Stillwater barbel

[wes79]

Let's be frank- if fish welfare is top of an Angler's agenda then we wouldn't fish for them would we. We would just make sure their environments were looked after, preserve stocks and just observe them and take underwater photos.

Try looking from a non Angler's perspective.

It can be said also that the demand for fishing of certain species is about all there is that annually ensures they are in number, healthy and their habitat is well looked after using well seasoned knowledge (access for Salmon into post industrial river systems springs to mind or a reason for cleaning water systems that itself promotes fish procreation) , while it is true this demand is a forethought for income of a fishing club, or a small group who wishes to keep its members happy, it also ensures the fish get some help and are not left to fight it out with poachers, disease, pollution and of course extinction or left to chance it with a majority of uninformed public who have no inclination or regard what so ever about the fate of such fragile ecological systems , real fishermen are the guardians of the water and are effectively the goalkeepers during extra time.




---------- Post added at 15:19 ---------- Previous post was at 14:59 ----------

........
Sorry guys, but the world has changed. You have to accept it because, perversely, change is the one thing you can't change.

You've all accepted email and the internet. You can't pick and choose and only accept those changes you like. That's just the way it is.

Regards to all

Only if you accept change automatically means a change for the better

We might have computers and email, yes, that much is true, but as a nation, we have also rejected the most fundamentally important institutions that are now beyond saving, as a consequence we can now expect to lose the security they offered by our protection and preservation of these institutions.

All depends on what you value the most

For example man cannot cure 100% of cancers, cancers are increasing year by year, but man does and will continue to advise you to accept a cancer causing lifestyle, is that really progress? Will you accept it too? Will the peer pressure or lack of self determination make you cave in to it?

Man has dominion over the animals (including Barbel for the sake of the thread) so it means that man has the ability to protect or abuse those animals, each to any degree, animals are left to mans husbandry, its all about cause and effect, either way, not without its consequences!

 

[S-Kippy]

And as I understand it (I'd not put my life on it, but I've heard it often enough) the original EA breeding stock, for the early Trent stockings, originated from the Swale.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

A point that many of the objectors to "unnatural" barbel stockings often seem to conveniently overlook is that barbel do not naturally occur in quite a number of the rivers that they have gone on to establish rather healthy populations.

Like many, I have no particular desire to fish for stillwater barbel. I'm not actually pro stillwater barbel. However, I have very occasionally fished stillwaters with them present. I've even caught a few and seen plenty more. They've always fought well enough, and I knew that they weren't carp or tench as soon as they were hooked. Apart from a slightly washed out appearance, typical of most fish living in turbid coloured water, I've yet to see one in poor condition. Were that not the case, I may well join those that object so strongly. As it is, I'm largely indifferent. As an angler, you pay your money and make your choice. The same goes for the fishery owners.

Pretty much sums up my take on this issue. Barbel [to me] are river fish and that's were I will go to catch them. I would not deliberately set out to barbel fish in a still water BUT if they are in there and I catch one so be it. They deserve the same level of care wherever they come from. I've never ,ever put a barbel in a keepnet and I aint planning to start now even if it was allowed.

On a purely selfish note anything I catch from a so called commercial that is NOT yet another stupid chuffin carp or a bait robbin half dead bream is alright by me !

 

[seth49]

Haven't fished for Stillwater barbel before this year, but one of the lakes on the fishery I joined this year has them in, I've caught a few they seem to be doing well.
Originally stocked at a pound and a half they have grown to a decent size best about nine pounds I think.
They seem slimmer than river barbel but other wise seem in good health.
They certainly fight well.
This lake is clear water, about two acres in size.?

 

[wes79]

Anglers who pursue Barbel in rivers and don't like the stillwater stockings need to accept that there's no going back, its here to stay and its widely accepted and part of the norm in fishing.

