As some of you know, I returned to fishing a couple of years ago after a 30 odd year break, during which time I never touched a rod. This situation has given me a fairly unique insight into modern angling, for as many of my old memories are still quite intact, I can make comparisons not easily available to others. Those memories have not yet been noticeably eroded by the gradual changing of the angling landscape that has taken place since I last held a rod. So rather than the slow changes most of you have seen over the years, I can now see vast differences in the way things are done. I don't view very many of them as being for the good, but that is another story, on which I might have more to say in the future.

For the moment though I would like to discuss line strengths, or rather the strength of line anglers use these days. On taking up the reins again I was astonished at how heavy anglers have gone. 12, or even 15 pound line seems to be today's fashion for barbel fishing. Almost everyone I see fishing is on heavy line, powerful rods, meaty reels. And, mainly because I was fishing on a snaggy river, I joined that trend. I don't think the barbel worry too much about line thickness, and so it has worked. I remember standing on a bridge with Oilman, a short time before I dug my dusty old rods out of the attic. We were watching a couple of anglers and Oilman said something along the lines of "They are way under-gunned". But were they?

In the past, apart from pike fishing, I would never have used such strong lines. I used 5 pound line for more or less all my big fish angling, and always found it quite adequate. Barbel, carp, tench, bream: it mattered not. 5 pound line seemed ideal for the job, with end tackle so simple that many of you would not understand it today. And I caught good fish, plenty of them, and lost very, very few.

Last week I, more or less accidentally, found myself once more legering at night for barbel with light tackle. 5 pound line and a 15 foot very light trotting rod. This was an even lighter set up than in my youth: back then at least I had some home made 11 foot fibreglass jobs that I built especially for the bigger fish.

The night, and subsequent day, resulted in an assortment of fish, 7 species in total, including three barbel, not huge, but all three nudged 7 pounds. But I have to say that I enjoyed the session far more than most of my other angling trips over the last two years. Playing a barbel on such tackle was just so much more satisfying. I felt that I had to be in charge, had to play the fish with skill, rather than just rely on the heavy gear and heave it in with line like a ship's hawser. My enjoyment was heightened by the knowledge that, if I made an error, I would not be forgiven, and would lose the fish. Greater anticipation, the sense of risk taking, and not being certain of the final outcome really made the fights a pleasure.

It did not take very much longer to land any of the fish, which might require some theorising. My thoughts go along these lines. Any barbel you hook is going to be in a state of blind panic. It is going to swim as fast as it can, regardless of the line strength. So it is going to expend energy at roughly the same rate. On the lighter gear it is likely to be moving much faster, adding to the thrill for the angler at the other end, but it will surely be getting tired at roughly the same rate. So it is going to be ready for the net in a not much longer time. The fishes' runs were so much speedier, so much more spectacular. The light rod enabled the same bend in the carbon, the length gave the leverage to add to the feeling of power that the fish imparted. Altogether joyous moments.

I know there are arguments about not risking leaving fish with hooks trailing line. But how can anglers talk about the skill needed to land a good fish, when in reality the outcome with the heavy gear is so predictable? What skill? Hook pulls apart, in a snag free swim I fail to see how any angler is likely to lose a fish on 12 pound line, unless considerable incompetance comes into the equation. Even 8 pound line makes it fairly easy. Wimbledon tennis would be even more boring if you knew in advance who would win.

The extreme of modern angling seems to be bivvy, get yourself some sleep whilst the fish is left to hook itself on a bolt rig ( another relatively modern development ). Then reel it in on the clothes line. How long until reels are equipped with motors, so that anglers can sleep on undisturbed until the fish is safely in the landing net?

I certainly intend to fish lighter far more often. If you have the skills, why not give it a go yourself? Whilst I stand back and dodge missiles from those that disagree.

Some interesting points John, the length of your sabbatical certainly hasn’t dulled your enthusiasm.

