! tut! its the naughty chair for you my lad.

Really interesting thread this one, sure has made me think more about what actually happens under that water rather than what I think is happening! I always find it very diffucult to know with fishing what variable is actually affecting catches, as there are so monay variables to change, and some that are out of ones control. This I guess is the beauty of our sport.