S
swordsy
Guest
Scuba gear would be good!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Death Rigs
- Thread starter GrahamM
- Start date
M
matt thomas
Guest
i would'nt fancy your chances much,you would get in at stoke and get out at newark
S
swordsy
Guest
I think you may have a point!
W
Wolfman Woody
Guest
"There is enough lead on the bottom of the Trent to re-roof the cathedrals in every city in the country!"
You'd probably just be returning it to it's source then.
You'd probably just be returning it to it's source then.
S
swordsy
Guest
:O) LOL
Bob Roberts
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2002
- Messages
- 2,334
- Reaction score
- 8
Woody,
you personally may not lose feeders attached within loops - except those you lose due to boats (they obviously don't count as lost then) - but if there's enough lead to re-roof a cathedral in the Trent alone then it's patently obvious that many anglers do lose feeders, therefore I feel it is irresponsibile to promote the practise on rivers where 3 and 4oz of lead is common practise and the river bed is strewn with rocks and snags.
If, in your opinion, I'm 'WRONG' then I'm happy to be wrong, safe in the knowledge that my rigs are fish friendly and my conscience is clear.
you personally may not lose feeders attached within loops - except those you lose due to boats (they obviously don't count as lost then) - but if there's enough lead to re-roof a cathedral in the Trent alone then it's patently obvious that many anglers do lose feeders, therefore I feel it is irresponsibile to promote the practise on rivers where 3 and 4oz of lead is common practise and the river bed is strewn with rocks and snags.
If, in your opinion, I'm 'WRONG' then I'm happy to be wrong, safe in the knowledge that my rigs are fish friendly and my conscience is clear.
W
Wolfman Woody
Guest
Your not comparing apples with apples Bob. I'm having a good day so I'm not as confused as I normally would be for my age.
Firstly the comment on lead roofs I made was purely in jest. My feeders for the closed loop have zinc (not lead) attachments and never weigh more than 1oz.
Secondly I am not advocating the use of 3 and 4 ozs leads to be tied on with the closed loop system either. Nor have I suggested anything stronger than 6lbs main line, mine is normally 4lbs.
I did also state in the article that the swim should be snag free. That would also imply that if you are losing feeders on a gravelly bottom, then the closed loop system would not be suitable. I know some stretches of the Trent are like that, isn't Hoveringham one area?
If people are "cracking off" on the cast then they should be checking first that their line isn't tangled around the rod tip. They are simply silly if they don't check. I was a little concerned with your statement about losing thousands of feeders before reaching the conclusion that the method was unsafe. What was going wrong?
Most of the feeders I have lost, it's not that many and perhaps only 1 or 2 per year, to the boats get wound around the propeller and are carried safely away - to somewhere. I doubt that if they drop off sometime there would be any bait left on the hook to attract a fish. I never lose them when I have a fish on. Our Thames bottom is mostly blue clay. In areas where there is a lot of Thames gravel or rubble (like at our CA water), I don't use the closed loop either.
You were wrong in that you were making a sweeping generalisation based on your own findings. If you don't trust the methods and don't use them because of that, fine, but it doesn't mean that for everyone else it's irresponsible to use them.
Firstly the comment on lead roofs I made was purely in jest. My feeders for the closed loop have zinc (not lead) attachments and never weigh more than 1oz.
Secondly I am not advocating the use of 3 and 4 ozs leads to be tied on with the closed loop system either. Nor have I suggested anything stronger than 6lbs main line, mine is normally 4lbs.
I did also state in the article that the swim should be snag free. That would also imply that if you are losing feeders on a gravelly bottom, then the closed loop system would not be suitable. I know some stretches of the Trent are like that, isn't Hoveringham one area?
If people are "cracking off" on the cast then they should be checking first that their line isn't tangled around the rod tip. They are simply silly if they don't check. I was a little concerned with your statement about losing thousands of feeders before reaching the conclusion that the method was unsafe. What was going wrong?
Most of the feeders I have lost, it's not that many and perhaps only 1 or 2 per year, to the boats get wound around the propeller and are carried safely away - to somewhere. I doubt that if they drop off sometime there would be any bait left on the hook to attract a fish. I never lose them when I have a fish on. Our Thames bottom is mostly blue clay. In areas where there is a lot of Thames gravel or rubble (like at our CA water), I don't use the closed loop either.
You were wrong in that you were making a sweeping generalisation based on your own findings. If you don't trust the methods and don't use them because of that, fine, but it doesn't mean that for everyone else it's irresponsible to use them.
Bob Roberts
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2002
- Messages
- 2,334
- Reaction score
- 8
Woody,
Please read what I've written before accusing me of making a sweeping generalisation. In fact, here's what I wrote:
"It is not my responsibility to tell you not to use a rig that has the potential to tether a fish. That is down to your own conscience.