My initial background on fishing certainly never involved using any lines over 3lbs, scratching around for bites was more the order of the day. However the evolution of Fishing Tackle and specifically fishing for the bigger species has seen more people hitting the banks without much if any prior knowledge of fishing whatsoever. Watercraft is virtually none existent in some. I’m not saying that these people shouldn’t be allowed bank space, but for these less experienced anglers, heavier tackle is probably a godsend.

Lines may well have a higher breaking strain, but as manufacturing and technology progresses they have become significantly less in diameter.

I’m the first to admit catching fish on lighter tackle is immensely more pleasurable than skull dragging them to the bank. Getting fish to the bank as quickly as possible seems to be the norm now. This has is own set of problems too, having a “green’ fish on the bank is definitely riskier for it’s health. Couple that with inexperienced hands and the problem is multiplied ten fold.

Fishing lighter lines may well become more fashionable, much as it has in some forms of sea fishing where some of my friends are using lighter lines than the “bivvy boys”. Fishing these lines in flood conditions may create problems of its own and may not be too advisable. I think it’s a question of using balanced tackle. Couple 5lb line and a 2lbTC rod and there are bound to be problems.

The tackle industry may also be partly to blame, these people could probably sell snow to the eskimos. A heavily edited 30 min dvd showing their new products off seem to be pretty much ubiquitous now. Add to that a few images of big fish... Well you can see where I’m coming from.

Tennis... The most powerful players win 99% of the tournaments so it’s not that dissimilar in some respects.

All interesting points nonetheless... When’s controversy part 2 coming out?

I must admit Im beefed up now because I lost a few very good fish to 8lbs floro hook lengths, Im on 10lbs braid.

I will admit I had a 7lbs'er the other week and I knew that the braid was frayed a tad, so it was touch and go. Just knowing that it could go anytime got the heart pumping

__________________
Thermal Imaging
Building Heat Loss, Electrical, Flat Roof Leaks

Originally Posted by drynetter

All interesting points nonetheless... When’s controversy part 2 coming out?

Have patience! That's the trouble with anglers these days: they want it all, and they want it now.

Originally Posted by JayZS

Have patience! That's the trouble with anglers these days: they want it all, and they want it now.

Hi John - thanks for the really interesting points you make.....and your enthusiasm is, as always, infectious. My only contrary view is that what if you'd hooked a 14lb fish (and I'm pretty certain there are one or two in the river)? I've no doubt your fish-playing prowess would have enabled you to land it, but others?

I had a similar (perhaps 25 year) hiatus away from angling, though I was only a boy of 15 when I gave it up. With that it mind, my skills with bigger fish never really developed and are only doing so now. I remember an observation you rightly made a couple of years ago when I caught a bream from the Goyt. Remember? In light of that, and despite my fishing have improved significantly, I still don't reckon I'd land a 14lb barbel on 5lb bs line. Further, some of the swims are very snaggy - just one more reason to step up.

I read another thread about (on another forum) about rod test curves, and it was in a similar vein to this; namely that we could all use lighter, more-balanced tackle and still land a significant majority of the fish we catch.

I think the answer lies in these forums and the angling press; being told that there's a chance we could catch the fish of a lifetime every time we hit the bank. Another aspect is the so-called 'barbel police' effect; that we shouldn't use any tackle that give a chance (however remotely) of the fish being lost, with a hook and line left in it's gob. These are merely observations, and I don't hold with either - apart from the fact I've lost two 'fish of a lifetime' in the last 12 months on heavier tackle (hook pull and snag, however )

I use a nice soft rod nowadays, so I might give it go.

__________________
Cheers,

Rich

Morning Richard, No doubt you noted that I mentioned circumstances, snags and skill levels particularly, under which light tackle would not be so easy to use. It is not for everyone or every swim to try such methods. As Drynetter pointed out, so many anglers have missed out on "the apprenticeship" and on day one leapt straight out of their open box into carp fishing. Light tackle angling is not for them. Not yet.
When you hooked that bream, if I remember, it was the day I first met you. And I suggested that you were exceptionally cautious in how you played a fish, and that a barbel, in that swim, might need much more welly.

