This month I am exploring two topics that should be of interest to every pike angler. First of all, how important is bait size whether it is a lure or fish bait? Secondly, and perhaps a little more controversially, how much can we trust the opinions on such matters from angling writers like me? I will be using the bait size issue as an example, but this second question could be applied to any subject. I hope to get you thinking about both topics, and expect to generate a little flack, but I see nothing wrong in offering an honest opinion!

I will start with a little story to set the scene. I was out on a session on a large pit the other day with Max Cottis from Fox. The overnight frosts ensured that the fishing was much harder than normal. The events of the day were typical after a cold spell; finicky pick-ups, lightly-hooked pike and a few dropping off on the way to the net. Normally on this water they are steaming runs that you just can’t miss.

It was apparent what the score was pretty early into the session and I had noticed that the pike seemed to be picking out the smaller baits, and leaving the big chunky baits. The eight-inch chunks of mackerel had lain untouched whilst smaller baits had been picked up, however tentatively.

Max cut his mackerel tails down to half of their original size and started getting a few more pick ups on them, culminating in a couple of small pike and a twenty-three-pounder, which came after dark. The hooks dropped out in the net on that fish too! A very good result on such a difficult day.

This session brought to a head my thoughts of recent times about bait sizes. I had previously convinced myself that there are rarely firm rules that we should always apply regarding bait size. It is only at certain times that I have felt we needed to consider the use of what I would consider anything other than a ‘normal’ sized bait. 

What’s ‘normal’?
‘Normal’ for me might not be normal for you so I had better set my standards out clearly. For me, a typical length of bait I would use most of the time would be about six-inches. In lure terms, and I am talking in body length, that is something like a Rapala Supershad. A small bait for me would be something like a Storm Thunderstick (4.5in.) and a very small bait would be similar in length to a Deep Fat Rap body(2in.). 
Going the other way, I would class a jointed Bucher Depth Raider as a big bait (7in.) and a Fox Bullnose as a very big bait, being eight-inches long. I know you can go much bigger and also smaller, but these are my personal definitions that fit my style of fishing. For me, going outside the mid range produces problems, the more I go the bigger the problem and this applies equally to both lures and fish baits. 
Bigger baits become more tedious to cast, especially for long periods and sometimes require up-rated rods. Big lures can be hard work to cast all day except if you are as big as Dave Kelbrick or Derek McDonald! Distance is often restricted too, especially with big lives. Hooking up can raise various issues with many bigger lures with problems ranging from poor hookers to bad hookers that cause damage.

Hooks need to be bigger on bigger baits and potential hook damage is an issue to consider. We have the tools to deal with tricky situations when they arise but I would prefer not to have to use them. You have to carry these tools with you though just in case. With regards to fish baits, rigging and casting of such can be problematic. Timing of the strike and fish dropping off are the problems that you face here, and once again leading to potential deep hooking situations or heart wrenching disappointment when a good pike drops off on the way to the net.
Smaller baits can produce just as many problems. At times, they can be swallowed very quickly, not only fish baits but also lures, inhaled deep down into the gills and even the throat entrance. To be safe, I carry my hook cutters even when using small lures.  For the very small lures, specialist rods are required to get the best from them. Small fish baits do not have the bulk for casting, so often have to be rigged with a heavy lead or bigger float that you might prefer not to use.

Partly for the reasons stated, I feel that there is a case for making mid range lures and baits to be a reasonable first line attack when attempting to catch pike in any situation, only going outside of this standard when absolutely necessary. For example, Spring and early Autumn pike often seem to respond better to bigger baits, bigger baits seem to get noticed better on big waters and very low water temperatures seem to require the use of smaller baits. Yes there are times when big or small baits do seem to make a difference but I think these times are very few and far between. I think it’s possible to make life easier for yourself and better for the pike in the long run by only deviating away from the mid range when absolutely necessary. 

I have come across instances where big baits seem to be the order of the day and other times, such as the example quoted earlier, when a smaller bait seemed to work better. But did it really? A few days later, when the water was just as cold, I had a brace of twenties on more normal sized  baits from the same swim! The only two runs of the day. 

Now I could have concluded after that first session with Max that smaller baits were needed to do the business but, and it’s a big but, I didn’t even consider going bigger.  An experiment isn’t sound if you don’t consider at least the simpler variations on a theme! It just didn’t seem to be the thing to do in cold weather though but we witnessed a very exciting spectacle towards the end of that first day that left me thinking. 
In only two feet of water, about a hundred yards from us, a very big pike was scattering prey fish that looked in the three to four pound class, clearly exposing its large frame.  My theory for the day regarding bait size went right out of the window!  Contradictions were filling my mind to the point where I wondered just how much I really new about the pikes habits. We were fishing small baits in deep water. That pike was attacking big prey in shallow water! Very contradictory!

Was bait size the issue at all? Were only the bigger pike feeding in that cold spell and taking whatever they came across? Were the smaller pike wary of picking up baits in the presence of bigger pike? Certainly the lake contains many smaller pike and it wouldn’t be the first day I will found only bigger pike feeding.

One thing I do believe in is that a hungry pike, no matter what its size will eat anything it comes across that fits into its mouth, no matter how large or small it might be. Keeping pike in tanks overnight after netting sessions proves this time and time again with a large range of food item sizes being disgorged as often happens. I don’t think that selective feeding is as common as popularly envisaged. The stomach contents normally reflect what is available for them in the water at the time and rarely mirror what the pike are normally caught from in the waters concerned. 

