one rod or two

[Darren McDonell]

Just thought I would see who uses two rods and if not why

 

[Chris Jones]

Depends entirely on the circumstances whether I use one rod or two. I'd generally prefer to use two rods but sometimes it's either not possible or not sensible to do so.

 

[Richard Longmuir]

Hi Darren,

All depends on the waters you fish, how tight the swims are and wether you intend to fish in the dark or not.

Most of my fishing is on the Kennet and Loddon which are relatively small rivers and I feel its not practical to use two rods,espically if you feel that fish are spooking off lines then why give them two to scare them(I always have a preferred spot that I feel might produce a bite if Im lucky and the other rod would then be cast to keep it out the way)Its difficult to control a large barbel close in particularly at night and Id hate to loose a fish due to the extra rod.

Even on the Wye I almost always use only one rod,might use two on the Trent or Thames though

 

[Ian Grant]

I use two as a preference Darren, and always up, and downstream, i never have two rods cast in the same direction, it's a waste of one rod, obviously increases the risk of one line catching the other, and potentially increases the risk of spooking the fish.
I see so many fishing two rods placed together inches apart on the bank, with both lines judgeing by their often identical angles having baits only feet apart on the river bed. I can't see how this creates any advantage.
My rods are are spread, always being placed either side of me, and angled away from me to further increase the distance each line enters the water. How far that distance is, is dictated by how much accsesible water i have in front of me, and will also dictate how close to my rod i back lead on my downstream, and how far i allow the flow to pin my line down on the upstream rod.
Generally my baited areas are kept as far apart from each other as practically possible, not only from a point of view of saftey, but to creating 2 genuinely separately baited areas, thereby using each rod to it's maximum potential.
Very tight swims are obviously not the place to be using two rods, and i tend to avoid them anyway.

Ian

 

[Andrew Boyne]

For the best part of ten years fishing larger rivers like the Trent and Ribble i have generally fished 2, 1 up 1 down as Ian has described - and for the same reasons. During the last season i began fishing 1 rod and found my results improved. I believe this was simply because i was more focused fishing 1 rod/1 area and as a result fished better. Obviously i'm no good at multi tasking!

 

[Simon King]

I use two as a preference Darren, and always up, and downstream, i never have two rods cast in the same direction, it's a waste of one rod, obviously increases the risk of one line catching the other, and potentially increases the risk of spooking the fish.
I see so many fishing two rods placed together inches apart on the bank, with both lines judgeing by their often identical angles having baits only feet apart on the river bed. I can't see how this creates any advantage.


Ian

Really? It all depends on where the fish are likely to feed. I can think of many swims where I fish both downstream, either one in the flow and one in the margin, or wherever there may be two gravel runs one each side of the rivers centre. It's never a waste of a rod if the location is right.

Such a dogmatic approach may well lead to reducing your potential to catch more fish.

I place my rod(s) to whatever the swim's potential and features dictates. Which may be any combination of one/two rods downstream, upstream at any angle or straight out.

 

[Ian Grant]

Really? It all depends on where the fish are likely to feed. I can think of many swims where I fish both downstream, either one in the flow and one in the margin, or wherever there may be two gravel runs one each side of the rivers centre. It's never a waste of a rod if the location is right.

Such a dogmatic approach may well lead to reducing your potential to catch more fish.

I place my rod(s) to whatever the swim's potential and features dictates. Which may be any combination of one/two rods downstream, upstream at any angle or straight out.

Yes really Simon,
If i've got it right, the fish will have found my baited spots long before i wet a line, and the spots that i've dictated, yes spots that in the first instance i think might hold Barbel, but chosen for other reasons too.
I would concede to your points if i was fishing a very wide river, but i usually don't.
A fish will have no problem finding bait several yards - even more from where it may be sitting, even more so when it's become accustomed to finding it there.
Two baits within feet of each other or even several yards of one and other, seems a complete waste to me, either one would be sufficient to catch it or them.
You and i obviously fish very differently Simon, more power to your elbow mate Fishing is about enjoying yourself, and if you do fishing your way, then thats all that matters in the end

Ian.

 

[Simon King]

Yes really Simon,
If i've got it right, the fish will have found my baited spots long before i wet a line, and the spots that i've dictated, yes spots that in the first instance i think might hold Barbel, but chosen for other reasons too.
I would concede to your points if i was fishing a very wide river, but i usually don't.
A fish will have no problem finding bait several yards - even more from where it may be sitting, even more so when it's become accustomed to finding it there.
Two baits within feet of each other or even several yards of one and other, seems a complete waste to me, either one would be sufficient to catch it or them.
You and i obviously fish very differently Simon, more power to your elbow mate Fishing is about enjoying yourself, and if you do fishing your way, then thats all that matters in the end

Ian.

My barbelling is on "small" rivers, but what would you count "feet" as? I've fished with baits 10 ft apart and caught on both rods. A couple/three feet is probably a waste, as you say. I may have rods 4 to 6 ft apart in terms of flow (one in the flow, one on the crease), but one further downstream by a rod-length or so; if room permits a feeder approach on a particular line with a "sleeper" rod same line downstream; it's just a question of degree?

I'm not saying you're wrong, just questioning your reasoning and rigidity.

 

[Ramon San Juan]

Small river = 1 rod.... Big river = 2 rods. as for both in the same direction or not depends if I am out for numbers of fish or a certain fish..... Simples

 

[Neil Powney]

2 rods for me. Sometimes I experiment with the 'less important' rod and the downstreamer is always the 'main' rod - I'd say 80%, if not more of my fish always come from the downstream rod. I thought about doing away with the upstream rod but I have OCD and everything has to be done in pairs

 

[David Hall]

1, 2 for big rivers.

