Speyducer
Advisory Board
Release to spawn another day
Posts: 4,123
|
Post by Speyducer on Oct 9, 2008 9:34:51 GMT
This method of fishing, usually fly fishing, has been around for a long time now.
Whilst it is mainly used on still waters ( lakes, lochs, fisheries etc), and it may be considered either dangerous or at least more hazardous for use in the sea & coastal waters, and in rivers, does anyone know the law regarding the use of such belly-boat fishing on rivers??
Mike
|
|
|
Post by dangler on Oct 9, 2008 11:29:58 GMT
Not exactly the law, but many clubs forbid the use of boats on their waters.
From a practical point of view, I would not advise float tubing in a river, particularly one with any appreciable current unless you enjoy long walks back to the car impersonating Kermit.
I don't think I'd be happy with a double hander and heavy tube whizzing past my only means of support either! The risk and consequences of puncture are best not thought about.
Apart from that, float tubing is great fun!
Tight lines, Mike
|
|
Speyducer
Advisory Board
Release to spawn another day
Posts: 4,123
|
Post by Speyducer on Oct 9, 2008 12:41:05 GMT
I was, of course, only thinking of appropriate waters, and where allowed as a method NOT impinging on other anglers' use of the said waters.
Also, as in boating methods used on the Tweed & Tay, some form of temporary anchoring system would have to be used, indeed, using a belly boat would give some 'independence' to ones fishing, or where independence is essential - ie where there is no ghillie / partner. The same sort of waters as plowed by boats may be the water where such a float-tube could be useful, and obviously not the faster streams in any case.
Just a few thoughts to throw out there!
Mike
|
|
|
Post by dangler on Oct 9, 2008 17:04:34 GMT
Speyducer, I was not suggesting for a minute that you would use the tube in any way impinging on other rods.My fears are purely on the practical (and safety) side.
A friend of mine is disabled and we had seriously considered strapping him into a float tube and lowering him down pools on the Spey. Bearing in mind that he would have no real locomotive power of his own, the risk from a slipped or broken rope or the sheer ability to hold him was considered too great. In terms of anchoring, our hero would need to propel themselves to the anchor point whilst carrying said anchor and rod, etc and drop the anchor as required.So far so good. However when the time comes to move, having used the length of anchor rope to allow fishing down the pool he would need to make progress directly against the current by pulling on the rope and paddling to a point sufficiently upstream to free the anchor- whilst still carrying rod etc.
I certainly concede that it appears appealing but in my view is hazardous at the least. The only practical suggestion I could make would be to tether the angler to a tree or spike on the bank and then use an otter board/rudder affair to carry the tyro out to the desired position.Whether one could wield a big rod whilst controlling all this I don't know. Spinning might be easier, but then if you were spinning you probably don't need the boost out into the river.
Sorry to sound like a wet blanket, but I have a mental image of councils introducing new park and ride schemes in Fochabers, Perth and Berwick to take itinerant anglers back to their point of embarcation!
Tight lines, Mike
|
|
|
Post by sinkingtip on Oct 9, 2008 20:23:16 GMT
Interesting the amount of usage the word "anchor" gets in the above two posts.
In a 'word association' game I might reply "fixed rod" if given the prompt - "anchor". Fixed rods, as we all know, being illegal for salmon fishing - certainly in Scotland as far as I am aware. I digress. Float tubes ? - Canadian lakes fair enough ..... the Linn Pool at Burnmouth on Tay - nein danke. Besides, too many loonies out there with air guns. STup
|
|