I decided to write this piece after reading the article by Graham entitled “Has the skill Gone out of Fishing?”
The general theme of Graham’s article was to suggests skills are being lost in angling as advances in methods, baits and technology take over. He suggests the optimum method is with us, the bolt rig, and boilies and pellets are leading the way towards becoming the ultimate baits. He suggests tackle modifications have become nothing more than mere variations to a common theme and anyone can now be an expert by picking up any number of magazines or DVDs on offer and copying the next guy. In essence the modern angler is becoming a robot, a carbon copy of his neighbor with luck replacing skill and tactics and techniques of the angler 30 years ago are being lost. In the accompanying forum thread Graham suggests this slow slide towards us all using the same thing means the angler of today is a lot less skillful than his counterpart 30 years ago.
Judging by the reaction on FishingMagic’s excellent forum, his views are shared by many. However I would like to offer an alternative viewpoint, the other side of the coin if you like by looking in more detail at some of the points raised in Graham’s piece.
Carbon copies of each other?
Let’s starts with the assumption that anglers today compared to those 30 years ago are simply becoming carbon copies of each other. Each one now using the same tackle and bait and luck replacing skills.
Walking along a busy lake or river bank today I can see why people would think this. Angler after angler is now fishing two or three rods sat on buzzers with a bag of boilies or pellets by their side. It’s easy to think they are all doing the same thing as the outward appearance is one of conformity. However two or three decades back if you walked along the bank of a busy day ticket water for example you would see 90% of the anglers sat behind a single rod on a rest watching a float tip and with box of maggots by their side. However, back then we did not say they were all the same so is it really any different now? Have we really digressed from the situation 30 years ago or is it just the same thing in a different disguise with bolt rigs and boilies replacing floats and maggots as the preferred method by the majority of anglers and nothing more than our perception of the situation has changed?
In addition, if we are all now just robots doing the same thing and fishing has become as Graham suggests, nothing more than a lottery with each angler just waiting for their turn for the buzzer to sound, then how come we still see majority of the fish being caught by the minority of the anglers?
If the skill is gone and it’s just down to luck, why don’t we see an even spread of fish being caught amongst all the anglers? The reality is we don’t, the fish are not spread evenly. This suggests that there must still be a lot more than luck involved and additional factors are influencing the angler’s results. Those additional factors are going to be the angler’s knowledge, experience and ability. In other words the successful angler is, as he was 30 years ago, the one demonstrating the greater individual skill.
The ultimate rig?
Moving on, Graham suggests that the ultimate rig is with us, the bolt rig. We have evolved our tactics to the point where we now have a rig upon which the fish hook themselves; the angler has become an accessory to the catching. The bolt rig has replaced the individual skills of the angler, a case of hail the king, the bolt rig has arrived!
But has it really …or was it with us all along anyway?
I don’t want to turn this into a technical article but let’s take a look at the question: what is a bolt rig? To me a bolt rig is any setup which imparts enough resistance anywhere from rod to hook for the fish to hook itself without the angler needing to strike.
I’ll say that again :- imparts enough resistance anywhere from rod to hook. That’s important. Remember it, in fact write it out 100 times so you don’t forget. A bolt rig is not just determined by the part of your tackle from your lead on the lake or river bed to your hook. If your setup is imparting enough resistance anywhere along its entire length to self-hook the fish then your bolt rigging. Some examples:
- Laying on with a Crow quill float and a string of BB laying on the bottom with bread flake and the hook point exposed? A 2oz roach can hook itself against the BB shot…you’re bolt rigging
- Stret-pegging, a fine technique for the skilled float angler applauded by the traditionalists and nothing at all like those terrible self-hooking rigs is it? Err sorry, no, tight line from rod top to float. 90% of the fish will hook themselves against the rod…you’re bolt rigging
- Remember Crabtree fishing the flooded river in winter? Well I’ll let you into a secret and I’d better whisper it …he was bolt rigging
In fact you could be fishing with no weight whatsoever on the line other than your hook and your bait and you could be bolt rigging. The point is many of us are fishing bolt rigs but we just don’t realise it and the same held true 30 years ago. Back in the days of Walker they wrote about how they put backstops behind their bombs on the Ouse as they knew it would lead to better bites but even these leading anglers of the time did not realise why. Today the only difference is we realise it and have adapted the rigs to maximize the effect. So why is it that we have suddenly started to say it’s less skillful or that we are losing skills when it was what we were doing all along anyway?
You could actually argue that anglers today are demonstrating greater skills as they understand why the rigs are working as they do rather than fishing in ignorance like their predecessors 30 years back.
As for the point about the bolt rig being the ultimate rig, I would say that such a thing does not exist. The ultimate rig would catch every fish every time we cast it in. It’s clearly not the bolt rig and let’s hope such a rig never arrives.