Too much rubbish is talked about test curves. Few people have a thorough understanding of what it means. "The force needed to bend a rod through a right angle" is far too woolly in scientific terms. A Question: Clamp the rod handle of a 2lb test curve horizontally to a bench, and add weight to a bit of line tied to the rod tip. How much weight would need to be added to get that right angle? The full 90 degrees. Not 88 or 89. Anyone venture a guess?

And few anglers realise how very little force they are often exerting on a fish when playing it. To them I usually say: just try pulling for a break with the rod bent, with the handle at right angles to the line, rather than with the rod pointing down towards the hook. Or tie a set of scales to the end of the line, get someone to hold them and take readings as you pretend to play a barbel. Even that 5 pound line will surprise them, as to just how much strength is needed to break it.

Originally Posted by JayZS

Question: Clamp the rod handle of a 2lb test curve horizontally to a bench, and add weight to a bit of line tied to the rod tip. How much weight would need to be added to get that right angle? The full 90 degrees. Not 88 or 89. Anyone venture a guess?

Supposedly 2lbs. It all depends on how accurate the manufacturer is quoting it's figures. You need to take into account that a fish does not fight like a dead weight. Having the rod under full compression is one thing, dealing with lunges and laxes in a fishes fight is another. I've seen this practice at the NEC to try and illustrate TCs, most of it utter nonsense. Funnier when the weight added to a pole for a test of how strong they are, the result, broken sections.

Nope: the physics of the situation is that, with the handle horizontal, the tip will never become completely vertical, the full 90 degrees, no matter how much weight you put on it. It will get close, but will never get completely there. However with a different set up you can easily get 90, just not by doing it like that. Yet that is how most anglers think it is measured.
A bit theoretical I know, as TC's are always very approximate anyway.I view the TC as the minimum weight required to put a 90 degree bend in a rod, regardless of circumstances. Of course the rod can be bent at 90 with the force being much greater than that, the curvature being further down the rod.

"Compression" is an interesting term to apply to a rod too.

Originally Posted by JayZS

"Compression" is an interesting term to apply to a rod too.

I certainly bow to your superior scientific knowledge.

As for the compression term, the blank is under a form of compression when a fish is on. The blank doesn't stay cylindrical but flattens out.

Shimano have a rod that is supposed to have a dual test curve as the blank is built on an ovular mandrel (sp.?). The spine of the blank is either at the top or bottom (can't remember which), when side strain is applied it's on the widest part of the blank and gives a softer action. When the rod is pointing upwards the rod is supposed to be significantly stiffer. Depends what you want to believe? The price tag certainly puts me off.

Originally Posted by drynetter

As for the compression term, the blank is under a form of compression when a fish is on. The blank doesn't stay cylindrical but flattens out. Shimano have a rod that is supposed to have a dual test curve as the blank is built on an ovular mandrel The spine of the blank is either at the top or bottom (can't remember which), when side strain is applied it's on the widest part of the blank and gives a softer action. When the rod is pointing upwards the rod is supposed to be significantly stiffer. Depends what you want to believe? The price tag certainly puts me off.

Not seen the price. I dare not look, but it certainly would put me off too. Whether there is any significant advantage to be had from egg or oval shaped cross sections I don't know. It should in theory be stiffer when bent perpendicular to the longest cross section. So narrower blanks side to side would make sidestrain softer as you say. Why would anyone want this? Dunno.

Suspect any blank flattening will be very minimal. I'd be worried if it were not. Maybe I'll dig out the micrometer sometime. The inner part of the bent blank arc will be under compression, the outer part under tension. That's what does the work, rather than any flattening of the blank.