The Crucian Finale...Probably.

I felt like I needed a couple more sessions after those crucians. Even following recent successes, I was not fully satisfied with my performance and so returned to the jinx lake.   The idea was to make  a last trip, or maybe two before veering off to seek another species entirely.  I was better prepared this time, all my old schoolboy crucian knowledge was back, and very much to the fore in the tactical plan.   The weather forecast was not at all bad,  very cloudy, prospect of a little rain, but not so much as to make life on the bankside unpleasant.  And as is more and more often the case these days, the forecast proved to be spot on.  No longer is it more accurate to simply say " Today's weather will be similar to that of yesterday".   Even weather forecasts are no fun any more.


My first cast hit the water not long after dawn.  I had decided to ignore other anglers' suggestions that I fish just three or four feet out from the reeds.  They, and the bailiffs, all recommend this, and say most of the crucians come from very close in.    It had crossed my mind though, that cause and effect may have become confused here.  If everyone fishes close in ( and they seem to do so) then it is inevitable that all the crucians will be taken close in.   So the advice may be self fulfilling.  I decided to fish a fair bit further out, 6 or 7 yards, and would see what happened.

Nothing for quite a while, but after the obligatory couple of small roach, a fish that was better.  The rod stopped dead as the line tightened to the fish. That is always quite a pleasurable moment, when on the strike, the rod stops suddenly and the fish holds solid. It didn't initially move much, very typical of one species. Crucian thinks I.  But it soon became apparent that it was not a crucian, the fight, once it got under way, bored too consistently deep, and was lasting too long.  The fish nearly had me in trouble in the branches of a part dead alder that drooped into the water, and on light crucian gear it was heart in mouth stuff as the tension in the line was necessarily increased to a fairly unsafe value, one getting very near to the breaking strain of the hooklink.    But all was to be well and a scrapper of a tench about three and a half was landed.


The mass of house martins that had spent the early part of the day milling around over the pond had now departed, leaving just a few swallows whose presence I had not noted earlier in amongst the general melee of birds.  A couple of swifts also paid a short visit, but the dozen or so of swallows were to remain throughout the day.  I didn't have too much time to look at them, for the float once again lifted and the "rod stopped dead" situation was repeated.  But this fish was different, it didn't charge about the swim madly, as had the tench.  It set off for the other side of the lake, at a fairly steady and slow pace, largely unaffected by the best I could do on my three pound hook link.  It managed a more or less perfectly straight line swimming away from me at  right angles to the bank. I was not worried, for I was not expecting there to be any snags out there, and fully expected to land the fish in due course.  I should have worried though, for, when some 15 or 20 yards out and counting, the hook pulled.   I will never know what the fish was of course.  I suspect a much bigger tench, although a carp could have been responsible.    I do doubt that, for I suspect a carp would have been travelling at a far greater speed.  Far too many hook pulls this season for my liking.


The voles were back, sneaking bits of food.   I am told by a birdwatching friend that this has been an excellent year for voles. He appears to be right. It should, in consequence, have been a great year for owls too.   But the wet summer has restricted their hunting, and so owls have not fared well at all.  Breeding successes have been limited by unsuitable weather.  I am not too impressed by the blackberries this year either.   There have been trips in other years when the blackberry brambles near my swim have provided much of my food and drink for the day.   Ripened and ripening berries seem rarer this year, although the few I have picked and eaten were wonderfully tarty.   A week in nature can be a long time though, and I hope the fruits may become more prolific soon.


Some days the warblers have constantly given voice, both in the rushes and the nearby trees.   Warblers tend to be amongst what most average birdwatchers call LBJs.  LBJ stands for Little Brown Job or in English, unidentified small bird. In summer the presence of young birds, often not in full adult plumage, serves to confuse the issue still more. Some can be so similar that only the most advanced and experienced twitcher can be sure...or risk saying that they are sure.  All very reminiscent of our own trout/sea trout problems.  FSSF.  Fair Sized Spotty Fish?   But I managed to photograph one bird that repeatedly came quite near.  So this is a photograph of an LBJ.  What is it?   You tell me.  I am guessing  reed warbler in a (pear?) tree.

LBJ

But to return to the crucian carp.  The dull day seemed to have stimulated them, and having returned to the tactics of my youth, that is to fish lift method very sensitively, they decided to play the game, and although the bites were not 100% hittable, by some wide margin, plenty of bites came, and quite a few were hooked.   Of those 13 were landed, with no less than eight weighing over two pounds.  But 6 or 7 were either pricked or lost to a hook pull.

