Barbel Fishing: The Pope’s River Diary

[FishingMagic]

This is a dedicated thread for discussing article: Barbel Fishing: The Pope’s River Diary

 

[no-one in particular]

A very good read as always. I wish I was a bit more of a barbel angler. I learned to use the simpler method of roving and dipping in and out of swims for barbel. I found it more interesting and rewarding than just laying up in one spot with gallons of bait. That does work but, it seemed such a waste when it didn't. And I did not mind winkling out a nice chub on the way. Having not fished for barbel for some years through location I am hoping to re visit the Hampshire Avon some time this summer as my brother has moved nearby. I do not have a specialist barbel rod so, will try my carp rod. One I bought cheap second hand is a telescopic 12ft carbon carp rod with a nice fixed spool attached and a rod bag. All for £20. I expect Steve will quake in his boots at the thought of using this (sorry Steve) but, it looks the job. I prefer a fixed spool as I like to be able to cast into distant swims when roving especially on the Hampshire Avon as it is quite wide in places and a center pin would be difficult plus , in the past I have caught a few barbel in these distant swims. Playing them across a weedy river was a bit challenging though.

 

[Ray Wood 1]

The main part of this article is just advertising treacle of the sort modern anglers have grown extremely tired of as they read through sickly passages of I use this and I use that. Frankly it’s the kind of stuff that puts me right off reading those particular sections so the subliminal advertising message is completely useless as I skip past it.

So many similar rods set up with so many exact same reels means so little choice on display for different methods and tactics?
When talking about barbel senses no mention of any scientific data that proves conclusively how fishes sensory organs work and what their capabilities are?

Well “is” carp style barbel fishing out of place on our rivers?

We live in a modern world where technology has taken over and is speeding towards the horizon at breakneck speed. The anglers of today want to fish in a way that suits them whilst using todays bait and tackle. Personally I have no problem with that what so ever. This is merely progress not some romantic notion of how barbel fishing “should” be conducted in one or two peoples eyes who refuse to move on.

Barbel fishing like all other branches of our sport has evolved over the years. To dismiss this progressive evolution whilst refusing to climb out of the same old rut is sheer folly. Of course there is far more to the blinkered attitude displayed in part of this article.

Take the tackle trade for instance? It would be impossible for the UK tackle trade to continue to grow and make profit without the advances in modern fishing practices or to embrace the requirements of today’s modern angler. It’s the same with the bait trade who now supply a vast array of bait for today’s go ahead angler.

The angling world moved on from maggots and centre pin reels years ago. The modern angler requires tackle and bait that is capable of dealing with all species of fish in all conditions on a daily basis. Many also require “scaffolding” as Steve Pope puts it in order to place their rods upon as they fish stretches of rivers where it is almost impossible to get bank sticks in. Like long gravel margins for example??

Failure to embrace the modern angler, his modern methods and the way he/she interacts with other anglers has proven costly for organisations like the Barbel Society as its membership falls away into decline. Existing members lost will never be regained and prospective new members merely side step single species groups whose hierarchy constantly seek to berate their styles of fishing.

The internet in all its forms have now solidly become todays modern anglers one stop shop for everything they require and it’s probably fair to say that articles like this one simply push anglers further away from wanting to join the Barbel Society. Steve Pope says on the BS Facebook page that the “BS is more than a Facebook page and a website”. It’s actually far less than that simply because anglers now demand a quality website and Facebook page if they are to be remotely interested in joining a single species group like the Barbel Society.

Make no mistake most young anglers today have no desire to join single species organisations like the Barbel Society, why should they? They have everything they want on the internet for free. Angling groups are springing up on the facebook thick and fast.

One such group Barbel Fishing “Prince of the River” is one that has had a fantastic reception since it started and now has over 4000 members who share information on a minute by minute daily basis. It has outstripped other groups leaps and bounds and will continue to do so as far as I can see. This leads me to believe that single species barbel groups will soon be a thing of the past. One or two might survive such as the Barbel Catchers Club which remains as it always has been, a small intimate group of like minded barbel anglers who pool and share their knowledge and socialise with each other.

I am almost 69 years old, this world has changed beyond recognition in my life time but I have always moved with it. I first used a PC when I was 54 years old, I now have the most modern laptop money can buy plus an Apple iPhone that gives me everything I want from the internet wherever I am, when I want it, 24/7.

Sites like Fishing Magic have always embraced and understood what it is that the modern angler wants. 24/7 access with clarity and openness, exactly the same as what social media offers. Anything less than that and the modern angler will pass you by.

