Help wanted with the answer to a 12 yr old's question

Message

Sat Jun 24, 2006 9:54 am

Hi Lads, I was watching that clown, Henry Gilbey last night (again)when my 12 year old son asked if any of my rods would be able to catch and land a bronze whaler shark the way his did?

To tell you the truth, I was caught out. I could of said yes, no bother, smiled and the answered all he questions that goes with that answer or no and finished at that, but his question got me thinking then also about Henry's rods in relation to mine.

This is were I need your help,

What type of rod that we would use in GB, if any, would you be able to tackle a shark like that from the beach in the namibia?

I've a few rods that might be of use; Zziplex lt14 and a conoflex highlander but wouldn't be sure, what do you think??

What rod do you have that might be up to the challenge?

The rods that Henry was using last night seemed very thick and stiff although I noticed that mostly all the rods had some sort of cushioned grip.

#2 Post by **jonny gilbert** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 11:03 am

conoflex nemises slr plus or greys platium

#3 Post by **Lee337** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 2:11 pm

To be honest I would say that the reel is more important as the rod's job is to deliver the bait and absorb the lunges of the shark. I would say that any of the good rough ground rods would be suitable, lets face it - if the rod did not bend at all, this gives all the leverage back to the fish. Thats why boat rods get shorter as the class rating increases.

I think in general we tend to fish heavier than we really need to "just in case" - I include myself in that statement and am trying to go lighter so I can enjoy the power of the fish more.

Lee

#4 Post by **beachcaster** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 9:50 am

the rods used in this case are specially made one piece south african rods alough the rod john wilson used was a zziplex lt bullet.you need a fairly stiff and powerful rod ,other wise be prepared for a very long fight .

#5 Post by **Ryan** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 12:10 pm

I haven't seen the Henry Gilbey one yet, but at a guess i'd say he was probably using something by [url=http://www.fishing.co.za/]Purglas[/url]. They're the main rod of choice for big game beach fishing, also quite popular in Australia & USA.

They're not as stiff as you would think when looking at them, my old man's Daiwa AWT would probably be as stiff if not stiffer.

[url=http://www.sharnbrooktackle.com/acatalog/Online_Catalogue_Rods___Boat__Beach___BigGame_14.html]Shambrook Tackle[/url] is the main Uk dealer for them.

As Beachcaster mentioned John Wilson did use a Zziplex Bullet in his programme.

My Uncle has landed some big shark from the shore in Australia and as my Dad said to him " Thats a bloody 13ft bamboo your using that only stops bending at the handle when your sitting on your arse!"

But it can still cast a huge bait close to the back breaker.

We've a good range of rods more than capable of coping with the Bronzies, from daiwa, Zziplex, century, conoflex etc.

#6 Post by **Tanglerat** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 7:48 pm

Dunno about beach rods. but I caught a 120kg, 264 lb Bronzie on a 20lb class boat rod. What's that figure as an equivalent beach rod?

I know I wouldn't want to go much lighter, that fish took me 2 hours and 20 minutes to sort out!

#7 Post by **lumpy** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 9:24 pm

with regards to rods and fish sizes i maintain that if a women can a number of 1000lb+black marlin on 30 lb stand up tackle then landing a 300+ lb bronzie on a beach outfit should pose no problem. its got more to do with the angler in questions skill with regards playing fish and the use of the reels drag. look at fly fishing for tarpon. 150 lb tarpon are regurly landed on 12 wt fly riods and 12 lb tippets, and anybody who has caught or seen a tarpon will know how hard these fish fight, and that a 12wt flyrod is quite flimsey when you compare it to even a flattie or bass rod. the point that i'm making is that although it may be necessary to have a powerful rod to cast the large bait used for bronzies, to play them the rod is only an extension of the anglers body, landing them is more significantly down to the anglers skill

Rockhopper · #8 Post by **Rockhopper** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 2:06 am

Well said Lumpy, spot on!

Tom.

#9 Post by **beachcaster** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:27 am

the only thing i would say there is ,its completley different fighting and landing a big fish on a boat ,as opposed to fighting and landing a big fish on the shore .in fact i would say landing a big fish on a boat would be far easier than doing it on the shore.the same gear on the marlin and i would say you would have very little chance of landing it at all.

Rockhopper · #10 Post by **Rockhopper** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 12:08 pm

John,

Your right in what you say, some of the guys who go for the real ultra light line records from a boat owe more to the skippers ability than their own or the tackle they use. In the boat you can back down on the fish and gain line if its stripping you off, you can also go full circle around the boat and follow the fish, lifting from depth is easier than pulling in shallow shore line any day.

From the shore at best the angler can only go right or left, if there is any structure on either side, he's buggered, the fish can go straight out to sea and the angler only has his drag to help him, if he has good timing and technique he may turn the fish, then at the very end he has to contend with the surf, if your talking sharks it can be very dangerous at this point.

All in all IMHO it takes more skill to land a big fish from the shore then it does from the boat.

Tom.

#11 Post by **lumpy** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 1:20 pm

i fully agree with tyhe fact that landing big fish from a boat is easier than the shore. but ive seen a video of a 180lb lemon shark landed by an angler on a 13 wt fly rod from the shore.