That pike often know no limits, despite a full stomach, has been witnessed many times when a really fat pike has taken a quite substantial bait. More and more I’m thinking that a feeding pike will not refuse any bait. It’s more about how skilfully we present it that’s the main issue. I am going out on a limb here by stating that I think bait size is one of the least important factors in catching pike in most normal situations. Location and presentation skills are far more important.
So why don’t good anglers catch all the time then, you might ask?  They still have blanks and difficult days. Well I’m equally convinced that pike do turn off for many reasons, and just as a hungry pike might have a go at anything, in a similar way, you will find it very hard to tempt a pike that has ‘shut down’ for any reason such as low water temperature or through being contentedly stuffed no matter how skilful you are. I once balanced a smelt on the nose of a thirty that I saw lying in the margin on a very cold day. Eventually it got fed up with the inconvenience and quietly swam away! I caught it a few weeks later on a dead perch, again fished in the margin further round the pit.

It’s my view that any bait that will catch a double, will catch a twenty, will catch a thirty. I look at it like this. A thirty is only a double that is a few years older and most of my thirties have taken quite modest sized baits.  I don’t think about catching forties myself but just as many of the forties I know about have taken small baits as others have taken large ones.  All very academic really as we don’t catch enough thirty and forty-pounders to draw meaningful comparisons, but history certainly records that many ‘monster’ pike have taken surprisingly small or modest baits. What they are capable of taking is another matter!

Misguided?
Experiences over the years have seen me experiment with all sorts of bait sizes and I will admit to using livebaits up to three pounds. Over-enthusiastic, misguided, call it what you like but I wont deny I’ve been down that route. All I have to show for it is a lot of frustration by trying to present such baits and plenty of stories to tell of attacks by quite modest-sized pike as well as pike dropping off that were not hooked well enough. On no occasion did I get a take from what would be classed as an unusually outsized pike for the water concerned. Certainly no bigger than I had caught on smaller baits.

That is my experience. Long-term targeting with huge baits might well produce a different story and I know some may do so. However, I would suggest that considerably more anglers will experience just as good a result with modest-sized baits.

We often tend to think of matching the bait size to the size of prey that we ‘suspect’ the pike are eating. I emphasize the word ‘suspect’ because that is all that it is, a suspicion or guess based upon the prey we know exist in that water. On trout waters in particular, many fantasize that pike eat rainbows almost exclusively and that we need to try and imitate them in size and often colour. Practical results show this not to be nearly as true as we suspect. Endless big trout-water pike fall to humble small lures like spoons, jigs and flies.

To summarise then, I suspect that if we used mid-range lures and baits all of the time we would not only make life better for ourselves and the pike but I also suspect that we would, over a period of time, catch just as many pike and as many big ones too without the frustration associated with going larger or smaller.  Specialised situations, I would agree, might occur from time to time and I’m not saying that I never try something out of my preferred size, an example being my trolling flies featured last month. All I’m suggesting is that you examine your attitude towards bait size, experiment more and maybe end up enjoying your pike fishing a lot more by simplifying it.

I will continue to use big or small fish baits and lures when I see fit to see if it makes a difference, I’m not against them in any serious way. What I will continue to do though to make my life easier is fish ‘normal’ baits with confidence in most situations. In fact, I will be fishing with even more confidence after getting my thoughts together to write this article.

Now this is where my article starts to get deep! Meaningful? Well, that’s for you to judge! 
In view of the contradictions of those days fishing with Max described earlier, I could easily be writing a very misleading article about bait size if I would only experienced some of those events and missed others. Please notice the emphasis on the word ‘some’.

I will go off at a bit of a tangent here, but stay with me as this is relevant. I don’t know whether this will make any sense now but here goes. First of all I will point out, just in case you hadn’t noticed that I have emphasised the word ‘seem’ quite a lot so far. There is a reason for this which will make sense as you read on! 
Things that seem to happen don’t necessarily actually happen! It is all about interpretation but that is a writers’ job. Are we getting it right? Now we are getting into the second of my original questions!

I think there is a danger for writers (just like me) to often jump to wrong conclusions. Are we putting pen to paper far too hastily in order to present something to entertain our readers? Bait size theory, as in this article, is just one instance. I almost wrote an article about the benefits of smaller baits until I thought a lot more about it.  I often ask myself whether many of the issues we write about are far more complex than we realise. Or do we make them that way? In other words, are we getting to the truth and does our individual work actually have any real value in this sense?  Are we misleading our readers, giving wrong information, albeit most unintentionally?

Many anglers (writers), I feel, will make assessments based upon a very unscientific approach and convince themselves that what happened to them fits into a suitable theory. I’m not trying to make myself unpopular but this needs to be said or we will never move on.  We need to think even more deeply before we commit our thoughts to paper and make sure that what we offer as advice is reasonably sound and not biased towards the way that we prefer to fish if it’s to have any relevance. There has to be a clear dividing line between personal experiences and solid facts. I know that I must definitely confront a lot of things I take as unshakeable facts. My favourite zander lure, my most frequently used lure colour, my most successful deadbait rig. They are all coming under scrutiny again!

Looking at this another way, readers could get more from their reading if they considered just how much relevance there is in a writer’s work after considering how his conclusions had been reached. In other words, a shallow article could be sussed out by a reader with an analytical mind.

In other words, do we want the truth or just want to be happy with being entertained or believing that what is written must be gospel. Someone once wrote in the letters pages and I quote “....just because Mick Brown says it is correct, doesn’t mean it is!” I took issue on this occasion but as a principal, never were truer words spoken. Like any writer, I offer my experience as honestly as I can but with something as complex as the habits of a wild creature, anyone can get it very wrong. 

I told you that this might not make sense but I think it’s vitally important and I hope that by considering this thought, we might elevate angling writing to a much higher level. Readers are often complaining that magazines have become repetitive and predictable. I think there is much scope for moving forwards and Pike and Predators seems to me to be the magazine with the philosophy to make it happen.

This article was first published in Pike and Predators magazine