As for this particular article? Just one reply and 147 views at time of posting this.

Regards to all
Ray

 

[reeds]

'Otters wiped out the huge Ouse barbel and are making serious inroads into the Kennet and other rivers, certainly the Oxford ones. Is the future of the species in danger?'

I'm fed up of reading that otters have wiped out the Oxfordshire barbel, backed up by no evidence whatsoever. The barbel have gone that's for sure, but all the other species are doing fine. I assume now the otters have eaten all the barbel they've left the county looking for more... or perhaps there are other reasons the barbel have gone.

The tackle run down looks to be rather a thin excuse to run a free spirit advert.

 

[bear dies]

Advertising twaddle

 

[black kettle]

I thought the whole thing was twaddle mesen.

Then again it could be a lot worse. A day out fishing with him. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

 

[black kettle]

Interesting comment from Reeds.

Its also interesting that Steve Pope doesn't appear to know a great deal about Ichthyology (study of fishes basically) because if he did he would know that fish can smell, taste, touch, hear, balance, have current perception together with perception of heat and even the detection/reaction to electricity. Being cold blooded merely means they have no mechanism for maintaining a constant body temperature and their blood temperature varies with outside changes. The smell sense cells in fish are sufficiently sensitive to respond to minute concentrations of substances dissolved or suspended in water. This effectively means that with water flowing towards the fish, in this case barbel, the fish can detect the smell of substances far greater than 10 feet away as Steve Pope suggests.

Do fish senses work in tandem as Steve Pope says? No they don't. A fish can taste there is no doubt about that but for their taste cells to respond they must be in contact with fairly heavy concentrations. Therefore, barbel will be able to detect the smell of any bait way before they can actually taste it. Incidentally experiments have concluded that fish, like we humans, only have four different taste senses. Sour, sweet, salty and bitter. Experiments conducted on minnows concluded that fish can only be trained to respond to the same taste senses present in humans. Then there is the binocular vision that fish possess. No mention of that in the article and how this particular sense can reflect upon the presentation of ones bait?

As for otters? Steve Pope said this;

" Our best hope to expose the reality of otters on our small rivers is to show the damage they do to bird and wild life. That way public perception will change, the big powerful organisations will become involved and angling would then join the fray. On our own we will get nowhere."

Blimey I said exactly that on the BS facebook page a few weeks ago as I recall?

The fact is some river venues have already seen its fish stocks decimated just the same as some still water fisheries have. River fisheries are afforded no protection against otter predation at all. In the short term angling, especially river angling, has to face the fact that specimen sized fish will disappear completely from some river stretches. Its already happened at Adams Mill and Sayers Meadow and is happening as I write along other stretches of rivers. What has Steve Pope in his self elected capacity as the Barbel Society chairman done in regard to trying to combat the threat river angling faces from otters thus so far?

Now't as far as I can see. I find that as alarming as the threat from otter predation itself!

 

[binka]

The smell sense cells in fish are sufficiently sensitive to respond to minute concentrations of substances dissolved or suspended in water. This effectively means that with water flowing towards the fish, in this case barbel, the fish can detect the smell of substances far greater than 10 feet away as Steve Pope suggests.

Do fish senses work in tandem as Steve Pope says? No they don't. A fish can taste there is no doubt about that but for their taste cells to respond they must be in contact with fairly heavy concentrations. Therefore, barbel will be able to detect the smell of any bait way before they can actually taste it. Incidentally experiments have concluded that fish, like we humans, only have four different taste senses. Sour, sweet, salty and bitter. Experiments conducted on minnows concluded that fish can only be trained to respond to the same taste senses present in humans.

Those are really interesting comments Lee.

I had come around to the thinking, from other posts by some respected people, that smell actually translated into taste as far as a fishes senses interpreted it and that smell itself wasn't a sensory property of a fish, a similar thing with sound (but obviously not vibration) in that they couldn't detect it from a source above the waterline.

I have to say I was of the opinion that smell, as in un-interpreted into taste, was a strong pulling factor prior to reading the posts I've referred to.

Maybe I was on the right lines after all?

 

[black kettle]

Hi Bink,

Firstly let me say that I have been studying this subject for over forty years now in a none professional capacity but from the area of being extremely interested in the subject of Ichthyology and as such have built up a considerable library of books and scientific papers. As such my information comes from eminent scientists in this field.

