Ray Wood 1
Well-known member
There are topics going on elsewhere regarding the decline in Barbel populations in various UK rivers.
What do you think the causes might be?
What do you think the causes might be?
Decline in Barbel Populations
- Thread starter Ray Wood 1
- Start date
thecrow
Well-known member
Probably lots of things combining to affect Barbel recruitment, water quality, silted spawning sites, endocrine disrupters, to name just 3. I think the EA are somewhat aware that there are problems or they wouldn't be constantly stocking 4/5 inch Barbel.
The bad one
Well-known member
Wouldn’t disagree with Crow’s analysis in the main, but human memory is a fickle thing and quite quickly forgets things, such as poor weather events. And boy up and until 2 summers past we had for almost 10 years some really poor summers. Low summer river temperatures, big unseasonable floods, etc. All of which will have taken their toll on what recruitment actually happened during this period.
That said the last 2 years have been quite good recruitment years due far better spring/summers and that has shown up in more silver fish in the rivers. Ergo if they are spawning successfully due to better river conditions, then the barbel likewise will have done the same, as they tend to be the last spawners in the river systems where they are present. However, these fish will be around the 1-2 lb mark this summer and not getting caught to the tactics most barbel anglers are using.
I know from my own invertebrate sampling last summer there was significant numbers 1-2 inch year 0-1 barbel showing up in the net samples. Ideally we need another 3 good summers where spawning and survival rates are high to bring back the stocks to the levels we had 10 years ago in 10 years time on most rivers where they are present.
That said the last 2 years have been quite good recruitment years due far better spring/summers and that has shown up in more silver fish in the rivers. Ergo if they are spawning successfully due to better river conditions, then the barbel likewise will have done the same, as they tend to be the last spawners in the river systems where they are present. However, these fish will be around the 1-2 lb mark this summer and not getting caught to the tactics most barbel anglers are using.
I know from my own invertebrate sampling last summer there was significant numbers 1-2 inch year 0-1 barbel showing up in the net samples. Ideally we need another 3 good summers where spawning and survival rates are high to bring back the stocks to the levels we had 10 years ago in 10 years time on most rivers where they are present.
no-one in particular
Well-known member
Reading the latest FM feature, the chap caught a 15lb barbel. He is blaming the decline on the Ouse system on otters. Apparently they are rife there and I imagine barbel an ideal prey for a otter. Nice sized meal, reasonably easy to catch while it lays on the bottom under weed; dive down and sneak up behind it; not too quick off the mark. Same for cormorants maybe as well.
The only knowledge I have and its out of date but, investigations into the Hamp Avon decline some years ago were looking at, feeder stream problems and trout farms springing up along the length of the river as possible causes as well.
However, Baddo, as your more about breeding success or not, the rivers must have been going under several stresses in the last 20 years. Its either been severe droughts or unprecedented flooding. It must be hard for any species to find normal spawning environments that they once enjoyed on a regular basis when the weather was more settled and more predictable.
The only knowledge I have and its out of date but, investigations into the Hamp Avon decline some years ago were looking at, feeder stream problems and trout farms springing up along the length of the river as possible causes as well.
However, Baddo, as your more about breeding success or not, the rivers must have been going under several stresses in the last 20 years. Its either been severe droughts or unprecedented flooding. It must be hard for any species to find normal spawning environments that they once enjoyed on a regular basis when the weather was more settled and more predictable.
Last edited:
Judas Priest
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2008
- Messages
- 1,292
- Reaction score
- 2
Whilst agreeing that on some rivers the barbel are in decline due to many factors it is worth pointing out that without mans interference in the first place, barbel would not be present anyway, and there's one overriding factor in all this and it's called Mother Nature.
If barbel had evolved over time to be sustainable in most rivers it is now present due to mans recent stocking, then nature would have dictated it to be so.
Over the last 10-20yrs man has created artificial environments with his continual stocking and re stocking of waterways leading to anglers thinking it is the norm for such high populations of barbel to be present.
What we are seeing on the rivers I fish are an increase in the silver fish populations as the barbel populations "decline" from the heady days of a few years ago, it's called nature balancing itself out and I for one welcome it.
A lot of river anglers are quick to decry " overstocked carp puddles" but in effect we have been creating " overstocked barbel rivers" for the last few years to the detriment of other riverine species, especially on the smaller rivers.
If barbel had evolved over time to be sustainable in most rivers it is now present due to mans recent stocking, then nature would have dictated it to be so.