I think you are probably right there tony, lots of things are tacitly accepted and we are now stuck with them, some good some bad and some downright ugly, but it also say's that fishing in general is moving further away from natural boundaries, with each new generation losing the will to hold fast to reasons for why River Barbel fishing was good enough fishing to become nationally obsessive in the first place, for what reasons..... like all new directives, in its infancy, its quite hard to see the pitfalls ahead or predict the future for legitimate u-turns in opinion, no soft treading as the foot soldier isn't fully informed of the landmines, each new generation is happy to be a guinea pig.
I reserve the right to agree in time that it might be or was a good idea, I think its far to early to make that conclusion.
Financial appeal rarely has enough foresight beyond monetary forecasting, the fish will let us know if our exploitation was one good idea to far not the balance sheets.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

I have to wonder how long it will be before anglers realise their consumer power?

Personally I will not go to a fishery that has stocked Barbel into a still water, and if those who think the same way did likewise, then I also wonder how long it might take the owners of said venues to change their minds in their stocking policy?

It is an anathema to me how any angler can firstly adhere to the Barbel Society Code of Handling and then go and fish a match where Barbel are kept in keepnets . . . . . . ?


Food for thought maybe?

 

[Mr Cholmondeley-Corker (PaSC)]

...and following on from Peter, it could start with the AT not running events at such venues.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

...and following on from Peter, it could start with the AT not running events at such venues.

. . . and that too would have my total support as a member of the Angling Trust.

 

[wes79]

...........

 

[S-Kippy]

I have to wonder how long it will be before anglers realise their consumer power?

Personally I will not go to a fishery that has stocked Barbel into a still water, and if those who think the same way did likewise, then I also wonder how long it might take the owners of said venues to change their minds in their stocking policy?

That's all you or anyone else can do PJ....but I doubt the majority of people fishing said waters give a monkey's. There seems to be a growing feeling that the novelty of these out and out carp puddles is wearing thin with the average "pleasure" angler and from the owners pov stocking a few barbel & bigging those up is one way of re-kindling waning interest.

Blimey....even I travelled quite a distance to fish a commie full of carp when they were in their infancy but I very quickly got bored.

Whether they should or shouldn't be there isn't really the point. They are there whether we like it or not. I wouldn't go to a commie simply because it had a few barbel but similarly neither would I not go if there were other reasons for me wanting to fish there.

Can't actually think of any of those other reasons right now and until someone comes up with a carp repellant bait then you're unlikely to see me bankside and I certainly wouldn't be barbel fishing if you did.

 

[Mr Cholmondeley-Corker (PaSC)]

...tehn there's the cat fish....and now some places have stocked Sturgeon FFS.

What's next? Oh what the hell, let's go for it and stock sharks and crocodiles for those that are fed up with big, fat, obese carp...and while we're at it throw in some still water rays and a few groupers.

---------- Post added at 13:54 ---------- Previous post was at 13:53 ----------

Bring back the gudgeon i say.

 

[wes79]

...tehn there's the cat fish....and now some places have stocked Sturgeon FFS.

What's next? Oh what the hell, let's go for it and stock sharks and crocodiles for those that are fed up with big, fat, obese carp...and while we're at it throw in some still water rays and a few groupers.

---------- Post added at 13:54 ---------- Previous post was at 13:53 ----------

Bring back the gudgeon i say.

Have you seen this Mr Cholm, it gave me a chuckle, especially when he muttered the letters "pb" for the first time in the vid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EOF3Y5Xkvs

 

[tonybull]

It is an anathema to me how any angler can firstly adhere to the Barbel Society Code of Handling and then go and fish a match where Barbel are kept in keepnets . . . . . . ?


Food for thought maybe?

Who's that then ?

 

[Mr Cholmondeley-Corker (PaSC)]

PJ was clearly referring to the anglers that do that sort of thing...and quite rightly so I can tell you.

 

[tonybull]

PJ was clearly referring to the anglers that do that sort of thing...and quite rightly so I can tell you.

Who are these anglers then ?

 

[Mr Cholmondeley-Corker (PaSC)]

They are the ones that do that sort of thing that PJ (and I) dont agree with.

 

[sam vimes]

The only people that can be legitimately called out for hypocrisy are those that choose to be Barbel Society members yet also fish stillwaters and place barbel caught in them into keepnets. I suspect that the number of people that covers will be incredibly small, if there's actually anyone at all.

