Deeper pro +

[Terry Simner]

That seemed to do the trick Terry cheers.

Great stuff Jon. Made a typo in my message, should have been .... That's unusual IME
BTW ... that's a very weak 'fish signal' Jon. Could have been fish/a fish, or something else. Can't see fish finding display when using on a river being a useful feature anyway.

 

[Clive Kenyon]

Just had my first few casts with my deeper. Couple of questions. Are those green dots fish or something else. Also it seemed to keep losing connection when I cast about half way across the river. Anyone else have that problem?
View attachment 14324View attachment 14323

I would say those marks are weed or sunken branches. Try adjusting the sensitivity upwards.

 

[Jon Young]

Just had a mess with the sensitivity and put fish icon on to l/m and it shows a lot more

I only had a few casts with it Friday cause the braid on the reel I was using is pretty old and I was too worried about cracking it off if there was any nicks in the braid. I ordered some 100lb braid thinking I’ll never snap that but didn’t even take into account the diameter of the braid so iv respooled my reel but now I’m worried there isn’t enough line on there. Iv dug my old baby big pit out that I use on my marker rod and was going to load the spare spool up with the new braid but it’s got 20lb line on it already so I’m tempted to just use that. It’s hardly ever been used so should be in good enough nick to just use for casting this deeper out.

 

[Clive Kenyon]

There are three main issues with the Deeper Pro. One is that there are only three grades of scale regards fish size. When you think that fish range from bleak to catfish, three grades doesn't really help. Also is that it often shows multiple fish when there are less actual fish present because of the sonar's pulses recording the same fish twice or more. The CHIRP is supposed to avoid that, but the Deeper Pro certainly is guilty of lying about the numbers. The third and most important fault or issue is that it will record weed and underwater branches as fish in some circumstances. There is a swim immediately below a bridge where I fish that, according to the sonar is stuffed full of fish all year around. But when I stand on the bridge and look into the water there are no fish. Not even little ones. But there is a sunken tree with multiple branches there. The higher the sensitivity the more likely the sonar is to record snags as fish.

One other feature that is less important is that the depth indication of any fish marked is taken from the top of the fish where the swim bladder is. So, for example, in a 2.0 metre swim the sonar could indicate a fish at 1.7m deep. That isn't always a fish cruising off bottom that can be caught by trotting. It could be a deep bodied fish like a carp feeding on the bottom.

For those reasons I usually rely on the Deeper Pro to find features rather than fish. It lets me survey an area in a fraction of the time than when using a rod and plummet and far more accurately. As for the fish aspect; like many anglers, it isn't to be relied on

 

[Dave Brooksbank]

There are three main issues with the Deeper Pro. One is that there are only three grades of scale regards fish size. When you think that fish range from bleak to catfish, three grades doesn't really help. Also is that it often shows multiple fish when there are less actual fish present because of the sonar's pulses recording the same fish twice or more. The CHIRP is supposed to avoid that, but the Deeper Pro certainly is guilty of lying about the numbers. The third and most important fault or issue is that it will record weed and underwater branches as fish in some circumstances. There is a swim immediately below a bridge where I fish that, according to the sonar is stuffed full of fish all year around. But when I stand on the bridge and look into the water there are no fish. Not even little ones. But there is a sunken tree with multiple branches there. The higher the sensitivity the more likely the sonar is to record snags as fish.

One other feature that is less important is that the depth indication of any fish marked is taken from the top of the fish where the swim bladder is. So, for example, in a 2.0 metre swim the sonar could indicate a fish at 1.7m deep. That isn't always a fish cruising off bottom that can be caught by trotting. It could be a deep bodied fish like a carp feeding on the bottom.

For those reasons I usually rely on the Deeper Pro to find features rather than fish. It lets me survey an area in a fraction of the time than when using a rod and plummet and far more accurately. As for the fish aspect; like many anglers, it isn't to be relied on

Good Explanation.

 

[Terry Simner]

Good Explanation.