Mere variables?
Moving on. Graham suggests changes to modern setups have become nothing more than “mere variables”. He suggests in the associated forum thread that a bolt rig is only about picking the right weight of lead and correct length of hook link.
But is it really? What about the hooking arrangement? What about the length of the hair? What about the position of the hair in relation to the hook? What about the model of hook? What about the position of the bait on the hair? What about not using a hair? …I could go on and list a dozen other examples and there I am talking about just the last two inches of the tackle. Any of those small changes could make the difference to catching or not catching and those changes could be anywhere along the other 100 or more yards of your setup back to the rod.
 |
| Waiting with traps is the only way on some waters |
To cast these aside as “mere variables” and imply this is somehow different to the changes the guy 30 years ago made when for example sliding his float or shot up and down the line seems strange.
Look at it this way. If I was a matchman fishing mag and wag on the river and I slid my dropper shot up two inches which led to a better stamp of fish and me winning the match everyone would be saying “what a master, he knew that tiny change would make all the difference, now that’s real skill.”
But how’s that different to the guy fishing for carp with a bolt rig who increases the hair from one inch to two inches and he catches the fish that was earlier spitting his bait out without getting hooked?
The difference is that he is labeled a “Carper” and is using a “bolt rig” and therefore the change was perceived as just a “mere variable” and so of little consequence.
The reality is that there are thousands, if not tens of thousands of “mere variables” we could make to our setups anywhere from the very butt of the rod to the point of the hook and any of these could influence whether we catch a fish or not and that is the same today as it was 30 years ago.
Let’s look at bait
Graham points out that today many anglers use the same thing, boilies or pellets; these uniform packages of super attraction available in countless tackle shops have meant the modern angler has to give little or no thought to bait. Just pick up a bag and wait for the buzzer to sound. Again it gives the impression of the Robot carbon copy , every angler using the same thing.
But what is a boilie? How about this as a reasonable general definition: “a combination of ingredients rolled into a ball and boiled?”
I’ll say that again : “a combination of ingredients” rolled into a ball and boiled.
The point is, not all boilies are the same and we still have to pick and choose the one that’s right on the day. In addition 30 years ago many anglers were using maggots but we did not say they were carbon copies of each other, losing skills or applying a lot less skill. In fact you could argue that with the bewildering array of ingredients, flavours, oils and goodness knows how many other potions and sprays available today we have in fact got more choice in baits than we had 30 years ago and therefore the modern angler has to use greater skills and judgment to pick the right one for the occasion.
There is also the assumption the boilies and pellets are indeed better baits. I suspect there are more than one or two anglers that would still rate the humble maggot or caster as far superior.
Let’s move on. Graham suggests that nowadays it’s simply about catching whatever hooks itself and the skill has gone in targeting the specific species. He considers the example of his friend chub fishing with boilies hoping for chub but acknowledging he may catch barbel or carp as well.
Again you have to question is this really different to the guy 30 years ago fishing bread flake for a mixed bag? In the past it was common to read about anglers fishing for chub with flake, catching three nice chub and they go on to add “and a couple of bonus roach and bream as well.” The fact they caught more than the intended species was a good thing, something to mention in your magazine article. I never saw anyone suggesting the angler was just lucky or that chub were bound to turn up eventually as he was actually fishing for whatever came along.
So why is it different today? So the guy with the bolt rig and the boilie catches a carp and a barbel as well as his three target chub. Why was it considered a “bonus” 30 years ago but today something to be considered as an indication of a loss of skill? Is there really a change or is it once again just a change in our perspective today?
What about watercraft?
On the other hand what about watercraft, perhaps the comment about catching more than the intended species was suggesting that modern anglers are losing the skills to select where to catch a specific species? In that case I would say that regardless of if I am using a bolt rig and buzzers I still need to cast to the right place to catch, as a fish is only going to go where it wants to be.
Just because we are now catching them in places other than were 30 years ago we were told they should be does not necessarily mean we have lost the skill to determine where they actually are.
In fact you could argue that modern tactics have actually opened our eyes and widened our knowledge to the habits of different species. For example, we now know we don’t need to fish by the old wooden boat stage to catch perch, or at dawn in the lily pads to catch tench, or in the fastest water to catch barbel. Why? Because the guys with multiple rods sat behind buzzers have started to catch the perch in the middle of featureless huge gravel pits, tench in the middle of the day or barbel in dead water. The angler 30 years ago with his can of worms and perch bobber would not have even realised a perch was in the middle of that pit because he did not have the knowledge (the skill) to establish it for himself. So why is it that today we are accused of having less skill when in fact we have shown that as well as where Crabtree told us they could be caught they can also be caught elsewhere too.