Others may choose to adhere to the Barbel Society handling code, or an approximation of it, but they are under no obligation to do so. It may be based on good sound common sense, but it isn't law.

 

[dorsetandchub]

It can be said also that the demand for fishing of certain species is about all there is that annually ensures they are in number, healthy and their habitat is well looked after using well seasoned knowledge (access for Salmon into post industrial river systems springs to mind or a reason for cleaning water systems that itself promotes fish procreation) , while it is true this demand is a forethought for income of a fishing club, or a small group who wishes to keep its members happy, it also ensures the fish get some help and are not left to fight it out with poachers, disease, pollution and of course extinction or left to chance it with a majority of uninformed public who have no inclination or regard what so ever about the fate of such fragile ecological systems , real fishermen are the guardians of the water and are effectively the goalkeepers during extra time.




---------- Post added at 15:19 ---------- Previous post was at 14:59 ----------




Only if you accept change automatically means a change for the better

We might have computers and email, yes, that much is true, but as a nation, we have also rejected the most fundamentally important institutions that are now beyond saving, as a consequence we can now expect to lose the security they offered by our protection and preservation of these institutions.

All depends on what you value the most

For example man cannot cure 100% of cancers, cancers are increasing year by year, but man does and will continue to advise you to accept a cancer causing lifestyle, is that really progress? Will you accept it too? Will the peer pressure or lack of self determination make you cave in to it?

Man has dominion over the animals (including Barbel for the sake of the thread) so it means that man has the ability to protect or abuse those animals, each to any degree, animals are left to mans husbandry, its all about cause and effect, either way, not without its consequences!

Agreed up to a point. Funny you should mention cancer, it is prevalent in my Father's family and, up to a point, I try to minimise my risk to it. I have never smoked, I drink very little. That said, I drive a diesel Land Rover. It just doesn't figure in my reasoning.

I'm comfortable with my own mortality and smart enough to understand Benjamin Franklin's death and taxes claim.

There are many changes that I haven't embraced but embrace and accept are two very different keys and concepts. Whether I embrace or accept the change or not has no bearing upon its presence or occurrence.

Adam Smith's laws of supply and demand are as equally true now as the day he wrote them. If a fishery owner puts barbel in a lake, there will be customers waiting. Whether I choose to partake or not will effect no difference unless I can convince a majority of my fellow would-be customers to avoid.

Such boycotts are practically impossible to engineer since people are largely driven by personal self interest.

I personally have an aversion to asparagus but have no plans to lecture the thousands of people who purchase tins of it in Sainsbury's every day.

It's there, I've accepted it, I avoid it but it's still there and that won't change.

Such changes, introductions, etc occur every day. Some I adopt, some I do not but the pace of change continues aplenty.

 

[laguna]

Its a simple question of morality.
Barbel 'prefer' well oxygenated running water (up to twice that of carp) and as far as I'm aware, they can only breed in running water. Those who stock them do so for profit and that's all there is to it.

As for the EA, its apparent they only care to misappropriate licence money.

 

[tonybull]

Its a simple question of morality.
Barbel 'prefer' well oxygenated running water (up to twice that of carp) and as far as I'm aware, they can only breed in running water. Those who stock them do so for profit and that's all there is to it.

As for the EA, its apparent they only care to misappropriate licence money.

How many stillwater Barbel have you caught and seen ?

The majority of people fishing commercials are Carp anglers, not the ones who hunt specimen fish, the ones who want a few bites.

The next biggest group are match anglers and they fish commercials to catch fish to win matches, no particular species and commercials stocking Barbel makes no odds to either of the above.

The financial gain is zero imo

 

[floatfish]

As some above have said/indicated it's a changing world we have to accept
things change.
Trout were originally a clean fast River fish.
Then they turned up in still water.
Now no one mentions them, it's just the accepted thing.

Presume in a few years it will be the same with Barbel and probably other
species of fish.!
Just my thoughts on the subject.!