 

[Ian Grant]

My barbelling is on "small" rivers, but what would you count "feet" as? I've fished with baits 10 ft apart and caught on both rods. A couple/three feet is probably a waste, as you say. I may have rods 4 to 6 ft apart in terms of flow (one in the flow, one on the crease), but one further downstream by a rod-length or so; if room permits a feeder approach on a particular line with a "sleeper" rod same line downstream; it's just a question of degree?

I'm not saying you're wrong, just questioning your reasoning and rigidity.

well i suppose i shouldn't have said 'feet' - because i'm just repeating myself, by then saying 'even several yards'.
The rivers i fish averages i suppose anything from 10 - 30 feet wide ( as an average ) the thought of placeing a bait as far apart as i could possibly get them in a river with those kind of widths wouldn't enter my head, ( Edit.... In the context of both baits being up or downstream ) even if further separated by as you say a rod length further downstream, which i'm pretty sure is neither here nor there.

This is because -
A) I am trying to single out the bigger fish, and two baited spots so close would encourage more fish ( maybe not Barbel ) into the swim, increasing the likleyhood of unwanted fish taking my bait, and spooking the one i was after.

B) I would be worried ( with good reason or not ) that a taking fish may get tangled with my other line whilst playing it.

C) That as already said i'm perfectly confident that any fish within the kind of distances we are talking of here, will easily be aware of my bait, if by the end of the session it hasn't taken it, then i've done someting pretty wrong, i.e.. It doesn't like my bait, - I doubt it i have absolute confidence in my bait.
I've spooked it - Maybe i've done that before
Or it wasn't there in the first place - again maybe i've got that wrong on occasion too
But i'm pretty sure having two baits even 30 odd feet apart in the same direction wouldn't help me put that fish on the bank, and i have to stress even more so haveing previously baited my spot.
I'm not saying you wont catch fish doing what you do Simon, and you obviously do, but probably in my opinion you'd have caught anyway with just one bait in the area.

My upstream rod though i have to say is not just with regard to having a another baited area some distance away, it seems to me to be an excellent presentation that i really wouldn't want to not have the option of nowadays,
If i was restricted to one rod only i would give the upstream areas as much consideration as the downstream, fortunatly i rarely - actually never - find myself having to make the choice, unless i wish it.
I guess my upstream and downstream baits are never less than ( i never try and accuratly measure it ) 50 feet apart, mostly quite a bit more.
I'm also hoping that catching on one or the other, doesn't spook fish that are possibly on the other bed of bait.

Hope that answers your question.

Ian.

 

[Ian Hugo Arnott]

I only ever use one rod as I invariably touch ledger when fishing for barbel.

Regards

Hugo

 

[Simon King]

well i suppose i shouldn't have said 'feet' - because i'm just repeating myself, by then saying 'even several yards'.
The rivers i fish averages i suppose anything from 10 - 30 feet wide ( as an average )

Ian.

I thought I fished small rivers, but maybe yours are even smaller?

Then I think I'd understand what you're saying a bit more clearly.

 

[Ian Grant]

I thought I fished small rivers, but maybe yours are even smaller?

Then I think I'd understand what you're saying a bit more clearly.

Well i am talking fishable water with those figures, Bankside foliage and tree growth can take up a fair amount of water.

Ian.

 

[Joe Fletcher]

I normally only fish one rod and have only fished with two on the odd occasion .
Has any one had the fortune or misfortune to have had a fish on at the same time on each rod

 

[Ian Grant]

I normally only fish one rod and have only fished with two on the odd occasion .
Has any one had the fortune or misfortune to have had a fish on at the same time on each rod

It's never happened to me Joe, though obviously it's always a possiblity it could however remote.
I think it would be pushing your luck to fish two rods on a prolific venue, as in fish that would likley take your bait not just Barbel, what is a prolific venue i suppose is a matter of judgement for the individual.

When i'm delberatly trying to catch as many as possible, such as when i'm using maggots, it's one rod only, fishing where you know numbers are present, and you get them going, they can come one after the other fairly quickly.

Ian.

 

[Adrian Williams]

My local water is the Severn, I've had two on at once on many occasions, in fact there have been several occasions where I have had one in the net resting, one on the hook and the other rod has gone off.
Before the pellet days we would usually fish with a maggot or casters and hemp or hemp through a blockend feeder and maggot, caster or meat on the hook, meat on the main rod.
This rod would be cast every few minutes to build up the swim and sometimes a sleeper rod would be fished down the side with a lump of meat to pick up the opportunist fish which used to patrol the margins mopping up the inevitable spillage from the feeder and the discarded hookbaits.
Later on the 'sleeper' rod was positioned lower down the swim but on the main feed line in the belief that the larger fish would hang back off the main feeding area.
Nowadays with the pellet revolution most people are fishing open end feeder with scalded pellet or fishmeal based groundbait and pellet on the hook though some do use micro pellets and a blockend feeder.

To fish two rods effectively is hard work, and as I get older I'm trying my best to avoid that. With that in mind I'm slowly going back to one rod for the majority of my fishing and holding the rod most of the time.
I do still set a sleeper rod up with the long drop bobbin and centrepin and those old opportunistic fish still patrol the margins and still fall for a big lump of meat but more often these days it is baited with a boilie.

 

[Richard Longmuir]

Forgot to say that due to the terrible Crayfish problem on many parts of the Kennet you cant leave a bait out for long periods of time with any confidence of it still being there so regular casting is the only solution.Following on of the theme of avoiding hard work !!!! another reason for saying one rod

 

[Simon King]

I do still set a sleeper rod up with the long drop bobbin and centrepin and those old opportunistic fish still patrol the margins and still fall for a big lump of meat but more often these days it is baited with a boilie.

Boilies on centrepins. Goodness me, where will this madness end?