• You need to be a registered member of Barbel Fishing World to post on these forums. Some of the forums are hidden from non-members. Please refer to the instructions on the ‘Register’ page for details of how to join the new incarnation of BFW...

Advice Please

Status
Not open for further replies.
Richard Hamlyn said:
I know there are those here who believe I already know everything, but that is patently not true (well, not yet anyway) so I would like to seek advice from people who may have encountered a similar problem as myself when fishing for Barbel.

As I live in the South West my options for Barbel fishing are limited to trips away to the river and a more local still water. The river I have access to is wide, deep (12’+) and very slow moving. In the summer the flow is not dissimilar to the still water which is much shallower and windblown and therefore subject to quite a strong tow. I need as much weight to fish the lake as I do to hold bottom on the river on many occasions. The problem I have is trying to figure out how to feed the fish to the best effect on the river. I know what follows may seem illogical but I can assure you it is the truth as several of my mates who fish the same stretch have had the same experience. If you cast out a feeder or PVA mesh or stringer with a few boilies in it just about anywhere in the river and wait for ½ hour or so then there is a very good chance the rod will go over and you will be into a fish of around 8lbs or so. At the time of casting it feels all wrong because there is this large expanse (and I mean miles) of featureless (on the surface anyway) water in front of me and you get the feeling that to plonk it anywhere near a fish will require a considerable amount of luck as the stretch has a good but not massive head of Barbel. However this is not the case, and if a bite does not develop in about 45 mins then chucking it within 30’ or so from the first cast or generally searching around the swim will invariably produce a response. My reaction to this situation was to introduce a reasonably concentrated bed of feed into the swim with a dropper and to wait for the fish to find it and start to feed with confidence with the view of catching multiple fish rather than one at a time and then searching around the river for the next one. To this end I have introduced beds of hemp / casters / pellets / crushed boilies and vitalin in various combinations and locations but the result has always been the same……not a sausage. Not only that but the stretch contains a huge head of big bream and the same thing happens with them. In fact you get the feeling that the sight of a bed of feed actually scares them and this is on a stretch of river where the angling pressure is almost zero. As soon as you go back to isolated pocket of food in the bag or feeder over goes the rod again. The very opposite happens on the still water. I may have to wade through loads of Bream Carp and Tench while I wait for the Barbel to arrive, but once that has happened they invariably push the other fish out of the swim and I can catch Barbel one after another. Once again this experience is mirrored by other angles on the water. The fish themselves are all in terrific condition and at the end of the day all swim away strongly, even the ones on the still water which get caught far more regularly than the ones in the river. In fact I’m sure that many of the river fish are being hooked for the first time in their lives. Given that they are the same species can anyone please throw some light as to why they seem to behave so differently?

Richard
Click to expand...

Richard, have you tried fishing with a shoe? You will need two rods. The first is your usual ledger rod (by that I mean a rod that you ledger with) and the second has a normal bottom bait set up except there is no bait. But there is a shoe. An Oliver Sweeny is favoured by the likes of Jim Foxall but one of those comfy looking ones advertised in the back of a sunday paper works just as well. It is well known amongst barbel experts that a shoe bobbing about a bit on the riverbed relaxes barbel because they connect a random discarded shoe with a dead angler. And as far as barbel are concerned, the best kind of angler is a dead angler-even a one legged one (and barbel, being a bit think, rarely dwell on the question of where the other shoe is). Some people over complicate this rig by adding a sock, even a bycycle clip, but accomplished anglers will remind you to keep it simple. You could use a Wellington boot rather than a shoe, but for that you will need a 2.5tc rod, otherwise you will be seriously under gunned. Try mono too. If you get a take on the shoe rod then I can't help you- that would be right outside my area of expertise. Cheers.
 
Jim Foxall said:
Hi Richard, Let me introduce myself and consider me to be your friend. For in the past I have been much pilloried and mocked. You will need or develop a thick hide on this Site. There are some very nice people who will help greatly in the quest for knowledge. Others, who I should not really name, Dave Gauntlett being an example, can only be described as Lucifer's right hand man. He has led many astray on this Site with advice pertaining to be helpful but in reality designed to hinder the pursuit of barbel. I'm convinced that there are many like him. These peoples' aim is set out to reduce your catches, with bad advice, which automatically enhances their reputation.