Four Two Pound Plus Crucians

Again, the fish were very much of a size, the smallest differing from the largest by just a pound. The light and precarious hook holds must be fuelled by the way the species toys with its food.  I have only had one crucian that I remember needed the use of a disgorger, and that hookhold was only just out of reach of my fingers.  I can say the same about barbel, rarely do they seem to be hooked anywhere other than in the lips.  The difference of course is that once hooked, barbel rarely manage to get rid of the hook.


I do wonder for the future of crucians in this water.  Are the pike, of which there seem to be quite a lot, removing all the smaller crucians, leaving an ageing population with no younger fish to back up for the future?  Or are we, for some unknown reason, simply never catching the smaller fish?   Should the club consider a stocking programme?  The fish though, do look young, and so maybe there are quite a few years yet before we need to worry.  I saw an interesting note from someone who has his own carp lake, but added some crucians about 7 years ago.   These are now of a very good size indeed, with some approaching 4 pounds...at only seven years old!   I don't know what he has been feeding them, but if details he has given are accurate, it is a food I suspect would ruin my own dieting plan.    So how old might the fish I am catching be?   And how long might they live?  Peter Rolfe suggests that some top 20 years. I don't know how many of those that remain healthy and avoid predation will actually reach that sort of age.  The average is probably considerably less.  10 years?  12 years?   I will probably not have many, if any, more sessions for crucians, on this lake this year.   But it would seem a good insurance policy to add them to next season's target species.  Who knows how long a good thing will last?


Late in the evening , the kingfishers which had performed several fly-pasts directly over my float during the day, appeared again.   One of them did three straight line typical low flights across, and then along, the full length of the lake. As it did so though, it was pursued by a swallow, which appeared to be chasing it, its zig-zagging flightpath contrasting with the ruler straight path of the kingfisher, yet keeping in close if variable formation.   The swallows had earlier been chasing each other, and I can only imagine that the kingfisher was seen as adding a brightly coloured extension to the game. I don't imagine there was any other reason for the swallow's behaviour.    Intriguing though: there may be more to a birdbrain than many think.

One of the swallows came to watch me fish.  I think this is one of this year's youngsters.  Probably exhausted from chasing after the kingfisher.  The photo is not the greatest, but chances to get a swallow in the picture are quite rare.   When using my small "fishing" camera, although it does have auto focus, it is none too bright at picking exactly what to focus on. There is no manual focus ring. I usually end up focussing on something I think is equidistant from me, and then swinging the camera around, with the shutter half pressed.  Not ideal.






During the day I had other visitors, dragonflies were constantly passing.  This one stopped to lay an egg or two.

And of course the young moorhen that was in constant attendance.

Although welcome, I wish they would all time their visits to the quiet periods between bites. 

Line Twist: Diagnosis. Still a Problem, But Maybe There is a Treatment?

Those of you who read this regularly, (and both of you know who you are), will remember that last season especially, I had a major problem with line twist.    It hit me whilst tench fishing, legering, and more recently it has again struck whilst I have been float fishing at distance with worms.

Line twist on monofilament can become a nuisance or even  a major disaster if ignored.   My tactics to date have always been to change the last 100 yards of line, every two or three trips. It hasn't really been enough, as a single day's fishing can impart a vast amount of twist to the monofilament. Well over a thousand twists is not a rare occurrence. Regular replacement of my line was possible because I use fairly cheap line. Actually very, very cheap, but it still seems a decent product, although it becomes quite a palaver every week or so, to strip 100 yards off each of three reels and then to reload them.

I suspect that much of the mumbo jumbo I read in the angling comics, comparing various brands of line and their resistance to twist, is just that: mumbo jumbo.   No monofilament line is going to be able to avoid line twist, none will be significantly better at it than any other brand.  It is  a problem that depends upon how it is used, and not how it has been manufactured. How supple the line is may have a small effect on how badly the problem manifests itself.

Line twist causes one major problem: the twist can show up near the rod or reel, by visibly twisting itself together, almost like a platting effect, but with two, not three component threads.  Worst case scenario is that these then form multiple twists, leading to tangles and knots, some large enough as to need cutting out, as the knots become ever more difficult or near impossible to undo.  Even if the major tangles are avoided, the twists can cause coils of line to leap off the reel, as if alive, adding ever more twisted line to the tangle risk. Such loops can then catch any projecting parts of the reel or  the rod rests. It is a problem that if unnoticed will quickly reveal itself once a fish is added into the mix.

