Monday, 26 April 2010

Foul Hooked Fish

Do they count ? Now I'm led to understand that they "all" count when fishing a "Match" ? I may be wrong here and often am ?But If it's landed then it counts ?

But today while looking down from Yat Rock I have spotted an angler on a Barbel Fishing Shite,that has admitted to foul hooking a Barbel.It happens to us all I guess ?Not I,I must hasten to add.As I'm normally so pissed on the bank I wait for the rod butt to whack me on the chin to alert me to a bite.And by then I know my "Nashy Fang" has "Bitten" in the bottom lip,you owe me for the product placement Kev!

This chap not only weighed the beasty in question,but photographed it and submitted to the gallery on the Shite,I mean site.

Is this what Barbel angling is now ?Jesus I may as well set some night lines and change my name to Vlad Popov,go down the next day and clean up ?

To the chap who done this shame on you!!I bet you were touch ledgering ?Don't tell Stef though he will royally bully you in next months CAT.

It's not cricket this gent's and It must stop.As ever It's only my view from Yat Rock.

The photo at the top is of a "splasher" I knocked on the head last season,and used it as a Pike bait. :-)


  1. I foul hooked a barbel on evening while fishing, it was a large fish and i weighed it to see.................. it would have been a river best!

    It did not count in my book and i only weighed it out of curiosity but it is funny the reaction from ones fishing chums, they where definitely split into two camps.

    1. if the hook is not in the mouth then it does not and never will count (i am firmly in this camp)
    2. If the hook is anywhere forward of the tail then it is perfectible acceptable!

    You have to make your own mind up!

  2. I agree with (1) above. The reason is, that if foul hooked fish "count" in any way, then you are in effect endorsing foul hooking as acceptable. Then you can't differentiate between foul hooked by accident (while attempting to hook legally in the gob end) and foul hooked on purpose, as the intent of the fisherman is in his mind only.

    So foul hooked fish mustn't ever count, it’s the thin end of a nasty wedge.

  3. Well, I’ll say this; it’s extremely entertaining and exciting. The few fish I’ve foul hooked have been bastards to get in. But of course it doesn’t count in the sense that you caught it by outwitting it, it’s been hoyked out. Palming off fish as caught fair and square when foul hooked is venturing in to charlatan territory…

  4. Gent's and William ;-),

    I'm in agreement with you all,foul hooked fish should never count!But what about if you land ones fish and the hook is loose in the net?Did it fall from the mouth,or arse ?

    As for Charlatan,well I'm very suprised the board owner agreed to let the fish be put in his gallery.Being that the site in question is at the fore front,in all that is anal in Barbel angling.

  5. Cardinal Sinn preaches fire and brimstone and...27 April 2010 at 16:12

    Disgusting, and him a man of the cloth too (albeit in training.)

    It would never happen in my day. A thousand hail Bonney's and flagellation in the cloisters to you, young sir who photographs foul hooked fish.......

  6. "fore front"? Is that a new rhyming slang?


  7. Talking of CAT, why are they always so out of date with the Spring issues ? They always carry on giving us "chub in winter" articles galore by Horak, Miles etc, even though the river season is long over.

    Sort it out Clifford. Get more tench articles in the Spring issues, and also some more shots of the babelicious Virginia Rushmer getting some hot sausage into her full and pouting lips. :)