• 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...

Deeper pro +

That is just about what I do. Rarely take it with me when I'm fishing, but it is always in the car along with a telescopic rod. I cover an area of over 3,000km2 in my work and that encompasses a lot of river banks and some large lakes. Quite often I'll stop off for a sandwich near to an interesting new swim I have found on Google Earth and chuck the sonar out to check what if any features are there. Anything useful is written in a notebook and I can refer to the information if I go back and fish there.

On the odd occasion that I fish a new swim that hasn't been surveyed I might take one or other of the sonars and check for snags or other features. Then it goes back in the case. People who think that these things can be used for locating fish to cast to are misinformed. This is possible with a much more sophisticated boat mounted sonar, but the castable ones are very low-tech when it comes to fish recognition.

But ultimately it depends where you draw the line. Some people think that a pre-baiting program is cheating, or fishing a carp puddle for a known 60lb fish. For me, I fish waters that are un-fished or very rarely fished so this tool saves me a lot of time compared to a float and plummet.
 
Chris Belcher said:
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 . . . . .!
Click to expand...
I picked mine up after Christmas on sale. Was £165 I think. Still don’t want to lose it for that price which was why I only had a handful of casts with it the other day after noticing my braid wasn’t in the best shape.
One of the main reasons I wanted one was my fishing sessions are usually only 3 or 4 hours at the longest. Iv been trying out new venues so last thing I want to be doing is casting a lead around disturbing the swim when I’m not going to be there long anyway.
The only reason I asked if they were fish on the pictures I put up was cause that was the first time Iv used it so was just wondering what I’m actually looking at on the screen. Like Terry I’m going to use the close season to have a good play with it travel restrictions permitting.
 
When I say to me it’s crossed over that line of cheating, I don’t mean because it shows fish.
I mean it does a job that good skilled anglers can proficiently do but much much faster, easier and give more detail.
That is map a swim. Find features, find clean gravel, work out depth changes etc.

Now I’m not really bothered whether people on here have or don’t have the skills to map a typical swim with a rod n reel. It’s something I learnt from my dad very young and it’s a big part of being able to catch fish for me.
but what is quite frightening is that is a skill that will eventually fizzle out as these gadgets do it all for you.
you say it’s not for finding fish but .......... finding depths, features etc.
errrrrrr that’s fish finding!
To me every session is a game of man vs fish. there are rules for me of course. Dynamite cannot be used is obviously the first. I guess it’s just one of those things really. As such devices make an impact and get more advanced the skill level of the general angler over time drops too.
 
I disagree with much of that. Finding features only equates to finding fish if you fully understand the correlation between the two. Without watercraft all you have is a map. And the sonar is no different to a plummet and float, except it is much quicker.

I can go to swims on the Charente that are twelve foot deep and you can see every pebble and weedbed on the bottom all the way across. Is that cheating? Because that is all the sonar will do for you; give you a visual description of the water in front of you.
 
Clive Kenyon said:
I disagree with much of that. Finding features only equates to finding fish if you fully understand the correlation between the two. Without watercraft all you have is a map. And the sonar is no different to a plummet and float, except it is much quicker.

I can go to swims on the Charente that are twelve foot deep and you can see every pebble and weedbed on the bottom all the way across. Is that cheating? Because that is all the sonar will do for you; give you a visual description of the water in front of you.
Click to expand...
Well have to agree to disagree on it Clive. It’s a discussion that for and against arguments can be thrown at all evening and at the end of the day I’m only voicing my personal opinion on them.
imo they drive skill level down because they give you information that a traditionalist would have to put a little work in to obtain. That’s why I believe they boarder on the verge of cheating. Everyone to their own mind and it appears I’m grossly out numbered on this one anyway 😁
 
This is beginning to sound a bit like the furore over the mass production and take-up of 'Threadline' reels, with the devotees of centrepins crying foul ... that these fixed-spool egg beating contraptions would take all the skill out of catching fish 😂 😂 😂
 