Replacing mono with braid does not reduce the twist: but , braid being more supple, does allow far more twists in the line before it shows up as a problem. It will delay the onset of trouble. Of course being much more expensive it does nothing to reduce costs of replacement.

Because of my own problems, I have done considerable recent on-line research into fishing forums and the like, but find mainly that there is a lot of clap trap written about twist, by people who have obviously not thought deeply enough about it, or who have gone off at a skewed tangent and written absolute cobblers. Many simply repeat the mantra of others before them. None seem to have correctly analysed the problem.  So; having failed to get any satisfactory explanation or solution to the problem, it was time to do some deep thinking and analysis for myself.

Firstly: what is my objective?

I wish to fish, as much as possible, with zero or negligible twist in the section of line in the water. Put another way, when the line is cast out I do not want it to display any significant twist. It must not put me at risk due to being twisted.

Secondly: How is twist generated?

Line on a new spool, as manufactured, is entirely without twist.  So if it is transferred onto a centrepin reel, by putting an axle, say a pencil, through the spool, and allowing that spool to rotate as the reel is filled, then we will put no twist onto the reel.  All will be perfect.    If instead, we allow the line to slip off the side of the spool, then one twist would be added for every 360 degree loop of line as it comes off the spool.   The direction of twist depends from which side of the spool the line slips off.  Line twist on a centrepin is not what we want, and this therefore is not a method any angler would normally use when loading a centrepin.  The amount of twist that would be put onto a centrepin in this way would only be about one twist for every 6 or 8 inches of line. In normal use this would not present a problem for the centrepin, more twist is to be expected from simply retrieving a trotted float a few dozen times.

There used to be ( and maybe still is) a reel that purported to combine the best features of a centrepin, together with the free casting of a fixed spool reel.  It was a simple design, which reeled in exactly like a centrepin. To cast out the spool was rotated 90 degrees, to become side on to the rod, and the line then would come off the edge of a chamfered spool, allowing long casts to be made. It was called the Alvey Sidecast. It had a major design problem though, in that for every loop on line cast out and retrieved, one twist of 360 degrees would be added to the line.  Cast by cast, the twist would build up on the reel, and eventually show itself and cause problems.  Alvey recommended the use of a swivel to help counteract this, but swivels, even ball bearing swivels, do not work very efficiently in reducing line twist.   I had realised myself that swivels did not solve my own problems. I even went to the expense of buying some ball bearing swivels, only to find they were not much better than the bog standard article.   Swivels may help a bit, but they do not prevent twist.  There is simply too much friction involved, and added to contamination by bits of weed or grit, they soon allow just as much twist to develop as if they were not there at all.

The fixed spool reel was invented for ease of long casting, and the rotating bale arm was a method of solving the Alvey twist problem.  And it does an excellent job.


Use a fixed spool reel, without the bait runner, and without using the clutch, and you will generate no line twist (in the cast part of the line), as long as the end tackle does not rotate.


That was probably Newton's Fourth law of motion, but as he did not lay claim to it, it is all mine!

Line twist, on a fixed spool reel can be generated in several ways.

Firstly, when loading the spooled line onto the reel.

 

There are three ways to do this:

1)  Ill thought out

2) Totally wrong and

3) The correct way.

The ill thought out method, is to wind the line off the side of the spool, in such a way that the line rotates off the spool and onto the reel in the same sense. It is easier for you to try this, and watch what happens, rather than my trying to explain it here.  Doing this, if the spool and reel are of the same diameter, the line ends up on the reel with no twist at all.   "Job done" say those who recommend this method.   If the spool and reel are of different diameters, then there will be a residual amount of twist imparted to the reel.  If they are identical diameters we do indeed get a reel with no twist at all on it.   Perfect until we cast out.  Then once we cast out, we gain one twist for every loop of line that comes off the reel.   With a five-to-one ratio reel, if the reel recovers a yard per handle rotation, casting out 50 yards, we will have imparted no less than 250 twists to the cast line.   5 times 50.  And that twist would disappear as the line was reeled back in.  But the ideal is not to have any twists in the line that has been cast out, not the line once it is back on the reel. 