Over the last 10-20yrs man has created artificial environments with his continual stocking and re stocking of waterways leading to anglers thinking it is the norm for such high populations of barbel to be present.
What we are seeing on the rivers I fish are an increase in the silver fish populations as the barbel populations "decline" from the heady days of a few years ago, it's called nature balancing itself out and I for one welcome it.
A lot of river anglers are quick to decry " overstocked carp puddles" but in effect we have been creating " overstocked barbel rivers" for the last few years to the detriment of other riverine species, especially on the smaller rivers.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 2,225
- Reaction score
- 3
I think it depends on where you fish and where your river is on it's cycle. Numbers in the middle severn for instance are well down on what they were 25 years ago but the average size is up. It took me 20 years of regular two or three times a week outings before I caught a double from above Stourport and while they are still not a common sight when I was fishing for barbel regularly three or four years ago I would expect to see a couple every season from a return of around 150 to 200 fish.
The Trent however is a different proposition altogether and despite me being a fairly average angler, probably bordering on lazy, I have on several occasions had 3 or four doubles up to 12 Lb in multiple catches of over 20 fish in an afternoon, on one memorable day I arrived at 2pm and by 9pm I had walked the mile or so to the pub and was eating pie and chips having stopped fishing when I had caught 25 barbel which included 8 doubles. That was from a very prolific syndicated weir pool and is probably not typical of the whole length but it does show the potential of the bigger rivers and I include the Wye in this as I have also had good results from there, above and below Hereford.
I am aware however that there are plenty of other waters where the fishing is in decline and probably for exactly the reasons listed in the posts above, i.e. poor recruitment, over abstraction, high levels of 'gray' water or treated effluent with all the associated problems, many of which are not fully understood, and of course the recent increase in predation by mammals (four and two legged).
The Trent however is a different proposition altogether and despite me being a fairly average angler, probably bordering on lazy, I have on several occasions had 3 or four doubles up to 12 Lb in multiple catches of over 20 fish in an afternoon, on one memorable day I arrived at 2pm and by 9pm I had walked the mile or so to the pub and was eating pie and chips having stopped fishing when I had caught 25 barbel which included 8 doubles. That was from a very prolific syndicated weir pool and is probably not typical of the whole length but it does show the potential of the bigger rivers and I include the Wye in this as I have also had good results from there, above and below Hereford.
I am aware however that there are plenty of other waters where the fishing is in decline and probably for exactly the reasons listed in the posts above, i.e. poor recruitment, over abstraction, high levels of 'gray' water or treated effluent with all the associated problems, many of which are not fully understood, and of course the recent increase in predation by mammals (four and two legged).
Ray Wood 1
Well-known member
Bad One,
It seems that elsewhere pellets are being held responsible, and that information is being gathered in this regard.
Kind regards
Ray
bennygesserit
Well-known member
Surely floods wash away small barbel ?
Ray Wood 1
Well-known member
Benny,
If that was the case would it not be reasonable to presume that other small fish would have gone the same way? I doubt this is the reason for the decline in barbel stocks on some rivers.
I suspect that there are many factors that have attributed and that it is not just down to one factor.
Only my opinion not based on any science
Kind regards
Ray
jasonbean1
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 23, 2010
- Messages
- 953
- Reaction score
- 0
I've been reading the bfw thread and it is interesting, reasons for barbel populations rising and falling are pretty well known and that goes for a lot of species.....the theory of evolution or should I say survival happens quite quickly in water.
It is a political problem because with rising populations and EU directives good or bad only lobbying government local or national will change how are river catchments are managed by the EA.
A lot of it comes down to understanding how the water frame directive is being used in your catchment and more importantly how accurate the EA's info is implementing it.
It is a political problem because with rising populations and EU directives good or bad only lobbying government local or national will change how are river catchments are managed by the EA.
A lot of it comes down to understanding how the water frame directive is being used in your catchment and more importantly how accurate the EA's info is implementing it.
The bad one
Well-known member
Elsewhere where Ray? Gathered by whom? Using what scientific protocols to analyses it? Whilst looking for reasons nothing should be ruled in or out, but all to often in angling the simplistic easy targets are blamed because the complex is beyond or to difficult to understand.
Hemp being a classic case from 40 years ago - banned on many waters and clubs for very spurious reasons with no scientific basis whatsoever.
Ray Wood 1
Well-known member
Phil,
Over on barbelfishingworld, I think the aim is to try and link some types of pellets to sex change in male barbel (I could be wrong). The feeding of high oil content pellets to fish have been know for a very long time.