I agree. Trying to find fish using a Sonar is almost entirely a waster of time, and bordering on the 'unsporting' anyway, IMO. You're standing at the water's edge, casting a large 3.5oz plastic ball into flowing water repeatedly ... and any fish in the swim will notice this activity. As Clive says, if you're using a Sonar to find fish you'll find it has many faults. We're talking about moving water, and creatures that can move ... especially when confronted with the splodooooosh of a cast sonar. Fish move, but (most/many) features are static. If you find, say, a drop-off, a hole, with fish apparently in it, then great ... note it. But don't presume fish that are 'found' by your sonar, especially in open water, will be still there minutes/hours/days later when you're actually fishing.
Used as a depth/contour/feature finder sonars can be great. Using them to find fish is like asking for advice on the bank from the local blithering idiot

 

[Clive Kenyon]

I'm not so sure about the disturbance aspect. If you cast well upstream and let the sonar dead drift before stopping the line and allowing it to arc back towards the near bank there would be very little disturbance. They way I do it on rivers is to cast as far as I can / is necessary upstream and across, allow a free line so that the ball drifts downstream and then apply the bail arm and guide the sonar in an arc to that I can retrieve it in the shallower water well away from any fish. Then cast a yard or so less and repeat. Usually five or six casts and I am done. If you then move slightly up or downstream and repeat the Deeper program will combine the surveys which leads to another problem in that the maximum display size of the survey is the same whether you have reccied one swim or twenty. The more you record, the less detail is available on the map page.

The GPS recorded by the Deeper Pro sonar often does not coordinate with the Google map it is written on. Many of my swims show my swim being on dry land. And to plot a sight line on the map in order to be able to cast to it is very difficult at the best of times. Better to have another rod rigged up with a marker float and if you find a likely drop off, hole or other feature cast your marker float to that location as quick as you can before the sonar has drifted, then you will be able to use the marker float as a visual aid or to measure the distance from the bank. All that is easier on lakes when the sonar drift is less. Another idea is to have a small piece of electrician's tape handy stuck on the rod so you can quickly fold it over the line, retrieve and measure the distance.

In short, it is useful, but nowhere near as good as the maker's claim it to be. I also have a €30 Chinese 'Lucky' sonar and that gives enough information to make the Deeper Pro an expensive toy.

 

[Terry Simner]

Great post Clive. I've used it most on the Lower Severn where depths are in the region of 10 to 18ft, and flow is slow. It's ok there in giving you features/contours ... but it still misses snags that I know are actually there (and it's snags that I'm mostly looking for). Yeah it's a bugger when the sonar tells you that you've been casting, apparently whilst standing in 12ft of water It told me once that there was a long ~18ft mid-stream hole in a 4-5ft glide I'd fished previous. I rechecked, and checked again ... a long, deep fissure half way out. This was exciting news, although I doubted the truth of it. And, lo and behold, on rechecking the swim a few weeks later the 'hole' had mysteriously disappeared.
From all this I tend not to try to analyse the results/readings whilst on the bank, but use Lakebook later. From the data provided from the beginnings and ends of runs through/scans you can usually work out where you were actually casting from and to : you can see where you were standing on the bank, see the bushes in/overhanging the river - all those places where you couldn't scan. The 'gaps' in the data show you the irregularities of the margins (bushes etc) and these should coincide with Lakebook's/Google Earth's images.
The results are at best indicative, and far from definitive... and the 'map' is, more often than not, not the actual 'territory'.

 

[Jon Young]

If I can get a rough idea of holes and drop offs out of it then I’ll be happy

 

[Slawek Slowinski]

Treated myself to one of these for Christmas and was wondering if any of you have one how do you hold your phone while using it? Iv seen on a pic you can attach your phone to your rod but I’d be too worried about it flying off on the cast into the river. I was wondering if there is any bankstick adapters that can hold your phone so you could have it next to you so you can see it but still have both hands on the rod/reel ready to reel it back in

Got this from home bargains for £2 or £3

 

[Clive Kenyon]

Yes Terry, I have had the mysterious disappearing holes too. And with both devices

Regards casting to fish spotted on the sonar; While casting the Deeper from the bank I once came across what I thought was a catfish lurking near to a sunken tree. The arc looked like a good sized fish, but I only had carp tackle with me. A week or so later I was back, in the boat and with proper gear. I cast the sonar beyond the area and slowly retrieved it. The fish was still showing so I cast to the spot with half a mackerel and hooked a zoo creature that broke me in the snags. The weather and lockdowns have prevented me from going back, but I know where it lives!