If you look at it like that the modern angler is actually demonstrating greater skills and knowledge than his counterpart 30 years ago.
When you take all of these things into account you have to wonder are we really “losing” skills as Graham suggests? Could it be that we are simply using some skills less than others at certain moments in time? In my opinion, we are just going through cycles and whilst certain skills will be used less they will reappear under a different guise years later. I’ll give one example.
Recently I have come across anglers fishing modern carp tactics with buzzers and boilies and all the rest of the techo gear. However rather than fish the line direct to the lead they are putting “floats” in the form of plastic bottles onto the line above the lead. The idea being these will keep the line clear of problems on the lake or river bed and also to change the angle of the line to something different to what the fish expect. Some have even started to allow the floats to break surface so as to give a visual indication of what’s happening down below. The reality is that they are now in fact laying on with float tactics….just like the guy 30 years ago. The BB shot replaced by a 3oz lead and the crow quill replaced by an empty plastic Coke bottle. It’s just a massive cycle and we can see examples happening time and again.
Instant ‘experts’
Graham goes onto to say that today anybody can pick up a magazine or a DVD and become an “expert” in a very short amount of time. With the body of knowledge now available publicly he is probably right. However if this knowledge is now widely available to everybody rather than a select few as it perhaps was 30 years back then surely it means the skills of the average angler today is higher than that of his counterpart 30 years ago too?
 |
|
Bolt rig and bolie caught from a river but would a float have been |
The other thing we need to consider when it’s suggested angling skills are being lost is what actually is an angling skill? Big question! Is it the ability to master the tackle you’re using, for example trot a float to perfection along the far side bushes? Or is it the ability to pick the right tackle or tactics on the day to catch your chosen quarry? Perhaps it’s the art of watercraft and being able to read a swim and determine where the fish may be lying? Or is it the ability to cast 150 yards with a 4oz lead or place a spod time and again on the same spot?
The fact is there will be 1000001 things that could be defined an angling skill so when someone talks about the loss of angling skills what exactly do they mean?
Sure, maybe today we don’t have the same number of people who can dap a fly to perfection for rudd on an Irish lough or as many anglers able to trot a float to perfection as we did 30 years ago but we do have more anglers who now understand why we catch fish after putting a backstop behind our bombs and more anglers know you don’t need to fish the fastest water to catch a barbel, or fish the pads at dawn to catch a tench. These are just some examples of improvements in skills the modern angler has made, and bear in mind I have not even touched on advances in tackle in this piece. Today’s angler has rods, reels and tackle at his disposal far in advance of his counterpart 30 years ago. Is rod building for example not a skill? So if rods are better then surely the modern angler has also shown greater skills than his predecessor to develop them.
The fact is just about every writer (including Graham) who bemoans the loss of angling skills always fails to mention that the modern anglers has had to acquire a whole NEW set of skills to be successful. Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying all these new skills will be to everyone’s liking but they are new skills nevertheless.
Tackle and methods have evolved
The reality is that the modern angler also faces challenges the guy 30 years ago never had. Today’s angler is now up against not just the fish but other anglers as well. He has had to learn to fish for pressured fish in pressured environments. On some of the waters fished today the only realistic way to catch the fish is to use modern sit and wait tactics. Tackle and methods have had to evolve to cater for this and the angler himself has to adapt his outlook and way of thinking. Anglers today are fishing waters and catching fish that for all intents and purposes would have been practically impossible for his counterpart 30 years ago to fish for due to limitations in the tackle available and dare I say it, the lack of skills the angler himself had back then.
The bottom line is that the modern angler is catching a fish that could not be caught before so you have to wonder how at the same time he can also be considered to be losing skills or being less skillful than his counterpart 30 years earlier?
The future
Let’s talk about the future as Graham touched on it as well, although here we enter into a very subjective area as no one can be sure what the future will be exactly.
Graham suggests we could be heading for total conformity in angling with everyone using the optimum rig and bait and the catching of fish coming down to nothing more than the luck of the draw bag. In my opinion however, whilst advances will continue to be made the one thing that will ensure the ultimate rig or bait will never come into widespread use is the anglers themselves. Why? Because if the challenge and anticipation of the sport disappears no one will be interested anymore and fishing will cease to exist. So even if the optimum method or bait did arrive I suspect the majority of anglers would turn their back on it as there would be no merit or challenge in using it.
So after all that rambling let’s go back to the original question. Graham asked “Has the skill gone out of fishing“?
I would say no, angling skills are still there in abundance just not in the same places as you would have found them 30 years ago, and whilst some skills may be used less at different point in time, overall we are retaining skills, recycling them to a greater or lesser degree and adding new ones as we move along as well.
That’s the other side of the coin.