The totally wrong method is to have the line come off the OTHER side of the spool.  Do this and you put TWO twists onto the reel for every loop of line transferred.  And on casting out that 50 yards you still will again  have 250 twists in the cast line. 

Method three is to allow the spool to spin on a pencil as you load the reel.   This will result in one twist per revolution on the reel bale arm, but once in the water it will be free of twist .   Twist on the reel does not matter in the slightest!   Wound onto the reel, line twist has no negative effects at all. It is not being used, and the twists are in effect captured, trapped and contained. Method three is the way to go.

This photo shows how I load line onto a reel.  The fingers are acting as an axle and also control the tension as the line is loaded. 
The line passes through the first ring to make the process fairly easy. 
 I usually hold the rod butt between my knees. 


Many anglers will tell you to allow line to come off the label side of the spool.  This is wrong and based on a misconception. It would load the reel with no twist ( assuming spool and reel are the same diameter), but once you cast out you add one twist for every loop of line that comes off the reel.   About 5 twists per yard.


Using the method in the photo, when you cast out the newly loaded line, there will be NO twist in it.
Twist is almost certain to be added as you fish, but at least you start off clean.





Another way to generate line twist is to allow the reel clutch to operate.  Whether that be a fish taking line, the angler rather stupidly reeling with the clutch set too lightly, or the bait runner operating, there will be one additional twist applied to the cast out line, for every rotation of the reelspool.  Every loop of line that a running fish takes, adds one twist.   If you are snagged and attempt to reel in with a slack clutch, then every turn of the reel handle, on a 5 to 1 geared reel, will add 5 twists.  These twists are NOT removed when you reel in. They will still be there on your next cast. 

One method to reduce this would be to reel backwards when playing a fish, rather than to use the slipping clutch.  I play all my fish this way, and apart from the very occasional rapped knuckles due to my carelessness, it has worked perfectly for me. 

You could also allow the reel to rotate backwards, rather than using the baitrunner, but that is perhaps taking things a little too far.

Another way that twists are added is by using end tackle that rotates on the retrieve.   Feeders are very prone to doing this.  Baits, particularly big baits, will cause line twist on the retrieve. Even a couple of maggots can act like a propeller in reverse, generating twist as they are pulled through the water.   If you are lucky, then alternate casts will have the bait rotating in opposite directions, cancelling out any problems. I am never so lucky and find that such twists build up, and can build up very rapidly indeed.   After just 4 or 5 casts, line can become almost unusable.  Catch a fish every cast: no problem, the fish itself prevents any twist being added....unless is swims around and around in circles.  Cast frequently and reel back in without those fish: possible big problem.


Fish with a heavy lead, and keep the line taught, and fewer problems will present themselves, but the twist will still be there. I prefer to fish fairly light.

It may be that some twist may be generated on the cast itself.  The truth of this is hard to determine, but such twist is likely to be negligible, and so I will ignore it.

What can be done about twist, if you cannot, due to bait choices and legering, avoid it entirely?

Well, there is a lead that you can buy. Cast it out and as you reel in, it is supposed to rotate and reduce twist in your line.  It's called the Gardner Spin Doctor. In theory it works, but it has two problems:   because it rotates at a constant speed, as you gradually reel in the line, so it has a greater effect on twist reduction, the nearer the end tackle gets to you.   It does not redistribute and remove twist evenly along the length of the line.   I should point out here of course that reeling in a bait has a similar effect, putting more twists per meter into the line as you reel in and the hook gets nearer.   So maybe not a great problem, especially as, once you cast out again, the twists remaining will tend to equalise along the length of the line in the water.  A second problem is that the leads only remove twists in one direction, and I guess that such a lead is designed to remove twists due to clutch use.   The direction of that twist is predictable.  ( But do all bail arms, on all reel models rotate the same way?) The twist due to rotating bait or end tackle can be either clockwise or anti-clockwise.  So the lead would then be useful only perhaps half the time.

Another method would be to dangle a lead from a high building, tied to the end of your line and allow the twist to unravel itself.  this would work fine, but might take some time, and is hardly a convenient bankside solution.   And if you live in a bungalow, tough!

My own problem is due, I believe, almost entirely to the rotation of end tackle and baits.   Feeders or leads when legering, worms and similar when float fishing or legering.   So I cannot predict in which direction my twist will build up.   But I have had an idea.   

Use the reel to remove the twist!

