The Piker
Well-known member
Barbel should be left in rivers..
They are not suitable for over stocked match mud holes..
They are not suitable for over stocked match mud holes..
If KHV gets much worse,I think we will see most commercials stocking barbel instead of carp in the future.
I really am becoming quite disillusioned over with the way Coarse Fishing seems to be going.
Hello Bob,"That's surprising Bob, the Q.R.S. has always been viewed as a safer prospect for specimen fish..."
1) Aye, but who's views are they safer? Few actually own one if truth be told. Most of those who promote their use are simply repeating the indoctrinated mantra. It's not based on experience.
My own experience of the Queensford is indeed limited but one dead barbel was quite enough for me. I don't own one and wouldn't accept one if the manufacturers paid me to use it.
2) Take a good hard look at at a Queensford and then ask a non-angler to compare the same QRS to a large match/carp keepnet and then ask the person who knows absolutely nothing about fish or fishing which offers more benefits to a fish...
Chances are they'll say the big keepnet is surely better than that titchy little thing that has no ribs to support the middle.
Will someone kindly tell me how the Queensford is not a keepnet in disguise? Is it made of different materials? Does it have better bracing or maybe lend itself better to staking out?
Personally I cannot see any great advantages other than it having a zip in the top and a better system of release already exists. The concept of a keepnet that had a quick release bottom end has been around for years. It had no bottom and you simply twisted the bottom ring round twice and clipped it onto the ring above to seal it, unclip and untwist to release - which avoided fish having to be rolled up the net or lifted out in the oppsite direction to their scales and fins.
3) We've been here before but those with their heads in the sand can't see that they're not only defending the indefensible, they're openly promoting it.
I can't recall the last time I retained a barbel in anything but the landing net head - and then only briefly. But if you are going to do it then at least do it in the best retaining system available.
4) And just in case you've not grasped what I and anglers like Keith Arthur have been saying for years, it's a properly staked out keepnet facing upstream.
Barbel should be left in rivers..
They are not suitable for over stocked match mud holes..
Hello Bob,Hi Rodney
The reason I suggested a non-angler is that they would use simple logic without any prejudice or tendency to support a widely promoted fashion.
What are the dimensions of your QRS? Is this indeed a little bit smaller than a keepnet (in all three dimensions) or a whole lot smaller? Does it have any intermediate support rings?
Would it meet the legal size requirements if it was called a keepnet instead of QRS - after all, they are made from identical materials, aren't they, including the sacking which has replaced mesh on many commercial keepnets today?
The majority of barbel in the UK today outside of the Trent catchment and some Yorkshire rivers are stocked fish, bred in captivity or removed from one water to populate another.
Many, arguably most, river stocks wouldn't exist at all were it not for the EA breeding programme which uses river fish to strip eggs and milt but thereafter the entire process is carried out indoors. Contrary to perception the offspring do swim against an artificial current in the growing-on tanks so they are not reared in stillwater as some suggest.
However, the entire operation is part funded by the sale of surplus production, in other words commercial fisheries go some way to funding the stocking of barbel into rivers.
The alternative to selling surplus stocks is to kill them when they are two-three years old. Is that a better option than putting them in stillwaters? One more barbel in a pool is one less carp and the disease risk that it carries.
And dare I ask, on rivers where barbel 'purists' target individual fish, queue up for prime swims, prebait heavilly with high oil and fatty baits, use multiple rods and erect bivvies for the purposes of long stay fishing round the clock, do these persecuted barbel 'swim wild and swim free' or do they receive MORE pressure than those in a lake?
There seems to be a lot of hypocrissy spoken where 'the prince of our rivers' is concerned. :wh
Hi Rodney
The reason I suggested a non-angler is that they would use simple logic without any prejudice or tendency to support a widely promoted fashion.
What are the dimensions of your QRS? Is this indeed a little bit smaller than a keepnet (in all three dimensions) or a whole lot smaller? Does it have any intermediate support rings?
Would it meet the legal size requirements if it was called a keepnet instead of QRS - after all, they are made from identical materials, aren't they, including the sacking which has replaced mesh on many commercial keepnets today?
Bob,Have to keep this short as I'm doing a little job for the better half on the computer but couldn't resist looking in (big mistake).
We can call a QRS a birdcage if we like but there's no doubt in my mind it's a keepnet and although I'd agree it's superior to a conventional carp sack it sure as hell appears to be an illegal item of fishing equipment.
The defence of, 'I've never lost a fish in a Queensford' begs the question, 'And how many have you lost in a keepnet?'
Those barbel landed in the Fish'O final, by all accounts (I didn't see it), were in excellent condition and they are regularly retained in keepnets. Perhaps we should ask them to use Queenfords in next year's final and see what the reaction is?
The defence of, 'I've never lost a fish in a Queensford' begs the question, 'And how many have you lost in a keepnet?'