It is my responsibility not to promote such rigs to those who may be influenced or encouraged by what I write."
I don't recall your article saying the methods had limitations when using leads heavier than an ounce or that the method is fine only on blue clay or gravel.
It works for you and your conscience is clear that you somehow never leave a baited hook attached to a feeder or perhaps doing it a couple of times a year is okay. I have no issue with that, you can knock a couple of fish on the head for the pan if that's what you like. Really, go ahead. I just wouldn't encourage others to copy me if that was what I did.
Back in my match days it was not uncommon to lose between two and six feeders per trip and I've seen anglers lose in excess of ten. Most Trent regulars I speak with practically expect to lose a feeder or two each trip. The comments of others on this thread appear to bear me out.
Hoveringham claims its fair share of them, too. You just have no idea where the snags lie until you try and reel in and it is often the snaggy swims that produce the most fish.
Back in my match fishing days I saw (heard) crack-offs every week as anglers punched out feeders towards the far horizon. Ask any Trentman, Scotthorne, Pickering, et al and they'll all admit to their share of accidents.
You have pronounced the death rig is a myth, therefore I put it to you that you are making the sweeping generalisation, not I. I'm just telling you that you're wrong. A loop rig can and will tether fish.
After all, we're discussing a practise here, not the skill of the angler using it or the venue you are fishing.
Please read what I've written before accusing me of making a sweeping generalisation. In fact, here's what I wrote:
"It is not my responsibility to tell you not to use a rig that has the potential to tether a fish. That is down to your own conscience.
It is my responsibility not to promote such rigs to those who may be influenced or encouraged by what I write."
I don't recall your article saying the methods had limitations when using leads heavier than an ounce or that the method is fine only on blue clay or gravel.
It works for you and your conscience is clear that you somehow never leave a baited hook attached to a feeder or perhaps doing it a couple of times a year is okay. I have no issue with that, you can knock a couple of fish on the head for the pan if that's what you like. Really, go ahead. I just wouldn't encourage others to copy me if that was what I did.
Back in my match days it was not uncommon to lose between two and six feeders per trip and I've seen anglers lose in excess of ten. Most Trent regulars I speak with practically expect to lose a feeder or two each trip. The comments of others on this thread appear to bear me out.
Hoveringham claims its fair share of them, too. You just have no idea where the snags lie until you try and reel in and it is often the snaggy swims that produce the most fish.
Back in my match fishing days I saw (heard) crack-offs every week as anglers punched out feeders towards the far horizon. Ask any Trentman, Scotthorne, Pickering, et al and they'll all admit to their share of accidents.
You have pronounced the death rig is a myth, therefore I put it to you that you are making the sweeping generalisation, not I. I'm just telling you that you're wrong. A loop rig can and will tether fish.
After all, we're discussing a practise here, not the skill of the angler using it or the venue you are fishing.
M
matt thomas
Guest
i can back up what Bob says,on the trent you should never use a closed loop rig on the trent as it is too snaggy and i unfortunately lose quite a few feeders or leads in a season,now don't think we do it on purpose as it costs money ,drennan feeders are a quid each and then a dead cow strapped on the side at 50p plus a safety clip at a quid ,it adds up.but at least you know that it will detatch itself from the line if need be.
some swims are fine for loop rigs but i never use them,tempts fate too much i think
some swims are fine for loop rigs but i never use them,tempts fate too much i think
M
matt thomas
Guest
ooh on the trent twice sorry
bit early for a drink hic!
bit early for a drink hic!
Bob Roberts
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2002
- Messages
- 2,334
- Reaction score
- 8
Just re-read my last post and it sounds as if I'm having a go at you Woody. Sorry, that's not intentional, I'm just stating my views on a touchy subject.
We are very much at the opposite ends of the spectrum on this one and I can't see either side giving much. If it helps I was much in favour of the rig 15 years ago but times change.
Perhaps we need a wider input. Where are you Swordsey, Ron and maybe the Team Barbel guys?
We are very much at the opposite ends of the spectrum on this one and I can't see either side giving much. If it helps I was much in favour of the rig 15 years ago but times change.
Perhaps we need a wider input. Where are you Swordsey, Ron and maybe the Team Barbel guys?
W
Wolfman Woody
Guest
That's all right Bob, we do have opposite opinions it seems. You are free to have a go by all means, that's the idea of debate and we should BOTH take on board the criticisms of the other. I take your points about gravel in the Trent, but you will forgive me, it is a good many years since I fished the river (and then it was with a sliding lead, you might be pleased to know. Honest indian!)
Perhaps some of the others aren't commenting because they feel no need to. As Graham once told me, just because a thread isn't started about an article doesn't mean no-one's read it. It might mean that everyone simply agrees with it and you made the points very clear.