You may have seen some of my posts which have been rubbished. Excellent advice on the purchase of Paramo clothing - as recommended by Sir Rannulph, no less ( we went to the same school and share the same club) and how equipment with the "right" labels can add, significantly to your enjoyment of fishing.

In fact, Dixie, asked that I do not go on BFW as she is sick of the hate mail that was coming in. It got so bad at one stage, that someone on here managed to track my address down and I received a rotten herring in the post.

As Dixie's dad used to say, if it is worth writing then say it. Don't let the literary fascists and communists break the will of the quill.



Who asked for your opinion? As a New Member you should know better than to question some of the sage's musings on this Forum. Incidentally, why have you one of those Highland Terrier's alongside your name. This is a fishing site not Crufts.
Click to expand...

I am the guy with a dog that is well trained obedient and loyal and will also attack you were you to be stupid enough to enter my home. and whats me being a new member got to do with anything, i didnt give my opinion i stated facts that i knew to be correct, NOT an opinion which are like a***holes everybody has one.
 
Graham Young said:
I am the guy with a dog that is well trained obedient and loyal and will also attack you were you to be stupid enough to enter my home. and whats me being a new member got to do with anything, i didnt give my opinion i stated facts that i knew to be correct, NOT an opinion which are like a***holes everybody has one.
Click to expand...

Well, Graham, it's a question of respect. Those of us who have completed many posts tend to be held in awe and esteem by New Members. There is an unwritten code on this website that senior members should not be criticised or be held in contempt notwithstanding moderation or words which are construed to be foul in nature. (BFW Rule 32 (i). I would not dream of entering your home, why should I? I live very close to my club and Sir Rannulph, in an up-market part of London that most ordinary mortals can only dream of. As of the Highland Terrier, I suggest that you read the Dangerous Dogs Act Part 2, section 17, where a dog is considered to be dangerous if it were to attack a human being, livestock or any other such living entity within or without the bounds of a domiciled dwelling.
 
Jim Foxall said:
Well, Graham, it's a question of respect. Those of us who have completed many posts tend to be held in awe and esteem by New Members. There is an unwritten code on this website that senior members should not be criticised or be held in contempt notwithstanding moderation or words which are construed to be foul in nature. (BFW Rule 32 (i). I would not dream of entering your home, why should I? I live very close to my club and Sir Rannulph, in an up-market part of London that most ordinary mortals can only dream of. As of the Highland Terrier, I suggest that you read the Dangerous Dogs Act Part 2, section 17, where a dog is considered to be dangerous if it were to attack a human being, livestock or any other such living entity within or without the bounds of a domiciled dwelling.
Click to expand...

Sorry the dog cant read and i dont care so as far as i am concerned you and this site full of knobs can go on in your own small little worlds where you are a leg end in your own mind. dont bother with another reply i wont be on here again so will never see it, knobs
 
Graham Young said:
Sorry the dog cant read and i dont care so as far as i am concerned you and this site full of knobs can go on in your own small little worlds where you are a leg end in your own mind. dont bother with another reply i wont be on here again so will never see it, knobs
Click to expand...

That's a strange name for a dog. Still, it would be very disarming when first being introduced which is a plus. Graham, I have come to admire Jim's warped sense of humour so you shouldn't take it too seriously. It's just banter and its all getting silly because I imagine we are all struggling a bit for time on the bank what with this weather and realising we might well be one of the lesser 90%. Cheers.
 
Graham Young said:
Sorry the dog cant read and i dont care so as far as i am concerned you and this site full of knobs can go on in your own small little worlds where you are a leg end in your own mind. dont bother with another reply i wont be on here again so will never see it, knobs
Click to expand...

Hi Graham, sent p.m. Read it first before baling out.
 
All a bit unfortunate really. I had written a pees take reply to Jim, a bit more of our usual banter, which I was on the verge of sending when some family members turned up on a visit...so it never got sent. Sadly, when I managed to get back on my laptop, I see that things have all gone pear shaped. Graham has obviously misunderstood Jim's wry humour and jumped to my defence...and things went from bad to worse, ending up with poor Graham becoming very upset. The sad bit is, had I had time to send my post, it would have become obvious to Graham that it was all banter, with no offence intended nor taken either way between Jim and I.

