I HAVE ACCEPTED for some years that all fish are predatory, even the ones we normally use as bait for the conventional predators such as pike and perch.
OVER 40 YEARS ago I caught an 11lb carp that regurgitated two small tench in the landing net, and over the years I’ve witnessed bream grabbing bombs as they were being retrieved, tench coughing up hundreds of bream fry, as well as catching lots of chub on minnows and small gudgeon. There have been instances of all coarse fish taking spinners that were meant for trout, perch or pike. Unlike some, however, I don’t think fish baits will select the bigger fish with any greater effect than does any big bait. In fact, I think a fish bait poses many problems we could well do without, problems such as effective hooking without running the risk of hooking the fish too deeply, and being able to use a tooth-proof hook length that can deal with ‘nuisance’ pike without deterring target fish such as chub. Although I don’t rate fish baits any higher than any other big bait for picking out the better specimens of the so-called non-predatory species, I do think there are times when they will catch more big fish than any other bait, and that being so then they have to be considered as an alternative bait much the same as any bait choice. An incident that happened a few years ago gave me a lot of fuel for thought. Barbel on Sardine Myself, John Charlesworth and Dave Colclough were fishing the river Severn at Atcham. Dave and I were fishing for barbel, using the usual method of swimfeeder with caster and hemp, 8lb hook length, and a 14’s hook baited with two casters. John was pike fishing, using a sardine on a snap tackle.
The three of us sat in a line, no more than two yards separating each end man from the middle man. Dave was in the middle and me on the right, both of us fishing slightly downstream. John, obviously on the left, was fishing straight out, perhaps very slightly upstream, and closer to the margin. The barbel swim is an old favourite of mine, a swim that, on the right day, can produce a good bag of barbel of a decent average size. Not a swim that you would choose to try to catch a really big individual specimen, but an excellent one for introducing someone like Dave, who had limited experience of barbel, to the delights of Severn barbel fishing. I’d had barbel to over 8lb out of the swim, but that was an exception. What makes it a good swim is the number of barbel in the 5lb to 6lb bracket you can catch when the swim is on top form. It is a big swim that can accommodate two anglers with ease, three, if, as was the case with John, one fishes away from the usual barbel area, which is about two thirds of the way across. That day was not the right day for a good catch. I had a couple of 4 to 5-pounders out almost straight away, then Dave had a smaller one, and then we found we were struggling to get a bite. Over two hours went by without anything more than a tremble on the rod tips, which we put down to dace. A change to a 6lb bottom and a 16’s hook didn’t make any difference. Without any preamble, John’s drop-off indicator did just that, and the alarm sounded as line was pulled steadily from the spool. He struck, and the rod bent into a fish. ‘It’s not a big one,’ John said, ‘but it’s a lively bugger for a jack!’
And so it was, kicking and splashing like a good ‘un. It was only when he was drawing it over the net we realised it was a barbel of about 5lbs, and when we got it on the bank we could hardly believe it when we saw it was hooked cleanly in the top lip by the bottom treble of the snap tackle. The whole, 8 inch long sardine, had disappeared, probably slipping the hooks during the commotion on the way to the net. More runs to the sardine John cast another sardine to the same spot while Dave and I carried on trying to catch barbel on conventional tactics and baits. If I remember correctly Dave and I caught another small one apiece later in the afternoon, but what I do remember quite clearly is that John had three more runs on a sardine, runs that went at exactly the same pace as the barbel run, but which he missed each time he struck. Each time the bait came back intact, with not a tooth mark to be seen. I was convinced at the time, and still am, that barbel were responsible, and that perhaps if John had modified his tackle and bait to better accommodate barbel he may have caught several of them. Of course, chub could have been responsible, but the swim is noted for barbel, and chub are the exception rather than the rule. I don’t think the answer is to fish a small piece of fish because we may as well fish a ball of fish paste, which isn’t really what we are trying to achieve. We wouldn’t be catching chub or barbel on fish baits then, not in its truest sense anyhow. That wouldn’t be any different than catching carp on a fishmeal boilie. Small fish, cutlets, or the head, tail, or middle of a bigger fish are true fish baits, anything less is cheating. Hooking barbel or chub when fish, or pieces of fish, are the bait, is the obvious problem. At least it is a problem when a wire trace is used to prevent nuisance pike from being left with a hook and length of line trailing from their mouths. The wire precludes chub and barbel from consistently taking the bait well enough to be hooked. As I said, fishing with fish to catch fish that are not recognised predators is always another option, but I don’t think it will ever be any more than that. |
Welcome!Log into your account
