The Traditional Fisherman's Forum

Once again Mr Walker was showing us just how far ahead of the game he was.

Of course fishing was always seen as 'sporting' and the fish were given their chance to escape. To fish with line heavier than needed was unsporting and in some way cheating and the hooklink was always lighter than the main line to allow it to happen if needs be. This is something that has altered over the years as people invest a lot of time and effort into catching ever more difficult specimens (not to mention the demands of the sponsors and editors), so the line weight has maybe increased a little and the need to keep it pinned to the lake or river bed appreciated. And there is no need for fine mono hooklinks to get those crafty fish to bite as we have hi-tech braids that are either very supple or in other cases heavy mono that is too stiff for the fish to eject. To this end the main line's weight becomes less relevant but because there is no apparent weak link in the set up we have an imbalance where the line will probably never break in normal use or where the weakest part is above the hook link.

I doubt that Walker could have ever foreseen this and it would have been interesting to have heard his views on its pro's and con's.

Lots of interesting things in that letter. I'd certain concur that fish are far, far more bothered about feeling line than seeing it. The competition trout fishermen will fish small nymphs on surprisingly heavy line, for a number of reasons, and still fool the fish.

Of course, modern mono lines are better than there were in Walker's day - finer, stronger and more supple, on the whole. Some lines of 12lb BS are finer than 6lb lines of even 15 years ago, and I don't just mean "double strength" lines..
I wonder what Walker would have made of modern lines?

Line strength?

R.Walker (Still-Water Angling, Chapter 2 - Tackle):

'My own choice is a line that will give a fish no chance at all unless I make a mistake'.

Also, what about abrasion? Would not a fine line - regardless of its tensile strength - be more affected than a thicker one of the same b.s.?

Beresford wrote:Lots of interesting things in that letter. I'd certain concur that fish are far, far more bothered about feeling line than seeing it. The competition trout fishermen will fish small nymphs on surprisingly heavy line, for a number of reasons, and still fool the fish.

Its difficult to compare trout's reactions to tackle to that of carp. Trout are sight feeders and tend to make their mistake just once, it may also be that they do not have the intelligence to make the association between the line and the fly. Carp and some other cyprinids are sight, smell and touch feeders, they also spend more time 'considering' their food as opposed to a trout that in running water, has to make a much quicker decision.

I have watched carp and barbel stop in their tracks when they come across a line, I have even watched a barbel locate my line entering the water then follow it (despite it being hard on the bottom) to where my lead was situated before retreating to cover.

But you are right in that feeling a line that it cannot see will spook fish, it is sometimes better to have a thicker line or a line covered with rig tubing when barbel fishing as, when they can see it, they have less fear of it.

There is a DVD on Barbel that shows barbels reaction to line and 100% verfies this.

'Barbel Days and Ways'

Dave Burr wrote:

Beresford wrote:Lots of interesting things in that letter. I'd certain concur that fish are far, far more bothered about feeling line than seeing it. The competition trout fishermen will fish small nymphs on surprisingly heavy line, for a number of reasons, and still fool the fish.

Its difficult to compare trout's reactions to tackle to that of carp. Trout are sight feeders and tend to make their mistake just once, it may also be that they do not have the intelligence to make the association between the line and the fly. Carp and some other cyprinids are sight, smell and touch feeders, they also spend more time 'considering' their food as opposed to a trout that in running water, has to make a much quicker decision.

I have watched carp and barbel stop in their tracks when they come across a line, I have even watched a barbel locate my line entering the water then follow it (despite it being hard on the bottom) to where my lead was situated before retreating to cover.

But you are right in that feeling a line that it cannot see will spook fish, it is sometimes better to have a thicker line or a line covered with rig tubing when barbel fishing as, when they can see it, they have less fear of it.

I'd agree 100% with all of that. I use the rig tubing method when fishing for carp close in with a float. I think they take it to be a weed stem and it doesn't bother them if they rub against it.

With trout I do think they can be suspicious of line and presentation which might be why they appear to take short missing the fly or turning away.

It's taken me a while to get round to digging this out, but I'm sure it'll be of some interest to some reading this thread.

A little of Walker's views on rods and line....