Let's say that twist caused by use of the clutch on my reels is clockwise twist.   Clutch induced twist will always be in the same direction for any particular reel.  ( it is possible that on some other reel models the bail arm rotates the other way...I wouldn't know).

So if my baits have been applying anti-clockwise twists, then I can cast out my usual distance, use the line clip as usual, loosen the slipping clutch right off, point the rod down the line and wind away, thus cancelling out and removing 5 twists for every rotation of the handle, the clutch being so loose that the lead does not move at all.   As long as the lead does not move, I can remove all or most of the twist, by applying clockwise twist and then re-start my fishing.   I could guarantee the lead does not move by taping the reel spool to the bail arm.

If on the other hand my baits have been applying a cumulative clockwork twist, I can still use the reel to correct it.  After casting out, I can tape the reel spool to the bale arm to stop any relative movement between them, and then reel BACKWARDS to remove the twist.    So I have a fairly quick, bankside method of removing twist from my line, ( for twist in either direction), and no longer have the need to replace my line every week or so.  This saves me £1-29 for a spool, which would usually be enough to fill the reels on three rods, but more importantly, it gives me a bankside, quick and easy solution, to my problem. 

All I need to do is to decide in which direction to apply the correction, and how much of that correction to apply.  Examination of the twist loop which forms when a length of line is slackened will be enough to diagnose whether the twist is clockwise or anticlockwise.  So the direction of reel winding is fairly easy to work out.   

How many turns of the reel handle will be required is more difficult.  I could remove an amount of twist and then look to see how close I am to the twist free target, having a second, or third go until I get somewhere near the ideal of zero twists.   There is no point in going right down to zero, as the next cast or two will undoubtedly probably re-apply some twist.   

So instead I  designed an experiment.   I took a yard of my 8 pound line and applied first 10, then 20, then 30 twists to it.   You may think that these are very large amounts of twist to apply to such a short length of line, but my experience has been that when fishing I can generate many hundreds, if not a thousand or more twists in a few casts whilst fishing as little as 30 yards from the bank.  

Having generated the 10,20 or 30 twists in a tight length of line, I allowed it to slacken and looked at the size of the loop formed.   I was expecting the loops size to vary with the amount of twist: the more twist per unit length, the smaller the resultant loop. And so it proved. 30 twists in the yard gave me a loop size having an area of about the same size as a penny,  Twenty twists and the loop area was about the same area as a 50 pence piece, whereas 10 twists presented a loop size area similar in size to a 55mm lens cap.    See diagram below:

Approximate Loop Sizes Obtained From Twisting a Yard of 8 Pound Line. **

So if I get a loop size somewhere between that of a penny and a fifty pence piece from my cast line, I might then estimate that I have in the region of 25 twists per yard.    Multiply that by 30 yards and I have in total 750 twists.  One rotation of the reel handle on that 5-1 ratio reel gives me 5 twists, and so to remove the twists, a rotation count somewhere around 150 winds of the handle, in the correct direction, should see me reduce the problem to somewhere near zero, close enough at least to be able to fish on without a problem.


**Note that line of a different breaking strain would have given different loop sizes.




So that is the theory and the experimentation, and all that remains is to see what happens in the coming tench sessions.

  

First Fish on the Avon.

4th February 2014
Usually I write about fish captures after the event,  but today I am taking the alternative route, for this fish will be a little special.  I hope it will be a grayling,  and that it will be caught on a trotted float.  I have already started to plan the event.    Usually I just grab the gear and head on  out when after grayling, but this time it is rather different.

The postman brought me a drainpipe this morning.   A chunk of plastic a little over five feet long arrived at my door with the eleven o'clock post.   The contents are rather precious.   A long term friend from overseas has sent me a rather superb present.   His Hardy's Richard Walker Mk 1V Palakona Avon  split cane rod.   Mk IV's, both the Carp and the Avon were very state of the art, and still command tremendous respect amongst older anglers.   Everyone had heard of them, many anglers wanted one, or two,  but supply and price prevented most anglers, including myself at the time, from ever owning one.      The local rivers are still very high, and I want my first trip with this rod to give me a fair chance of a fish, so the rod will sit there, poised for action, for a while yet.   

Now it is true to say that modern rods are probably much better suited to the job, in a strictly functional way, but as with cars, in which there can be immense pleasure derived from driving a really old MG as opposed to a much faster modern hot hatch, so there is a rather special pleasure in using such a classic rod.    