The sensations of smell,taste and touch in fishes, as in all backboned animals, are the result of stimulation of special sense cells. Structurally these cells are alike with a front of sensitive hairs (seen many times under magnification) with the base of these cells drawn out as a long thread linking to the fishes nervous system. Functionally however these cells differ for the reasons I have already described in my earlier post. The actual sensations occur in the fishes brain and spinal cord. The sense cells merely serve to receive stimuli then pass them on as impulses to the nervous system.

All backboned animals, fish included, have organs for hearing and balance with both being closely associated. In fish the mechanisms for hearing and balance is complex and loosely associated with organs along the lateral line, the snout, chin and in other fish elsewhere along the body. Without going into exact specifics, the organ pores and canals along the lateral line and elswhere are filled with jelly. When this is vibrated by sound waves in the water, the sense organs in the canal are stimulated and send impulses to the brain via the lateral line nerve. The brain then translates these impulse signals into sound.

 

[reeds]

It seems to me that if you're a barbel angler you get a very specific (perhaps even blinkered) view of our rivers. Same with carp anglers. The barbel have gone, that's certainly true. If you fish for nothing else, you see a river in freefall with a perfectly positioned scapegoat.

As an allrounder I can tell you that the rivers that have been 'decimated' and 'wiped out' are in fact doing rather well in terms of chub, perch, dace, trout, and many other species. I find it hard to believe that otters will eat all the barbel and leave everything else.

There is a reason (or more likely more than one reason) the barbel have gone and the other species have stayed. Otters probably do make up a percentage of that, but they are not 'the reason'. That's a cartoon view of the world.

I know there are plenty of otters in Oxfordshire because I live and fish here and I've seen them, and I also catch plenty of fish of all species and all sizes. Just not barbel.

We just can't help but turn our own screws. This is not a comment on Mr Pope or anyone in particular, but as a group I'm afraid us anglers are not very bright. It will turn out that we were the 'antis' all along, loudly and enthusiastically banning ourselves from fishing.

 

[binka]

It seems to me that if you're a barbel angler you get a very specific (perhaps even blinkered) view of our rivers. Same with carp anglers. The barbel have gone, that's certainly true. If you fish for nothing else, you see a river in freefall with a perfectly positioned scapegoat.

As an allrounder I can tell you that the rivers that have been 'decimated' and 'wiped out' are in fact doing rather well in terms of chub, perch, dace, trout, and many other species. I find it hard to believe that otters will eat all the barbel and leave everything else.

There is a reason (or more likely more than one reason) the barbel have gone and the other species have stayed. Otters probably do make up a percentage of that, but they are not 'the reason'. That's a cartoon view of the world.

I know there are plenty of otters in Oxfordshire because I live and fish here and I've seen them, and I also catch plenty of fish of all species and all sizes. Just not barbel.

We just can't help but turn our own screws. This is not a comment on Mr Pope or anyone in particular, but as a group I'm afraid us anglers are not very bright. It will turn out that we were the 'antis' all along, loudly and enthusiastically banning ourselves from fishing.

I think that sums things up rather well.

I'm of the opinion that fish species and stocks are cyclic and as one species declines then another (or several) species will re-populate and fill the void, the reasons for it are a completely different matter and not something I'm gonna speculate on.

I'm sure it's not the only river to have undergone these changes or that I'm the only angler who remembers the huge Trent chub shoals of the eighties and the roach shoals of the seventies... Then came the nineties lull and the following barbel explosion which has brought us to where we are today on this particular river.

I think, from my own personal viewpoint, that the changing habits or trends in what many anglers are fishing for can often give a false overall impression as to the health of a river in terms of the diversity and quantity of species.

All rounder for me too, and very much enjoying it

 

[T Rocca]

Just twaddle from an out of touch barbel angler in my opinion.

 

[geoffmaynard]

A pleasant interesting read from one of angling's nicest guys, with donkeys years of experience under his belt... but there are those who can't help but knock other people. Maybe it's jealousy? (Now I'll get slagged off too no doubt, for daring to disagree).

Moving on...

Creatures which inhabit a gaseous environment, like humans, can smell items at a distance because the gas(air) transmits smell. To taste, we actually have to physically touch the item with our tongue.

Creatures which live in liquid, fish, do it the other way around. It's obvious common sense when you think about it. The smell of a bait is almost irrelevant, the taste is crucial. Only taste transmits in liquid, only smell transmits in air.

 

[Paul Boote]

It seems to me that if you're a barbel angler you get a very specific (perhaps even blinkered) view of our rivers. Same with carp anglers. The barbel have gone, that's certainly true. If you fish for nothing else, you see a river in freefall with a perfectly positioned scapegoat.