If you don't recall the article saying it had limitations on the weight of leads perhaps try reading it again and this time study if you will my artwork also. A picture speaks a thousand words. It doesn't show a lead weight (3 or 4ozs) nor do I state putting a lead weight on the loop, but a feeder. Ok, little difference you will say.
And I am very sorry if I didn't mention in my article that this method was not to be used on gravel or more specifically ON THE TRENT. Perhaps I should have listed all the other rivers in the country where it could or couldn't be used. Does everything need to be spelt out these days? Whatever happend to common sense?
That's not a dig at you, I'm merely suggesting that angler's should be encouraged to use whatever they have of it. Clearly you have made your mind up, fair go, but the NAA guidlines recommend the rig (with care) and all that I have done is merely put some flesh on the bones.
Oh and btw, my conscience would trouble me for days should I lose a rig (float, bolt, feeder, whatever) with a baited hook attached to it. At the end of the day though, it comes back to what I stated at the beginning of the piece, it's a matter of risk and that is something we cannot eliminate entirely in this sport. Convince me otherwise!
Perhaps some of the others aren't commenting because they feel no need to. As Graham once told me, just because a thread isn't started about an article doesn't mean no-one's read it. It might mean that everyone simply agrees with it and you made the points very clear.
If you don't recall the article saying it had limitations on the weight of leads perhaps try reading it again and this time study if you will my artwork also. A picture speaks a thousand words. It doesn't show a lead weight (3 or 4ozs) nor do I state putting a lead weight on the loop, but a feeder. Ok, little difference you will say.
And I am very sorry if I didn't mention in my article that this method was not to be used on gravel or more specifically ON THE TRENT. Perhaps I should have listed all the other rivers in the country where it could or couldn't be used. Does everything need to be spelt out these days? Whatever happend to common sense?
That's not a dig at you, I'm merely suggesting that angler's should be encouraged to use whatever they have of it. Clearly you have made your mind up, fair go, but the NAA guidlines recommend the rig (with care) and all that I have done is merely put some flesh on the bones.
Oh and btw, my conscience would trouble me for days should I lose a rig (float, bolt, feeder, whatever) with a baited hook attached to it. At the end of the day though, it comes back to what I stated at the beginning of the piece, it's a matter of risk and that is something we cannot eliminate entirely in this sport. Convince me otherwise!
J
jason fisher
Guest
Whatever happend to common sense?
that's exactly my point jeff, in a large number of cases it doesn't exist, you cannot rely on every one being sensible because they won't be.
that's exactly my point jeff, in a large number of cases it doesn't exist, you cannot rely on every one being sensible because they won't be.
S
swordsy
Guest
Aye up Bob , just in from work and reading through the posts. I have used a closed loop rig many moons ago and it was very effective but and its a big but I was losing rigs at an alarming rate and after a couple of sessions I decided that it wasn't acceptable and the entire rig was flawed.
I wanted to recreate the bolt effect of the closed loop with the added boom effect and getting a rig that behaved in a simmilar way to the loop was simple its only a matter of a few turns of the line and a couple of rubber stops and hey presto job done you have a rig which any thinking angler would have come up with in no time and similar ones which I have seen Andy Kinder use and Tommy Pickering use both anglers I couldnt hold a candle to, My point being if I can create a rig in parallel evolution to the greats then it cannot be rocket science can it? and if they are not on the loop.....say no more!
I wanted to recreate the bolt effect of the closed loop with the added boom effect and getting a rig that behaved in a simmilar way to the loop was simple its only a matter of a few turns of the line and a couple of rubber stops and hey presto job done you have a rig which any thinking angler would have come up with in no time and similar ones which I have seen Andy Kinder use and Tommy Pickering use both anglers I couldnt hold a candle to, My point being if I can create a rig in parallel evolution to the greats then it cannot be rocket science can it? and if they are not on the loop.....say no more!
Bob Roberts
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2002
- Messages
- 2,334
- Reaction score
- 8
I need to write an article on the alternatives but there's no chance of that in the next three weeks, just too many deadlines looming combined with work pressures and a social life. But I'll try and squeeze in a short piece if I can find the time.
The questions needing answering are:
Why on earth does anyone NEED to use the loop method?
What unique benefits does it offer over alternative presentations?
What are the alternative safer rig options?
Would we ever miss it if it was outlawed?
Let's not get bogged down in which rivers it may be 'safe' to use any rig on. ALL rivers have snags be they natural or thrown in by vandals. Any angler is capable of making a bad cast or having a loop of line catch a rod ring during a cast and cracking off behind the feeder.
I quote the Trent simply because it features strongly in many threads on FM and there are an awful lot of anglers fishing it these days, flying in the face of the national trend towards stillwaters. It is arguably my local river (40 miles away).
I'd adopt a similar stance on any major river, for example the Severn, Wye, Ribble, Swale, AND Thames - your starter for five...