 

[Chris Belcher]

I've got a chirp for carp fishing and use a tablet mounted on a tripod . . .no way would I attach the mobile phone holder to the rod as that's a disaster waiting to happen. The higher you position your phone the better the signal - also swop out the top for the night vision variant as the location is easier to see in context with the sonar. Brave man for using one on the river full stop - if you lose it / snag it its game over and an expensive session! Def use a wire trace under all circumstances - I've had UK pike and French Catfish catfish strike at mine on several occasions . .

 

[Richard Parsons]

This sounds like something one might purchase from that well known toy retailer, Anne Summers (not that I've been in there lately).

Edit - apologies in advance for the Monday smut.

 

[Clive Kenyon]

Easy mistake to make Richard. I got thrown off the Screwfix Helpline over a similar misunderstanding.

 

[Graham Elliott]

Old school me. No doubt would help to catch more with the technology.

BUT.....

 

[Chris Belcher]

Old school me. No doubt would help to catch more with the technology.

BUT.....

These are definitely great pieces of kit for quick mapping of topography Graham . . .much quicker than a bare lead / marker and negate constant recasts and ultimately swim disturbance. For weedy lakes they are a godsend as finding 'holes' and clear spots is so much faster. Using them on rivers however is not something I'm sure I'd risk on a £250 electronic casting weight . . . . .!

 

[Graham Elliott]

These are definitely great pieces of kit for quick mapping of topography Graham . . .much quicker than a bare lead / marker and negate constant recasts and ultimately swim disturbance. For weedy lakes they are a godsend as finding 'holes' and clear spots is so much faster. Using them on rivers however is not something I'm sure I'd risk on a £250 electronic casting weight . . . . .!

Yes. Seem very popular.
I have always found surface movement usually gives away bottom indications on rivers.
No doubt not as efficient as technology .

 

[Richard Isaacs]

I’m old school too. A lead and a float dotted about has always given me a good enough indication of what lies beneath if it’s not already obvious from what is shown above.
Don’t get me wrong I’ve seen those deepers in action and they are very impressive and way quicker than I can do it with more detail but we all have a personal line that we draw.
On one side your fishing and on the other side your cheating. For me that line is crossed with a sonar for bank fishing. Don’t take that the wrong way though.......it’s a personal line and many things are on the other side of it for me like robot lures, bait boats and closed season pre baiting.

 

[Chris Belcher]

I’m old school too. A lead and a float dotted about has always given me a good enough indication of what lies beneath if it’s not already obvious from what is shown above.
Don’t get me wrong I’ve seen those deepers in action and they are very impressive and way quicker than I can do it with more detail but we all have a personal line that we draw.
On one side your fishing and on the other side your cheating. For me that line is crossed with a sonar for bank fishing. Don’t take that the wrong way though.......it’s a personal line and many things are on the other side of it for me like robot lures, bait boats and closed season pre baiting.

I agree it could be classed as cheating if you are actively trying to locate fish . . however they are not really that effective in this respect, and even as great as they are in quickly mapping topography still do not trump a good old heavy lead and donk method. Like anything they are a tool that tech has driven for todays angler and in that respect they are very good . . .as said wouldn't use this on rivers for a multitude of reasons - everything about river fishing for me needs to be about simplicity and minimal kit . . ! I'm semi-old skool, but always happy to adopt new tech if it makes my available time more effective . .

 

[Terry Simner]

95%+ of the time I've used mine has been in the Close Season, and I've found it most useful in preparing to fish a new stretch. I have a friend who is more than happy to turn up at a new stretch (or even a new river to him) and just cast in at the first place that takes his fancy. That to me is anathema, but each to their own. Faced with miles of a 12ft+ deep, 50m wide, and seemingly featureless river, a Deeper is an aid, but nothing more.
Would I recommend anyone buying one? Not sure, depends on their piggy-bank I guess. Do I enjoy using one in the close season? Yes, to me it's now part of the joy of walking a new stretch ... making a few casts as I go, and reviewing the findings when I get home.
Is it "cheating". To my mind, definitely not. IMO It's about as much a 'cheat' as polaroid glasses are. On rivers, all a Deeper will (fairly) reliably tell you is the depth of the water. Conversely, on rivers of certain depth and clarity, polaroid glasses will actually make 'fish-finding' much easier.