Ridiculous contraption that should be shelved not only by the owner of the idea but also by the tackle shops selling it, shame on them all.
In reply to Post #1124
I disagree with you there i think it should have a total ban, it would have to be an exceptionally clear lake with no underwater debris or obstructions whatsoever.
Even a weed and snag free venue could have, some form of margin vegetation, a branch that has fell in, variance in depth bar drop off etc, it could just drag on the bottom due to the splayed arms that do not easily break off which could all pull a hook in further or tear the mouth.
I am convinced it is a very dangerous design that should not have been brought to the market at all, i really do not understand anyone that defends it
I disagree with you there i think it should have a total ban, it would have to be an exceptionally clear lake with no underwater debris or obstructions whatsoever.
Even a weed and snag free venue could have, some form of margin vegetation, a branch that has fell in, variance in depth bar drop off etc, it could just drag on the bottom due to the splayed arms that do not easily break off which could all pull a hook in further or tear the mouth.
I am convinced it is a very dangerous design that should not have been brought to the market at all, i really do not understand anyone that defends it
regardless of what people think about each other on here, as considerate responsible conscientious anglers we have a duty to provide the absolute best care for the fish we catch.
That care starts way before we even put a hook in their mouth or lay them on a mat out of water.
That care starts way before we even put a hook in their mouth or lay them on a mat out of water.
In reply to Post #1150
agree re the design,
Im baffled as to those who think its actually "OK"
If AH pulled the product from the market, that would make him far more "popular" to his wider audience.
Thinking of those "Arms"...wouldn't they have been better off that they aren't "Fixed" and they should detach on the take? once ejected, and customer purchases arms separately?
The arms could have easily be made from a material that breaks down fairly quickly....potato starch for one, therefore less damaging to the environment than plastic
agree re the design,
Im baffled as to those who think its actually "OK"
If AH pulled the product from the market, that would make him far more "popular" to his wider audience.
Thinking of those "Arms"...wouldn't they have been better off that they aren't "Fixed" and they should detach on the take? once ejected, and customer purchases arms separately?
The arms could have easily be made from a material that breaks down fairly quickly....potato starch for one, therefore less damaging to the environment than plastic
In reply to Post #1152
Yes it would be better if they wasn't fixed and could detach and like you say would have to be made from something that breaks down quickly, but maybe there would be another way of designing it without the external arms
Yes it would be better if they wasn't fixed and could detach and like you say would have to be made from something that breaks down quickly, but maybe there would be another way of designing it without the external arms
In reply to Post #1145
So whatever your opinion on something is, that changes based on whoever has the authority in the room/group etc? Brown nosing then?
And because people are able to take a more objective view on something, doesnt mean that they agree or disagree, they just have the ability to be objective about it. Doesnt make their opinion on something any less valid, or that they are hiding behind a phrase as you put it.
So whatever your opinion on something is, that changes based on whoever has the authority in the room/group etc? Brown nosing then?
And because people are able to take a more objective view on something, doesnt mean that they agree or disagree, they just have the ability to be objective about it. Doesnt make their opinion on something any less valid, or that they are hiding behind a phrase as you put it.
In reply to Post #1153
In the abattoir, we trailed a product to reduce the cerebral fluid escaping the captive bolt hole left after shooting cattle.
The reason for this was, Government thought that any tissues or fluid deemed as SRM (Specified Risk Material) could be zoonotic, meaning a disease from an animal could jump species to humans (zoonosis) during BSE (mad cow disease) crisis.
The product was approx, from memory, 3 inches in length, tapered from the thinnest point of 9mm to the thick end of up to 14mm, dependant on size of captive bolt used.
They were made of a composite with the main ingredient being potato starch. They were as hard as plastic when dry and went soft after 18 - 24 hours, dependant on temperatures, and up to 72 hours to completely dissolve.
Surely what i said earlier would work for a detachable arm?
I'll send AH my invoice
In the abattoir, we trailed a product to reduce the cerebral fluid escaping the captive bolt hole left after shooting cattle.
The reason for this was, Government thought that any tissues or fluid deemed as SRM (Specified Risk Material) could be zoonotic, meaning a disease from an animal could jump species to humans (zoonosis) during BSE (mad cow disease) crisis.
The product was approx, from memory, 3 inches in length, tapered from the thinnest point of 9mm to the thick end of up to 14mm, dependant on size of captive bolt used.
