Have you ever wondered why the world of angling defies the laws of physics, chemistry and biology on a regular basis? Is it because spending so many hours staring at water addles the brain? Or is it just a refusal to learn enough to truly understand the basic science due to sheer cussedness?

Having obtained a Doctorate (bsD) in the usefulness of bovine manure (or bullshit as it is usually known), let me, the crazy professor, bring some proper science to your angling. Here’s a very mixed bag.

Float buoyancy

A famous Greek called Archimedes became the first streaker when he gained an understanding of water displacement. Unable to leave a thrilling instalment of ‘East Enders’, his bath was nearly full when he got in. As the water spilled out, he ran outside shouting “Eureka,” Greek for “Ouch, the bloody bath’s too hot.”


The tackle tart of the match
His discovery has been lost on match anglers for centuries, who, to this day, insist that a peacock antenna is more buoyant and therefore less sensitive than a cane one. Easily disproved, the failure to realise that doubling the diameter of the antenna quadruples the buoyancy, causes widespread confusion. This explains why it is difficult to judge that a very fine antenna made of wire is actually thinner than a nylon one, that looks to be the same diameter, and therefore is less buoyant. It also explains why non-toxic shot, made from metals less dense than lead, actually have to weigh more than their lead equivalent (they displace much more water).

Still don’t believe me? Make a float out a length of half-inch balsa dowel. Two inches is enough. Put an antenna into each end about two inches long. Make one out of a steel nail with the head cut off and the other out of a piece of cane that is the exact same diameter as the nail. Varnish the float so it doesn’t get waterlogged. You will find that when the float is shotted so that about one inch of antenna is showing that an additional number 6 shot will submerge the same amount of antenna no matter which way up the float is attached to the line. It is top heavy when the steel is at the top though.

Carbon Hooks?

Hooks have been made from steel for centuries, not carbon. What is steel? It’s a compound of iron and carbon, made in a special way at a high temperature. The very best modern hooks use carefully controlled steels including alloy steels. The Victorians knew this, for in those days Sheffield steel was the best in the world, and the hooks made then were of a very high standard. But by the 1960s and 70s it had all got very sloppy hence the poor quality hooks that we had to endure. Dick Walker got into some fine old arguments with the manufacturers on quality at the time. Rontroversial Clay has revealed that Walker had some of these Victorian hooks, and used to goad the manufacturers of the 60s into matching them. It took the Japanese to show us how it should be done in the mid 1980s, with the reintroduction of top class steel, and very careful control of the hardening/tempering process.Carbon hooks? No, just good steel.

Bait Flavours?

Smells more like. Apart from the fact that the fishes’ olfactory sense is far removed from our own, this is one of those examples of having to call something that it isn’t to actually sell it. If it was a flavour it would be sweet, sour, sharp or salty, not pineapple, curry, etc. I can understand fish liking strawberry but why are rancid casters so effective? And which flavours actually work? Are they supposed to mimic natural food, or are fish just like us in that certain scents are attractive and others are repulsive? Perhaps it’s all down to inherited instincts? For the average angler it’s a case of either finding an angler/writer that you can truly trust, or a lot of trial and error. Over to Rod Hutchinson and Archie Braddock.

Three Second Memory?

Experienced and thinking anglers, and aquarists, have long known that fish must have a power of memory. Otherwise, how would they get to know the topography of the river or lake? They certainly learn all about the trickery that we get up to trying to catch them. What annoys many of us is the persistent belief by ignorant journalists and broadcasters that fish have a three second (or whatever they quote) memory. The problem is simply sloppy science on their part. What fish lack is an extended attention span. Our attention span is colossal, after all, we have the powers of deduction to figure out all sorts of things, and understand cause and effect. Attention span is, in very simple terms, the ability to learn how the occurrence of one event is linked to another event. By measuring the time gap between the two events, it is possible to spot the point at which a creature is unable to spot the link. Take Pavlov’s hungry dog. Ring the bell and feed him, and after a short while the dog salivates when you ring the bell. But you can repeat this many times with many dogs and determine their attention span by increasing the time between ringing the bell and putting the bowl of dog food out. Fish need the two events to follow each other quite closely by comparison, hence the short attention span. But they can remember the link. Remember, a gudgeon never forgets!

They’re all hybrids

If ever there was a subject to bring out half-baked theories then fish hybridisation is it. It doesn’t help that we are all learning all the time. Read some old book that appears to be knowledgeable and it’s easily possible to come a cropper. Some very sound theories from even twenty years ago have been well and truly buried by some of the latest research using DNA testing.

But some of the old wives’ tales persist. Some are so ridiculous that that they are laughable. The persistent claims of hybrids on the Bristol Avon and Trent when supposedly experienced anglers are completely unable to tell the difference between a roach/bream hybrid (what they think they’re catching) and a silver bream (what they’re actually catching) makes me cringe.

The trickiest situation is where some of the fish in a water are hybrids. This is where a lake has big roach, big rudd, and also big roach/rudd hybrids. Just because some of the fish are hybrids doesn’t mean all of them are hybrids. It does mean that you’ve got to check any big ones you catch very carefully.

Finally, a real mystery. Think bites

I don’t know all of the answers. But here’s something that has puzzled the great and the good for a long time. Written about by J W Martin (‘Trent Otter’), Dick Walker, and experienced by many clued-up anglers since, including myself, the think bite is where you somehow instinctively know that a fish is taking the bait even though there has been no bite indication (and you can’t see the fish take the bait either) whatsoever. Suddenly you sense that a fish is there. How? Is it a throwback to the millions of years of man the hunter? Or just pot luck?

May all your floats sink.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR