In reply to Post #72
Who appointed him England Manager anyway, I don't remember voting or is it self appointing?
Who appointed him England Manager anyway, I don't remember voting or is it self appointing?
In reply to Post #76
Who cares ?
Who cares ?
In reply to Post #61
This is nothing new, the hormone in question has been used in Australia for years. It is implanted into caged fish, using osmotic pumps, which release the hormone over a period of weeks. The caged fish attract large numbers of others which are the netted/ electro fished for removal as an invasive pest species.
Readily available from both UK vets and offshore active pharmaceutical ingredients companies.
This is nothing new, the hormone in question has been used in Australia for years. It is implanted into caged fish, using osmotic pumps, which release the hormone over a period of weeks. The caged fish attract large numbers of others which are the netted/ electro fished for removal as an invasive pest species.
Readily available from both UK vets and offshore active pharmaceutical ingredients companies.
In reply to Post #78
I don't think that is the compound that has been suggested. Others have said it's a compound that is used (in some places, banned in others) on other animals but not in the aquatic environment where it has an untested short and long term effect.
I don't think that is the compound that has been suggested. Others have said it's a compound that is used (in some places, banned in others) on other animals but not in the aquatic environment where it has an untested short and long term effect.
In reply to Post #79
Your kind of right, the one is the synthesised version of the other 👌👍
Your kind of right, the one is the synthesised version of the other 👌👍
In reply to Post #78
If this is the chemical I believe it is, I've read 2 scientific papers about its effects and usage, both US based, one dating 2011 and another 2017, both using the said substance to lure carp to baited area to evaluate stock density with a view to culling/ eradication. The chemical is produced naturally by lots of aquatic species, but in nano pico amounts. So actually using it effectively in an angling situation would be at best hit and miss, if a “certain angler” was using it in a video, the drone footage proved that although it had worked for him, he had got the level too high etc hence fish circling but not feeding.
As for cost, you are looking at around £850 plus vat for 10mg!!! That's 0.01 of a gram.....
I suppose if it “guarantees” a win in a match with a big payout, you may deem it necessary if you have very little in the way of ethics/scruples.
As for Team England, I do like Rob Hughes but coming out with a statement denying its use does remind me of UK cycling's Dave Brailsford just a little. Just waiting for rumours Lance Armstrong being spotted coming out of Angling Direct with a full set up.....😂
If this is the chemical I believe it is, I've read 2 scientific papers about its effects and usage, both US based, one dating 2011 and another 2017, both using the said substance to lure carp to baited area to evaluate stock density with a view to culling/ eradication. The chemical is produced naturally by lots of aquatic species, but in nano pico amounts. So actually using it effectively in an angling situation would be at best hit and miss, if a “certain angler” was using it in a video, the drone footage proved that although it had worked for him, he had got the level too high etc hence fish circling but not feeding.
As for cost, you are looking at around £850 plus vat for 10mg!!! That's 0.01 of a gram.....
I suppose if it “guarantees” a win in a match with a big payout, you may deem it necessary if you have very little in the way of ethics/scruples.
As for Team England, I do like Rob Hughes but coming out with a statement denying its use does remind me of UK cycling's Dave Brailsford just a little. Just waiting for rumours Lance Armstrong being spotted coming out of Angling Direct with a full set up.....😂
In reply to Post #81
I think you're barking up the right tree, though the synthesised version is approx £45/10ml...
Tis a sobering thought, to think if it has been used in the ways suggested that the very basis of modern day ticket and competition carping would be discredited beyond belief, along with those alleged to have deployed this tactic, along with respective backers/sponsors/ venues etc....
I think you're barking up the right tree, though the synthesised version is approx £45/10ml...
Tis a sobering thought, to think if it has been used in the ways suggested that the very basis of modern day ticket and competition carping would be discredited beyond belief, along with those alleged to have deployed this tactic, along with respective backers/sponsors/ venues etc....