They were made of a composite with the main ingredient being potato starch. They were as hard as plastic when dry and went soft after 18 - 24 hours, dependant on temperatures, and up to 72 hours to completely dissolve.
Surely what i said earlier would work for a detachable arm?
I'll send AH my invoice
In reply to Post #1154
the old saying goes
Its not what one says, its they way one says it
i love a good ole debate, but blimmey, some people dont half get excited over nothing these days
the old saying goes
Its not what one says, its they way one says it
i love a good ole debate, but blimmey, some people dont half get excited over nothing these days
In reply to Post #1155
They were made of a composite with the main ingredient being potato starch. They were as hard as plastic when dry and went soft after 18 - 24 hours, dependant on temperatures, and up to 72 hours to completely dissolve.
Surely what i said earlier would work for a detachable arm?
The trouble is that people will want to leave them out in the water for 48 hrs and then the arms will be gone or of course they will have to remember how long the arms have been in the water for so that they can change them regularly when on a long session...... ah **** what am I talking about, from all the advertising and this contraption being so awesome the fish will always be caught within a few minutes of casting so nothing to worry about..... not that it would really make any difference because the fish is already hooked from the weight before the thing even triggers anyway
They were made of a composite with the main ingredient being potato starch. They were as hard as plastic when dry and went soft after 18 - 24 hours, dependant on temperatures, and up to 72 hours to completely dissolve.
Surely what i said earlier would work for a detachable arm?
The trouble is that people will want to leave them out in the water for 48 hrs and then the arms will be gone or of course they will have to remember how long the arms have been in the water for so that they can change them regularly when on a long session...... ah **** what am I talking about, from all the advertising and this contraption being so awesome the fish will always be caught within a few minutes of casting so nothing to worry about..... not that it would really make any difference because the fish is already hooked from the weight before the thing even triggers anyway
In reply to Post #1157
I get the time frame, but soft to 24hrs and gone in 72 hours?
im 200% confident timings of dissolving could be altered during the making of the product
I get the time frame, but soft to 24hrs and gone in 72 hours?
im 200% confident timings of dissolving could be altered during the making of the product
In reply to Post #1157
I have a suspicion that the kind of people that leave baits out for 48 hours aren't the type of people that would use twigs
I have a suspicion that the kind of people that leave baits out for 48 hours aren't the type of people that would use twigs
In reply to Post #1159
Redesigned or not a castable rat trap is a step to far in my eyes .
Redesigned or not a castable rat trap is a step to far in my eyes .
In reply to Post #1160
There's always solutions to problems, but i tend to agree with what your aiming at
There's always solutions to problems, but i tend to agree with what your aiming at
In reply to Post #1154
Objectivity is a two way street Heff.
If your opinion is that a "for" view or a middling view is more objective than an "against" view then arguably, your opinion on that is more subjective than objective.
What isn't objective though is making a statement of opinion then repeatedly saying "I'm only playing devil's advocate". That is absolutely hiding behind a phrase. Just state the opinion, then back it up. Or, listen to the counter argument and be convinced. If we all just keep repeating "devil's", what's the point in anything?
Objectivity is a two way street Heff.
If your opinion is that a "for" view or a middling view is more objective than an "against" view then arguably, your opinion on that is more subjective than objective.
What isn't objective though is making a statement of opinion then repeatedly saying "I'm only playing devil's advocate". That is absolutely hiding behind a phrase. Just state the opinion, then back it up. Or, listen to the counter argument and be convinced. If we all just keep repeating "devil's", what's the point in anything?
In reply to Post #1160
I entirely agree Carpbourne.
The safety at crack off is my main concern but the actual device itself from an aim perspective crosses a boundary that doesn't need to be crossed.
And what is particularly irksome is how the great believe himself, H, sees his acts as some sort of disruptive angling influence. If crossing boundaries and making unsafe tackle is the definition, then yes he is. But in terms of "forwarding the pursuit". He is absolutely not. He's put the whole thing back.
I entirely agree Carpbourne.
The safety at crack off is my main concern but the actual device itself from an aim perspective crosses a boundary that doesn't need to be crossed.
And what is particularly irksome is how the great believe himself, H, sees his acts as some sort of disruptive angling influence. If crossing boundaries and making unsafe tackle is the definition, then yes he is. But in terms of "forwarding the pursuit". He is absolutely not. He's put the whole thing back.