Not really Terry.
it’s just an opinion and I’m clearly in the minority with it which is ok for me.
I don’t fall out with people because we don’t agree. Just different opinions👍🏻
I know we all come out to catch fish and little advantages towards our side of the chess board are often very welcome but a device that you can cast from the bank and tells you exactly what is below the water and exactly where in seconds to your phone screen is quite a massive edge. Anyone that says it’s not is kidding themselves.
they are definitely tools that will put you on the fish much quicker than if you didn’t have it. The guys at deeper are geniuses giving us castable sonar.
I don’t have a problem with them and my fishing friends have got them and caught bonus fish from the data they’ve extracted. Just not for me mate.
I like to go home knowing I’ve fished well and Sailing one of those things down the river and keeping/using the data to find where fish might be wouldn’t give me that same satisfaction.
I feel ok using a fixed spool reel. 🤣 They’ve been on the go longer than I’ve been alive so I don’t know any different. Love a pin for trotting mind. 👍🏻
 
Richard Isaacs said:
Not really Terry.
it’s just an opinion and I’m clearly in the minority with it which is ok for me.
I don’t fall out with people because we don’t agree. Just different opinions👍🏻
I know we all come out to catch fish and little advantages towards our side of the chess board are often very welcome but a device that you can cast from the bank and tells you exactly what is below the water and exactly where in seconds to your phone screen is quite a massive edge. Anyone that says it’s not is kidding themselves.
they are definitely tools that will put you on the fish much quicker than if you didn’t have it. The guys at deeper are geniuses giving us castable sonar.
I don’t have a problem with them and my fishing friends have got them and caught bonus fish from the data they’ve extracted. Just not for me mate.
I like to go home knowing I’ve fished well and Sailing one of those things down the river and keeping/using the data to find where fish might be wouldn’t give me that same satisfaction.
I feel ok using a fixed spool reel. 🤣 They’ve been on the go longer than I’ve been alive so I don’t know any different. Love a pin for trotting mind. 👍🏻
Click to expand...
Fair enough Richard .... but I do still think that polarised glasses are the devil's own work 😈
 
For me they are just another one of the many things that give me a better understanding of the waters that I fish. I use Google Earth to find likely places, using the historic images to view the swims at different times of year and the tool that measure the height above sea level to get an idea of the gradient of the surrounding land that often reflects in the contours and depth of the water next to it.

I spend a lot of time reccying new swims. First online using GE, then I'll drive to the area and try and find the local tracks and footpaths that give me access to the area I am interested in. Finally, it is boots on the ground with polarizing glasses, bino's and a telescopic rod with one or other of the sonars and a float and weight on a pole winder to check the flow. Anything interesting gets written into my notebook.

If the swim looks a goer I'll go back and fish it two or three times then move onto another area. I've got dozens of good swims marked out in my notebook and I can return to them any time knowing that I have the basic information to maximise success. Or at least avoid a blank!

Turning up and fishing the nearest swim to the car park isn't my thing and these sonars have saved me hours and hours of time over the years.
 
Clive Kenyon said:
For me they are just another one of the many things that give me a better understanding of the waters that I fish. I use Google Earth to find likely places, using the historic images to view the swims at different times of year and the tool that measure the height above sea level to get an idea of the gradient of the surrounding land that often reflects in the contours and depth of the water next to it.

I spend a lot of time reccying new swims. First online using GE, then I'll drive to the area and try and find the local tracks and footpaths that give me access to the area I am interested in. Finally, it is boots on the ground with polarizing glasses, bino's and a telescopic rod with one or other of the sonars and a float and weight on a pole winder to check the flow. Anything interesting gets written into my notebook.

If the swim looks a goer I'll go back and fish it two or three times then move onto another area. I've got dozens of good swims marked out in my notebook and I can return to them any time knowing that I have the basic information to maximise success. Or at least avoid a blank!

Turning up and fishing the nearest swim to the car park isn't my thing and these sonars have saved me hours and hours of time over the years.
Click to expand...
It’s a good post Clive. I really do enjoy a good friendly debate on such things especially when the other partie(s) throw back solid arguments like these. I can’t argue against this apart from to simply say the deepers don’t have a place in my fishing personally. Maybe one day that will change 🤷🏻
the important thing is whatever we do, we enjoy it.
 