In reply to Post #82
The substance mentioned previously will be the synthetic chemical in a carrier allowing for precise dosage in the relevant target species, not for dosing a bucket of slop and bloodworm 🙄
Unfortunately in all forms of life there will always be people willing to push the boundaries, with little thought for the after effects etc.
Will it signify the end of all record rod caught species in the UK? I get the feeling if it blows on for much longer and gets more coverage it will. Personally I'd like all tackle/bait manufacturers to get together and speak out about it in public and threaten any of their team members with dismissal if found to have used it.
Just my twopennorth
The substance mentioned previously will be the synthetic chemical in a carrier allowing for precise dosage in the relevant target species, not for dosing a bucket of slop and bloodworm 🙄
Unfortunately in all forms of life there will always be people willing to push the boundaries, with little thought for the after effects etc.
Will it signify the end of all record rod caught species in the UK? I get the feeling if it blows on for much longer and gets more coverage it will. Personally I'd like all tackle/bait manufacturers to get together and speak out about it in public and threaten any of their team members with dismissal if found to have used it.
Just my twopennorth
In reply to Post #83
Agree 100%
Agree 100%
In reply to Post #84
If it is Prostaglandin F2 Alpha in question, then id throw the book at any guilty parties, its going to come out lets face it. Sorry but you cant be putting that stuff in lakes. Hope they get what they deserve. Unethical and dangerous. And we know its not nonsense, that Nash podcast says it all, although he didn't say what it was Kev basically admitted to using something that NO ONE else does. and his results point to what sort of 'edge' that might be, referring to them being drawn in by it , especially shallow waters.
If it is Prostaglandin F2 Alpha in question, then id throw the book at any guilty parties, its going to come out lets face it. Sorry but you cant be putting that stuff in lakes. Hope they get what they deserve. Unethical and dangerous. And we know its not nonsense, that Nash podcast says it all, although he didn't say what it was Kev basically admitted to using something that NO ONE else does. and his results point to what sort of 'edge' that might be, referring to them being drawn in by it , especially shallow waters.
In reply to Post #85
Drawing them in s one thing but would they be feeding...
Fish don't really feed when in that pre-spawning mode, just obsessively chasing. And if its a female based hormone surely it will only attract males?
Maybe this "attraction hormone" is being used with a "feeding response" hormone too.
Drawing them in s one thing but would they be feeding...
Fish don't really feed when in that pre-spawning mode, just obsessively chasing. And if its a female based hormone surely it will only attract males?
Maybe this "attraction hormone" is being used with a "feeding response" hormone too.
In reply to Post #86
well Kev does refer to not getting mix right in the podcast, when there were fish there but not feeding.. so that implies both are used. People cant even say its bulls*t, just got to watch the podcast and put 2 and 2 together with the hormone theory.
well Kev does refer to not getting mix right in the podcast, when there were fish there but not feeding.. so that implies both are used. People cant even say its bulls*t, just got to watch the podcast and put 2 and 2 together with the hormone theory.
In reply to Post #86
When I listened to the carp chronicle podcast and read the paper from Australia that has been posted on this forum I thought that the suggestion was that the reaction to the hormone was cheomoreception and did provoke a feeding reaction although I do not understand the science. With regards to attracting the males again not understanding the science I understood that the presence of the excited males attracted the females.
When I listened to the carp chronicle podcast and read the paper from Australia that has been posted on this forum I thought that the suggestion was that the reaction to the hormone was cheomoreception and did provoke a feeding reaction although I do not understand the science. With regards to attracting the males again not understanding the science I understood that the presence of the excited males attracted the females.
In reply to Post #88
Excited males release a hormone that attracts the females.
But like a can of Lynx Africa at weatherspoons on a Friday night.
Excited males release a hormone that attracts the females.
But like a can of Lynx Africa at weatherspoons on a Friday night.
In reply to Post #90
I thought it was the males that chase the females. Which is why it's not good to have more male fish than females. Especially young males chasing big old females.
I thought it was the males that chase the females. Which is why it's not good to have more male fish than females. Especially young males chasing big old females.