All I can say is sorry Graham, no harm was meant. Some of us do have a bizarre sense of humour on this forum, some of which even we don't understand at times :D....so it must be really difficult for newer members to work out. I don't know what Jim has said to you in his PM...but I can assure you he wasn't genuinely attacking either of us in his posts, nor was he intending to offend.

Cheers, Dave.
 
Graham Young said:
I am the guy with a dog that is well trained obedient and loyal and will also attack you were you to be stupid enough to enter my home. and whats me being a new member got to do with anything, i didnt give my opinion i stated facts that i knew to be correct, NOT an opinion which are like a***holes everybody has one.
Click to expand...

You might want to know that Jim and Dave are mates in a sick sort of way, but nevertherless they at least tolerate each other.
I like dogs too, in fact I used to train dogs to bite people /criminals, but that was the easy bit, calling the thing off was the hard bit, can you call your attack dogs off?
Anyway I was trying to say that you were not being singled out, it's just that you don't yet 'get' the silly old boogers that post on here, it is a Forum, and unlike Twitter or Facebook and the like sometimes little gems of wit are buried and need to be unearthed and appreciated before responding.
I should know.
 
Last edited:
David Gauntlett said:
All a bit unfortunate really. I had written a pees take reply to Jim, a bit more of our usual banter, which I was on the verge of sending when some family members turned up on a visit...so it never got sent. Sadly, when I managed to get back on my laptop, I see that things have all gone pear shaped. Graham has obviously misunderstood Jim's wry humour and jumped to my defence...and things went from bad to worse, ending up with poor Graham becoming very upset. The sad bit is, had I had time to send my post, it would have become obvious to Graham that it was all banter, with no offence intended nor taken either way between Jim and I.

All I can say is sorry Graham, no harm was meant. Some of us do have a bizarre sense of humour on this forum, some of which even we don't understand at times :D....so it must be really difficult for newer members to work out. I don't know what Jim has said to you in his PM...but I can assure you he wasn't genuinely attacking either of us in his posts, nor was he intending to offend.

Cheers, Dave.
Click to expand...

Honestly I have laughed so much this thread has to be one of the all time greats in the history of BFW.
 
Darren George said:
Having read the other replies I'm unsure if there is some water under the bridge and wonder whether this topic is 'for real'. Anyhow.

There are two variables in competition for food, the first is the competition, the second which I feel you have overlooked slightly, is the food.

All I can say for sure is that the bed of bait approach / quantity of feed involved is not in-tune with the river, it is in tune with stillwater. You have found the optimum amount of feed / frequency of feeding to blank on the river, and catch well on the stillwater.

Can't expand further as I know nothing of your chosen waters or your approach. It's all conjecture.
Click to expand...

Me thinks this whole thing is a bit of a wheeze Darren, but at least you come out of the whole thing unscathed and as always offering good advice, top man. :p
 
Howard Cooke said:
Richard, have you tried fishing with a shoe? You will need two rods. The first is your usual ledger rod (by that I mean a rod that you ledger with) and the second has a normal bottom bait set up except there is no bait. But there is a shoe. An Oliver Sweeny is favoured by the likes of Jim Foxall but one of those comfy looking ones advertised in the back of a sunday paper works just as well. It is well known amongst barbel experts that a shoe bobbing about a bit on the riverbed relaxes barbel because they connect a random discarded shoe with a dead angler. And as far as barbel are concerned, the best kind of angler is a dead angler-even a one legged one (and barbel, being a bit think, rarely dwell on the question of where the other shoe is). Some people over complicate this rig by adding a sock, even a bycycle clip, but accomplished anglers will remind you to keep it simple. You could use a Wellington boot rather than a shoe, but for that you will need a 2.5tc rod, otherwise you will be seriously under gunned. Try mono too. If you get a take on the shoe rod then I can't help you- that would be right outside my area of expertise. Cheers.
Click to expand...

I don't have any spare shoes, do you think a sandal would have the same level of success?

Chris
 
If its OK with everybody I posted this thread politely asking for thoughts and advice on an angling problem I am experiencing and it seems to have turned into a bit of a bun fight. Is anyone interested in helping me out or would you rather just fight amongst yourselves?

Richard
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top