- Joined
- Feb 26, 2009
- Messages
- 277,087
- Reaction score
- 8
This is a dedicated thread for discussing article: Barbel Fishing: The Pope’s River Diary
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.
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.
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.
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 ?
they go there in hope and expectation!
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.
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).