The weight of the feeder is not that important but whether the feeder can lodge in a snag/ rocks/ weed/ branches/ etc, is.
If anglers didn't lose feeders/ crack-off then feeder manufacturers would go out of business. I reckon we all lose them, novice and expert alike.
As for the NAA guidelines, I'm sorry but in my view they have got it wrong in this case. Recommended use 'with care' means dangerous. Any reference to a chemical requiring use 'with care' under COSHH regulations would require training before handling, risk assessments and a method statement including what to do in the event of an accident.
Sorry mate, 'with care' doesn't wash in a sport where magazines regularly show novices how to hook a maggot in step-by-step photographic sequences...
The questions needing answering are:
Why on earth does anyone NEED to use the loop method?
What unique benefits does it offer over alternative presentations?
What are the alternative safer rig options?
Would we ever miss it if it was outlawed?
Let's not get bogged down in which rivers it may be 'safe' to use any rig on. ALL rivers have snags be they natural or thrown in by vandals. Any angler is capable of making a bad cast or having a loop of line catch a rod ring during a cast and cracking off behind the feeder.
I quote the Trent simply because it features strongly in many threads on FM and there are an awful lot of anglers fishing it these days, flying in the face of the national trend towards stillwaters. It is arguably my local river (40 miles away).
I'd adopt a similar stance on any major river, for example the Severn, Wye, Ribble, Swale, AND Thames - your starter for five...
The weight of the feeder is not that important but whether the feeder can lodge in a snag/ rocks/ weed/ branches/ etc, is.
If anglers didn't lose feeders/ crack-off then feeder manufacturers would go out of business. I reckon we all lose them, novice and expert alike.
As for the NAA guidelines, I'm sorry but in my view they have got it wrong in this case. Recommended use 'with care' means dangerous. Any reference to a chemical requiring use 'with care' under COSHH regulations would require training before handling, risk assessments and a method statement including what to do in the event of an accident.
Sorry mate, 'with care' doesn't wash in a sport where magazines regularly show novices how to hook a maggot in step-by-step photographic sequences...
J
jason fisher
Guest
bob, thats exactly what i think too.
S
swordsy
Guest
Well said Bob!
just don't mention COSHH again or its evil twin HACCP!, as garlic and sunlight is to a vampire "hazard analysis and critical control points" coupled with "control of substances hazardous to health" are to chefs, Oh god, the seminars and the training! Thats it, I am going to bed for a lay down:O(
just don't mention COSHH again or its evil twin HACCP!, as garlic and sunlight is to a vampire "hazard analysis and critical control points" coupled with "control of substances hazardous to health" are to chefs, Oh god, the seminars and the training! Thats it, I am going to bed for a lay down:O(
P
Phil Hackett 2
Guest
Without them and their Parent act HSA you could go back to the days of the Factory Act and 350K industrial accidents a year a Ks worth of dead people I suppose LEE? :0))
And BTW keep my Robin Reliant out of this thead, as its not plastic its of the best quality fibreglass. :0)))))
And BTW keep my Robin Reliant out of this thead, as its not plastic its of the best quality fibreglass. :0)))))
J
jason fisher
Guest
lee you think you've got it bad, you don't routinely work with very strong acids, bases, mercury, cyaninde and photo resists most of which are carcinogens. they really do tend to get a bit funny about them.
R
Ron 'The Hat' Clay
Guest
I have just read this thread through. There are an awful lot of pro and cons and a heck of a lot of bullshit spoken on the mathematical side but I'll not go into that now. It's very difficult to apply mathematic concepts to a set of conditions so variable, and without taking into account the stretchability of mono lines.
I have never used the loop rig as I have never thought I had any need to do so. Most of the time that I use a feeder in rivers I thread it up through the main line, then on goes a rubber bead followed by a swivel and then I tie on the hook length which is always weaker than the main line, simple as that.
As regards multi-fly leaders in fly fishing. This is something I do often, but only in open water. In snaggy water I only use one fly.
However I have lost count of the number of times I have hooked two trout at once.
And funnily enough, I nearly always manage to land the two.
If one fish gets off, it does so by getting off the hook, not breaking the leader.
Any trout fisher of experience will tell you that when you hook two trout at once, the fish follow each other around. Strange but true.
I have never used the loop rig as I have never thought I had any need to do so. Most of the time that I use a feeder in rivers I thread it up through the main line, then on goes a rubber bead followed by a swivel and then I tie on the hook length which is always weaker than the main line, simple as that.
As regards multi-fly leaders in fly fishing. This is something I do often, but only in open water. In snaggy water I only use one fly.
However I have lost count of the number of times I have hooked two trout at once.
And funnily enough, I nearly always manage to land the two.
If one fish gets off, it does so by getting off the hook, not breaking the leader.
Any trout fisher of experience will tell you that when you hook two trout at once, the fish follow each other around. Strange but true.