While these high oil pellets may cause liver or other problems not sure they can be linked to sex changes (I might be wrong). Years ago estrogen levels in our river systems were attributed to sex change in Roach. I would be more inclined to think that water quality and what is getting into our river systems would be more likely be the cause of any sex changes in male barbel if any such changes are actually happening? I am unaware of any scientific studies into male barbel sex change having been carried out or undertaken (I may be wrong).
Interesting stuff but as yet has no scientific merit, and will remain that way until such evidence is either obtained or undertaken. I am no expert so do not have the answers, do others?
Kind regards
Ray
The bad one
Well-known member
Thanks Ray. I did after I posted go have a look and found a thread by Graham Elliot on the subject that flies such a kite. Which suggests the use of estrogen and oestrogen in historic pellet, who’s fishmeal originates in the far east and was allegedly found to contain high levels of them.
My view is to a greater degree it’s running up a blind alley for the reasons you correctly alluded too, Inter-sexing, in all fish through Endocrine Disrupting Substances (EDS). A subject I know more than a little bit about, having studied it for about 20 years. Reality is on the more heavily urbanised running rivers fish are living and swimming in a toxic soup of EDS’s, of which there is over 250 know and the two listed make up only a small part of the total load.
Whilst eating those pellets in the past would have increased the load in any fish that ate them, it would not have been anywhere near the load they were getting from living in such contaminated waters.
What Graham’s “theory” fails to acknowledge is that barbel are predominantly benthic (bottom) feeders and eventually EDSs will settle out in bottom sediments and therefore they are more than likely to receive more of them than other species which are less benthic feeders.
Whilst Graham should be applauded for inadvertently raising the issue of EDSs and inter-sexing, a much ignored subject by the powers that be, his theory for me has many flaws.
My view is to a greater degree it’s running up a blind alley for the reasons you correctly alluded too, Inter-sexing, in all fish through Endocrine Disrupting Substances (EDS). A subject I know more than a little bit about, having studied it for about 20 years. Reality is on the more heavily urbanised running rivers fish are living and swimming in a toxic soup of EDS’s, of which there is over 250 know and the two listed make up only a small part of the total load.
Whilst eating those pellets in the past would have increased the load in any fish that ate them, it would not have been anywhere near the load they were getting from living in such contaminated waters.
What Graham’s “theory” fails to acknowledge is that barbel are predominantly benthic (bottom) feeders and eventually EDSs will settle out in bottom sediments and therefore they are more than likely to receive more of them than other species which are less benthic feeders.
Whilst Graham should be applauded for inadvertently raising the issue of EDSs and inter-sexing, a much ignored subject by the powers that be, his theory for me has many flaws.
thecrow
Well-known member
Maybe this has something to do with it, taken from the BBC news site.
Rivers can become polluted from farms, run-off from roads and sewage works
Just 17% of England's rivers are judged to be in good health, according to Environment Agency figures.
This is down from 29% with a good ecological status in 2014. The analysis is shocking, say environmentalists.
Problems are caused by over-abstraction and pollution from farms, run-off from roads and effluent from sewage works - as well as invasive species.
The Environment Agency says the figures look bad because the EU's assessment criteria have been tightened.
"Threatens wildlife"
The figures released today are shocking and show us that things are worse than we thought
Rose O'Neill , WWF
The EU asks nations to grade rivers into poor, moderate, good and high. Governments should aim for rivers to be "good" - that is relatively unaffected by human activity. "High" refers to upland streams in sparsely-populated areas.
The statistics show 0.08% of England's rivers are high quality; 17.06 good; 62.4% moderate; 17.22% poor and 3.24% bad.
Rose O'Neill from WWF said: "The figures released today are shocking and show us that things are worse than we thought. This is unacceptable and threatens wildlife and livelihoods.
"It's clear that we are failing our rivers and the wildlife they impact. We need to see government action to restore these rivers, for example by reducing abstraction and tackling pollution."
The Environment Agency feels aggrieved by the ratings.
Previously it used to judge a river based on various chemical tests. Now a river must be subjected to many tests on chemistry, flow and wildlife - and if it fails any single test it cannot achieve "good" status.
It says if you examine the tests individually, 74% of them achieve the highest two scores of good or high status.
Extra measures
A spokesman said the agency has improved or stabilized the condition of nearly 2,000 miles of rivers.
He said: "The Environment Agency will continue to work closely with farmers, businesses and water companies to reduce pollution and improve water quality wherever, and however, possible."
