The Traditional Fisherman's Forum

If i were planning to fish such a pit, I'd start on the float feeding hemp and caster. This maty well attract smaller fish, but if the big ones come along, they'll feed. Id probably start with single or double caster on the hook, but if i was catching id then start swappingthe hookbait for things like corn or bread to see what happened. Key thing would be to keep the feed going in every single cast. A pinch of hemp and a pinch of casters round the float.

Wallys-Cast wrote:Bob, a water I used to fish regularly held a lot of large Rudd 2lb and over.
I found the best method for the larger fish was bread about the size of your thumb nail squeezed onto the hook and fished about a foot under the float.
Spray the area to be fished with a few pouchfulls of maggots for a few minutes before casting. The bites would come almost instantaneously.

A couple of maggots would also bring plenty of bites of couse but were very difficult to hit as they tend to nip the maggot itself and fishing shallow like this can lead to more tackle in the trees behind you than you've got left in your box, with bread they almost hook themselves, you only need to tighten up into the fish.

I use a hook size 12 for the bread.

A size 18 buried inside a caster is a good Rudd bait but it can attract the smaller ones too which will congregate under the maggots from heaven.

Good luck and I look forward to hearing your results.

Wal.

I think Wally and I went to the same school Bob. I know of no better method as the grubs draw the fish and the flake or punch can be altered in size to sort out the bigguns. Personally I use 18" to 3' of tail below the float with dust shot to take the bait down slowly.
Match boys have a technique 'pellet waggler' which I'm sure you are familiar with. I call it fishing!

I just adore big rudd and I wish I had the time now to explore the Fens with the Canadian canoe! We've had a few over the years and if you'll just indulge me, because this brings back so many wonderful memories, because they were all such beautiful fish:

This one was on a big Mayfly when the rains had cleared and the sun came out.



These two came on a little redworm suspended four inches below a bit of peacock quill!





These two came on float-fished corn on the end of a jetty! An Irish lough with a marl bottom (and hence the more silver colour but look at those mouths!).



This one on long range float fished, slow sinking flake. It had to bang against the reeds at thirty yards or no bite! It was a great evening!



I am sorry - so many marvellous memories as I said. My experience is that they are greedy (and predatory) fish and not hard to catch if you can find and isolate them

If you have a chance at a big rudd, don't wait for next year, everywhere is so fragile and so are we...

Bloody show off Humm

Dave Burr wrote:Bloody show off Humm

I know, I know, hangs head in shame, but please please forgive that, they're just about the most wonderful fish Dave at two ounces or two pounds.

Tengisgol wrote:

Dave Burr wrote:Bloody show off Humm

I know, I know, hangs head in shame, but please please forgive that, they're just about the most wonderful fish Dave at two ounces or two pounds.

Which ones 2 ounces Phil?

Double caster also flake will take the better ones.

This thread has really given me food for thought as to what I can do to single out the larger Rudd when I fish again at the Dyke. Apart from bait the one thing I have gleaned is that the larger fish like to be close to cover, so fishing bang up against the reeds will be my tactics next time I go. When I went fishing at my dykes last time, my wife said to me "why don't you fish next to the Reeds"? The reason she said this was because I most often fish close in rather than out in front of me, and especially with floating baits with Carp.

Thanks for all the great advice chaps.

I am sorry to have started this debate and then seemingly left it. In truth I have left the big rudd project a little on the back burner. I visited the 'big pit' on a couple of occasions in the winter without seeing any rudd at all. that was hardly surprising in 190 acres where the depth goes down to 40ft plus. Quite frankly I found it just too daunting, especially being nearly 2 hours from home.

My son has been carp fishing the water with some considerable success. The other week he had a stuttering run on his 3.25 TC rod and wound in the attached. He knew it was a special fish but didn't weigh it or take proper photos, just a snap on his phone. This rudd, and it will be a true rudd as roach and bream are not present, was taken on a boilie. Stuart estimated the fish at 'around 5lb', and I have no reason to disbelieve that figure, as rudd of that size and greater have been caught.

Credit to him for his stance of not properly recording details of the fish. I have to say I think that I would have done so, just for my personal record, not for others to criticise. What do you chaps think?

My goodness that's massive! Even in such a poor photo you can see that. For me, he caught it fair and square and there is many a noteworthy fish caught over the years when fishing for other species. It's a matter 'of scientific interest' (who said that first?).

The issue of a two hour trip is a 'killer' that I know only too well and life is a balance. I suspect the ability to have been regularly on that bank, or better still in a small boat/canoe, with this recent sunny spell, would have given you the best chance of locating the rudd with some scattered crusts. Good luck if you give it a shot Bob, the rewards look like they could be beyond all imagination.