In reply to Post #30
A quick google brought me here
LINK

To be honest due to my fishing suffering due to over thinking and being anal in the past I took a conscious 'it's only fishing' approach and so have hardly read it but maybe it might be useful to others?

In reply to Post #31
Sound travels in water. Check
Fish can hear sound. Check
Fish can sense pressure. Check
Transponders transmit in range at least some fish can hear. Check.
Does it affect them? Don't know. Does it worry me?
No. Don't use tech to catch carp.
Found the stew pond observation interesting is all.

In reply to Post #32
What range of frequencies are considered to be sound.
And as fish don't have ears they can't hear sound so what frequencies can they detect? not very high as far as I can make out.

May have worried me in the past but doesn't worry me anymore. It's only fishing

One of the biggest clubs in Essex has banned them. I don't think that's due to disturbance though.

In reply to Post #33
You have just put up a link to a lengthy research document that clearly states fish have ears and can hear. It clearly states that the hearing of some fish can detect frequencies that fall within the range of deeper transponders. From the highest to the lowest frequencies its all sound

In reply to Post #35
As we agreed earlier we'll have to disagree

I wouldn't mind betting the bailiffs real problem was the electronic gadget, rather than the disturbance.

In reply to Post #37
Your last paragraph explains it all , trouble is today's instant catch at all costs carper doesn't get it. They're banned on my syndicate as are instant catch at all cost carpers (dont even make the list) if one even still exists.

In reply to Post #35
Absolutely spot on with your explanation of sound.
Different species of fish can hear a different range of frequencies just like dogs and bats for example can hear higher frequencies than we can.

In reply to Post #36
I think you're right. I'm having way too much fun for an old man.
Good health and good fishing.

In reply to Post #39
But how many species of fish can hear the frequencies that the Deeper uses of 90Khz and 250Khz
According to the link in post #31 it's one the American Shad all the others can't hear much about 5Khz.

A bit off topic I suppose as that's not what the bailiff in Post#1 was getting the hump about

In reply to Post #41
I certainly haven't come across any research finding that carp can hear frequencies that high and I would be
very surprised if 90Khz and higher was detectable by them. That said carp do surprise us in many ways.

However sound and shockwaves from the splashing certainly would be detected so even if he is being a bit fussy the bailiff is technically right.
Noisy setting up, shouting, banging in pegs, spombs, heavy leads etc are all detectable by carp so will the bailiff also be seeking to ban those things?

I have one. I don't use it all the time. I wouldn't use it if i thought I was going to ruin someone else's fishing and I don't use it for fish finding, but for feature finding it's brilliant.

Here's the two ways I've used it.
Firstly one of my waters is very quiet and pretty deep, but unfortunately has a lot of old machinery on the bottom. So if you try to marker it in a traditional way, you WILL get snagged up and end up leaving leads and braid cracked off on the bottom. I spent half a day with the deeper and now I have a complete map of the lake that would have been very risky to produce in the normal way.

Secondly. I fish waters that can get extremely weedy. As I fish overnighters, often straight after work. I have limited time. Now I could spend upwards of two hours leading about in a swim trying to find an area to present a bait, most likely scare any fish out of the swim and ruin my short session. Or I can make about five casts with the deeper across the surface, rule out 80% of the swim as unfishable, then just lead the areas that the deeper shows me have the best chance of presenting a rig.

So actually in both cases I'm creating less disturbance than I would do with a lead or lead/marker.

Like all these things, they are often banned by people without the intellect to understand how to use them properly.

In reply to Post #43
This. I haven't got one but I will at some point. I understand bait boat bans and most others, but there's no reason to ban something that actually causes less disturbance than the traditional alternative.

I certainly can't understand why other anglers want them banned unless they're scared the people using them will out catch them? It's not like they cause any bother to anyone else.

Maybe it's just not a ‘pukka' way to catch those old ‘scaley warriors', and I think that's what it boils down to in the end.

In reply to Post #43
Totally agree.
I'm in favour of anything that minimises disturbance to carp or fellow anglers.
Also a very good point about the snags, far too much debris around that could be detrimental to wild life.