Wildlife groups reject the phrase "wherever possible". They think the agency should be tougher with polluters and farmers who reduce the flow of rivers by taking out too much water.
The future criteria for measuring the health of river are currently under discussion.
Blueprint for Water, a coalition of 16 environmental and fishing organisations, urges the public to respond to the Agency's current consultation on River Basin Management Plans.
Farmers are concerned about who pays for the extra measures needed to meet the EU's rules under the Water Framework Directive.
Is this what we pay the fishing tax for?
Rivers can become polluted from farms, run-off from roads and sewage works
Just 17% of England's rivers are judged to be in good health, according to Environment Agency figures.
This is down from 29% with a good ecological status in 2014. The analysis is shocking, say environmentalists.
Problems are caused by over-abstraction and pollution from farms, run-off from roads and effluent from sewage works - as well as invasive species.
The Environment Agency says the figures look bad because the EU's assessment criteria have been tightened.
"Threatens wildlife"
The figures released today are shocking and show us that things are worse than we thought
Rose O'Neill , WWF
The EU asks nations to grade rivers into poor, moderate, good and high. Governments should aim for rivers to be "good" - that is relatively unaffected by human activity. "High" refers to upland streams in sparsely-populated areas.
The statistics show 0.08% of England's rivers are high quality; 17.06 good; 62.4% moderate; 17.22% poor and 3.24% bad.
Rose O'Neill from WWF said: "The figures released today are shocking and show us that things are worse than we thought. This is unacceptable and threatens wildlife and livelihoods.
"It's clear that we are failing our rivers and the wildlife they impact. We need to see government action to restore these rivers, for example by reducing abstraction and tackling pollution."
The Environment Agency feels aggrieved by the ratings.
Previously it used to judge a river based on various chemical tests. Now a river must be subjected to many tests on chemistry, flow and wildlife - and if it fails any single test it cannot achieve "good" status.
It says if you examine the tests individually, 74% of them achieve the highest two scores of good or high status.
Extra measures
A spokesman said the agency has improved or stabilized the condition of nearly 2,000 miles of rivers.
He said: "The Environment Agency will continue to work closely with farmers, businesses and water companies to reduce pollution and improve water quality wherever, and however, possible."
Wildlife groups reject the phrase "wherever possible". They think the agency should be tougher with polluters and farmers who reduce the flow of rivers by taking out too much water.
The future criteria for measuring the health of river are currently under discussion.
Blueprint for Water, a coalition of 16 environmental and fishing organisations, urges the public to respond to the Agency's current consultation on River Basin Management Plans.
Farmers are concerned about who pays for the extra measures needed to meet the EU's rules under the Water Framework Directive.
Is this what we pay the fishing tax for?
I should b***dy hope so too!
Let's see some action by the EA. The principle of "the polluter must pay" seems to be ignored here because of the (allegedly) high costs of litigation - let's see a few cases of speedy prosecution and punitive damages with the full weight of government behind them - with a substantial portion of the damages going into the EA for prosecution and remedial work.
Locally in the NW we have a stack of cases against major and repeated polluters that have hung fire for a number of years with the EA wringing its hands whilst the pollution continues. Let's have some major results whilst the polluters are making money off our backs in Water rates, profits, etc and paying out bonuses to staff and shareholders.
Sorry to rant but the reaction of the EA being "aggrieved" set me off! How do they think WE feel!
thecrow
Well-known member
That statement is typical of a government department that thinks the people it serves are stupid, stabilized river in what condition?
I believe it is water quality and predation that are the 2 biggest factors responsible for the decline of Barbel in our rivers, the latter we can do little about, its the former that concerns me more, it seems the EA are more concerned with defending themselves rather than doint what WE pay them to do.
Last edited:
no-one in particular
Well-known member
Was the contraceptive pill something to do with sex changes in fish?
thecrow
Well-known member
Mark if you google endocrine disrupters in water/rivers there is lots of info on there.
Ray Wood 1
Well-known member
Here is a link, tells a rather nasty story, not sure any of it can be linked to any kind of pellets anglers have been using can be made?
//www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/290367/scho0704bibd-e-e.pdf[/URL]
Regards
Ray
//www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/290367/scho0704bibd-e-e.pdf[/URL]
Regards
Ray
Judas Priest
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2008
- Messages
- 1,292
- Reaction score
- 2
If, and it's a BIG if, pellets are found to be detrimental to coarse fish health what is the "modern" barbel to do if they get banned