As an allrounder I can tell you that the rivers that have been 'decimated' and 'wiped out' are in fact doing rather well in terms of chub, perch, dace, trout, and many other species. I find it hard to believe that otters will eat all the barbel and leave everything else.

There is a reason (or more likely more than one reason) the barbel have gone and the other species have stayed. Otters probably do make up a percentage of that, but they are not 'the reason'. That's a cartoon view of the world.

I know there are plenty of otters in Oxfordshire because I live and fish here and I've seen them, and I also catch plenty of fish of all species and all sizes. Just not barbel.

We just can't help but turn our own screws. This is not a comment on Mr Pope or anyone in particular, but as a group I'm afraid us anglers are not very bright. It will turn out that we were the 'antis' all along, loudly and enthusiastically banning ourselves from fishing.

Fine post.

This little tale from 1837 is well worth a listen for the nervous newly arrived, eager to please and anxious not to offend. As with fairy tales, so with certain sorts of Angling.

BBC - School Radio - Tales of Hans Christian Andersen, The emperor's new clothes

 

[bennygesserit]

A pleasant interesting read from one of angling's nicest guys, with donkeys years of experience under his belt... but there are those who can't help but knock other people. Maybe it's jealousy? (Now I'll get slagged off too no doubt, for daring to disagree).

Moving on...

Creatures which inhabit a gaseous environment, like humans, can smell items at a distance because the gas(air) transmits smell. To taste, we actually have to physically touch the item with our tongue.

Creatures which live in liquid, fish, do it the other way around. It's obvious common sense when you think about it. The smell of a bait is almost irrelevant, the taste is crucial. Only taste transmits in liquid, only smell transmits in air.

I'm confused , how do sharks detect prey from miles away ?

 

[greenie62]

I'm confused , how do sharks detect prey from miles away ?

They're pre-cognitive psychics ain't they?
They just know somethings gonna fall in the water over there - so they go there in hope and expectation!

It's more likely to be a combination of senses - a bit like - how do you know where to cast? That back-wash under the willow looks so fishy there must be one there! I can almost smell chub!

I also wonder if the 'pellet-splash' effect comes into play - the sound of a sailor going OB is probably detectable for miles around in the ocean!

Take care out there!

 

[binka]

they go there in hope and expectation!

You've just summed up my entire swim selection process there Greenie

 

[aebitim]

A pleasant interesting read from one of angling's nicest guys, with donkeys years of experience under his belt... but there are those who can't help but knock other people. Maybe it's jealousy? (Now I'll get slagged off too no doubt, for daring to disagree).

Moving on...

Creatures which inhabit a gaseous environment, like humans, can smell items at a distance because the gas(air) transmits smell. To taste, we actually have to physically touch the item with our tongue.

Creatures which live in liquid, fish, do it the other way around. It's obvious common sense when you think about it. The smell of a bait is almost irrelevant, the taste is crucial. Only taste transmits in liquid, only smell transmits in air.

Weve been here before, my understanding is that both fish and humans have taste buds or pads, no problem there. Both humans and fish have oflactory [smell] glands, the start of an issue. In one sense a fish breathes water so in a way it does smell things, but it could also be said, equally validly that a fish has 2 different ways of tasting, perhaps sensing the scent of a foodstuff is an easier way to think of it as there is no doubt in my mind that a fish will home in on food by scent.

 

[reeds]

A pleasant interesting read from one of angling's nicest guys, with donkeys years of experience under his belt... but there are those who can't help but knock other people. Maybe it's jealousy? (Now I'll get slagged off too no doubt, for daring to disagree).

I thought my post made some fair points. I'm not going to agree with someone just because they have lots of experience. Many of us have lots of experience, I daresay I have a lot more experience of the Oxfordshire rivers that were mentioned.

Jealousy is often thrown about as motivation for disagreeing with well-known anglers. I actually find that quite insulting! But I do understand your need as content editor to keep contributors happy.

 

[sam vimes]

As much as I have no interest in the Barbel Society (or any other of the angling groups), I'm starting to feel slightly sorry for Steve Pope. I don't necessarily agree with him on everything, but he seems a decent enough bloke.

It often largely appears that what he actually has to say doesn't matter very much. Some will just queue up, or even pop up out of the blue, to take a pop. If he said that the sky is blue and grass green, somone would argue the toss for no better reason that it being Steve Pope saying it.