To complement that rod, I have dug out my centrepin from where it has resided, largely unloved in the utility room.   It is an Okuma Trent, a fairly modern centrepin, quite a competent device I would guess, although maybe not one that is as acceptable to the purists as the rod would be.   I am not, and probably never will be, a centrepin expert.  The last time I used one in reel anger was in about 1960, when along with all my other mates, I had a tiny 3 inch  aluminium centrepin  that probably cost me half a crown, mounted on an 8 foot solid fibreglass rod.  For my younger readers, if I have any, half a crown was the equivalent of twelve and a half pence in new money. 1/5th of a Mars bar. A pretty useless object, that reel, but I remember it did catch me a few fish.    It was ultimately discarded for an Intrepid Monarch fixed spool reel.  Bees knees to any kid at the time, but I saw one recently in a fishing shop window display of old tackle.  And what a mess the Monarch looked.  Very old fashioned and inadequate looking.  It must have been pretty awful to use. But it stayed longer than that eight foot rod, which was replaced with another abomination: an 11 foot tank aerial.   Yes, a very floppy, heavy metal  tapered tube, with a screw ferrule, made into a fishing rod.   It was last used in the desert against Rommell  and was totally unsuitable for fishing....but maybe it was better for fox hunting?    It was fully eleven feet long and therefore, to any kid, a dream of a rod.

Multi-functional Okuma Trent Reel Case.

So what of the Okuma Trent?  Firstly, as you may see from the photo, it came with a dual purpose cloth reel bag. Of great use when the river is out of sorts.   But joking aside what do I expect to see in a centrepin?   For trotting a float it needs to be very free running, the pull of the river on float and line must be able to easily overcome the friction of the reel bearings.  The quality and cleanliness of the bearing is important, but also the greater the spool diameter, the more leverage is exerted by the line tension and the better the spool will spin.   Pointing the rod down the line will help reduce other friction from rod rings of course.   Another factor to be considered is the weight of the drum,  or more precisely expressed, how difficult is it to get it moving, how much inertia it has.   This is less important than friction, because the angler can always get the spool moving himself.   Changes in river flow speeds are all that is then likely to affect the spin speed of the reel.  Again the reel could be given a helping hand to match speeds, but it is all extra work for the hands, which I am sure at this time of year would much rather be deeply seated in thick gloves, or perhaps lounging by a coal fire.    I feel the Okuma is quite good in this respect, it seems to spin well, with little friction, unless the spool retaining knurled screw is overtightened.

The other thing that affects ease of spinning is reel cleanliness.   In this I think the Trent is maybe poorly designed.  It is full of holes, designed to reduce weight, and to maybe make the reel look pretty.   But every hole is a possible entry port for dirt, mud, blood and groundbait, any of which might lodge between the moving surfaces and add significantly to friction.  There are holes in the backplate, and holes in the spool itself, allowing dirt into the backplate area, behind the spool.   So I have sacrificed looks, and sealed all the holes that access the area behind the spool with tape.  The more mud and sand I can keep out the better.

A centrepin will never have the retrieve speed of a fixed spool reel, and so it is usually necessary to wave the rod around with a greater level of skill, when playing a fish, so as to avoid being caught slack.  Batting the reel will speed things up, but only works whilst there is little tension in the line, and this can also lead to softly wound coils.   This is likely to intensify the other centrepin problem:   that of line bedding in.   When a coil becomes trapped between earlier coils, or between coils and the spool, it can inhibit the ability of a float to pull line off the reel easily, stopping the smooth flow of the float downstream.   So most centrepin experts only fill the spool with a short length of line, usually less than 50 yards.   There is always a chance that, when after the grayling I might hook into a barbel, and on light line I want to have a chance against any fish that may run a long way.   As an experiment I have a good hundred yards of line wound on, but I have manually spooled this line using a cross hatch pattern.  A bit of a pain to do, manually having to emulate a bale arm with my fingers,  but I think a cross hatched line lay may well reduce, if not eliminate bedding problems.   Of course that barbel, if caught, would undo all such tedious spool filling work in an act of sadistic revenge. 

So my first session with the Avon will also be with a centrepin.  But until the weather permits, this post will lie fallow in the drafts folder.