Richard Isaacs said:
It’s a good post Clive. I really do enjoy a good friendly debate on such things especially when the other partie(s) throw back solid arguments like these. I can’t argue against this apart from to simply say the deepers don’t have a place in my fishing personally. Maybe one day that will change 🤷🏻
the important thing is whatever we do, we enjoy it.
Click to expand...
All depends on available time and what you actually do with the information IMO. I've been using a marker float / bare lead on braid for decades and still do, this forms the basis of my knowledge / watercraft / whatever you want to call it . . .however I'll also use every tool to hand and that currently includes the deeper chirp. It does not replace the skills I already have, it just enhances them! Try one and see - that's all I'll say . . .

I remember over 15yrs ago when I was the first 'Humminbird Smartcast' (very basic castable sonar) user on my carp syndicate a lot of the members started moaning . . .but in time, all of them barring none when passing my swim wanted to 'just have a go' . . .every single one (and there were some diehard naysayers on that syndicate) didn't want to put the rod with the sonar attached down once they started . . . . . .
 
I have no objection to anyone using these devices but they are not for me (on rivers). With water craft skills built up over the years it is possible to judge the approximate depth along with other important factors such as where the main flow is, where the underwater snags are and also visible snags. Fish are found in different places according to water conditions and time of year.

The only problem I have is with some clowns who think it is ok to cast them around in the next swim to you. Time and time again. Getting closer to you!!

I do use a depth/fish finder from a boat when fly fishing for trout.
 
If most, if not all of my fishing had been in 4-8ft depth of water then the thought of buying a Deeper would never have occurred to me. But at the time of buying a Deeper I was fishing various long stretches of the Lower Severn (50m wide and average depth ~15ft?) and a 100 acres reservoir with an average depth of over 20ft. Mapping out and trying to spot features on those was a bit of a challenge, and the truism "Life's too short" sprang to mind. ;) Horses for courses 'n all that, plus I have found using a sonar to be enjoyable.
 
Being able to read a water is something that all anglers ought to be able to do. But, how many actually can? And of those who really believe that they can, how do you know that you are right? Unless you spend hours and hours plumbing and recording in a notebook the results you will never know whether your interpretation is correct. That is why people like Tony Miles advocate donning waders and using a wading stick to find deep holes that hold barbel. Given the choice between deep wading and casting a sonar I know which option I would choose.

In deeper water like the River Charente, which is 12 feet deep all the way across and little flow, there is no way to read the river outside around three summer months when it is all crystal clear.

One of the other features of a sonar is the temperature reading, recorded to 0.1C. This shows up where spring water warms a local area or where a colder side stream enters the river. In the winter months that data is more useful than depth and features.
 
Clive Kenyon said:
Being able to read a water is something that all anglers ought to be able to do. But, how many actually can? And of those who really believe that they can, how do you know that you are right? Unless you spend hours and hours plumbing and recording in a notebook the results you will never know whether your interpretation is correct. That is why people like Tony Miles advocate donning waders and using a wading stick to find deep holes that hold barbel. Given the choice between deep wading and casting a sonar I know which option I would choose.

In deeper water like the River Charente, which is 12 feet deep all the way across and little flow, there is no way to read the river outside around three summer months when it is all crystal clear.

One of the other features of a sonar is the temperature reading, recorded to 0.1C. This shows up where spring water warms a local area or where a colder side stream enters the river. In the winter months that data is more useful than depth and features.
Click to expand...
I noticed the water temp on it when I used it but surely that only gives you the surface water temperature.
 
Yes, it does. But warm water rises so if you detect a slight rise in the surface water temp' then it could be that the sonar is over a warm spring. In winter I've found a few hot spots like this.
 
It can make a world of difference in cold conditions. The areas of large lakes that don't freeze over are often where the ducks always congregate through the day and can be down to spring water coming in below. Some side streams and tributaries are warmer or colder than the main river and a simple angler's thermometer is too crude to register the slight changes that make all the difference to fish.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top