There will now be a long break for refreshments, and adverts.
.........
......................
1st March 2014
OK,  you all still awake out there?  Practically a whole month since I started to write this, and my first chance to get back out there, with the river in a good enough state for catching a fish or two.   It was a very late start, in deference to my wife, who was without me all day yesterday whilst I fished on the Derwent, I didn't leave home until after lunch. But when I did leave it was with the MK IV, and not one of my usual 12 foot carbon fibre rods. On arrival the river was gin clear, but in my haste to get the rod near to the grayling, I had forgotten to don my wellies.   I wanted to fish on a gravel bar, an island in the stream.  Fortunately some kind soul had created a couple of stepping stones, and with two steps, followed by a fairly long jump, I made gravel, with dry feet. The day was warm and dry, and between the clouds the sun occasionally shone.

I set up the rod, with the centrepin and started to fish.  This was a quicker process, the Avon having just eight rod rings, as opposed to 13 on my more usual rod.  Nothing, not a nibble for an hour or so, and then a somewhat tentative bite.   Good scrap, and I picked up a gallery of walkers behind me, watching as I played the fish, 8 or 9 of them, all standing on the skyline.   Today was the first day with a fair amount of sun for some weeks, and being warmish too, and a weekend, it dragged out all those ramblers and dog walkers.    

First Fish On The Richard Walker Avon

Landed the fish, and as you can see, sadly not a grayling.   However it was an absolutely gorgeously spotted brownie, out of season, but a totally suitable fish with which to christen the rod.   Photographed it, returned it,  and a few moments later thought "Damn!". I had not weighed it.   Bugger!  I was more concerned with getting rid of the gallery and forgot all about the weight.   I had not even done a mental guess of its size, and the best I could come up with was a couple of pounds.    Anyway I fished on, and over the next couple of hours had three more trout, none over about 1/2 a pound.  The grayling remained elusive though.  I did lose another good fish that, because my gear came back with a fish scale on the hook, must have been foul-hooked.  As I fished I started to think maybe the first fish might have gone 2-4, but decided to leave it in my head as 2 pounds.

Then a fifth fish, a much better scrap, piccy 3, a fish which was bang on 2 pounds.  I knew now that the first fish was considerably bigger than two pounds and was really fretting about not checking its weight.   I had left my big coat at home intentionally, so as to prevent me from staying on the river too long, and it was starting to get a bit cold as the sun went down to horizon level, and that final, definitely the last, last cast was called for.   Result!   Another good fish on.   Played it, on the Avon, which I will say deals with fish very pleasingly indeed, better than I had dared hope for.  I did have a little trouble with the length at first, for I am unused to rods shorter than 12 feet these days.   The cane is obviously heavier than carbon fibre, but the short 10 foot length compensated well for it, leaving the rod feeling quite light.   I loved the way the sun lights up the pale of the cane too.   The rod is probably near to being fifty years old, but you would not think so when using it. Anyway I landed the fish, and to my surprise it was the very same fish as the first, the fish I had not weighed.   I did this time: 3 pounds exactly, and a fine wild brownie for the first fish taken with the rod.  

A Three Pounder is Returned to its River

This picture was taken as the fish went back into the river.   Superb spot pattern, mainly black with very few reds.   Yellow pelvic and anal fins and a scarlet patch on the adipose fin.     All in all a very pretty fish, and ample compensation for not catching any of my target grayling.

I have no idea as to whether to count that as two three pound trout in a day or just one though!  Perhaps, being out of season, it should be not one or two, but none?  Ask yourself this: if you caught the same double figure barbel twice on the same day, once at 5 AM, and again at 8 PM, would that be two fish or one fish?  If you say two fish... remember that it was actually just one fish.    If you say one fish, was it any easier to catch than two separate fish would have been?   Supposing you caught it the second time on the next day?  Or a week later?     Yet another reason why I try NOT to name fish, or to recognise them as being of my earlier acquaintance.  Not only do I not want to know if you have caught the fish before me, I also don't want to know it as a repeat capture for myself.

And the Okuma?  It performed its job well enough, but it was greatly limited by my incompetence with its use.  I need much more practice with it, before I get anywhere near proficient.  

So, time to go home, and I suddenly realised that the stepping stones were something of a one way system.  On my arrival it had been two short simple steps onto small, slightly stable rocks, followed by a long jump to reach the gravel bar.   On my return, that easy path had become a long jump onto a tiny unsteady mid stream rock, and then two short unbalanced steps to reach the bank.    I drove home with the car heater on full, aimed at my boots.