Thanks Thanks:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 38
  1. #11

    Default

    But why did they NEED to put barbel in there? Surely the carp fulfill the large, hard fighting fish desire????
    PaSC Junior Development Officer ><((((°>

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Location
    Liverpool UK (and proud of it !!)
    Posts
    31,995

    Default

    .....For a bit of variety,maybe ??
    It's a fine line between genius and madness -- I wish I knew which side of it I'm on !

  3. #13

    Default

    Well if its for variety then they could throw in a few pike, catfish, zander, sturgeon, eels, mussels, terrapin, flounder, dog fish, cod, bass, etc too??????
    PaSC Junior Development Officer ><((((°>

  4. #14

    Default

    Why not barbel? are they special?

  5. #15

    Default

    If you put barbel in a keep net for weighing later then there is a good chance that the first ray of its dorsal fin will get tangled in the net.
    PaSC Junior Development Officer ><((((°>

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Location
    Cheshunt , Herts
    Posts
    34,298

    Default

    thats why I asked on the Chavs v us thread about the 1/2hr weigh ins was for the barbel or for the TV
    two wrongs dont make a right but three rights make a left !

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    Stoke on Trent
    Posts
    10,414
    Blog Entries
    10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Cholmondeley-Corker (PaSC) View Post
    If you put barbel in a keep net for weighing later then there is a good chance that the first ray of its dorsal fin will get tangled in the net.
    I suppose that depends on what type of net you use. A fine mesh one like the match lads use for carp didn't seem to be giving any problems on Saturday.

    As for weighing in half-hourly at any of our matches I suppose it depends if we can organise it. Ideally we need a volunteer to rove the match length and do the job.

    I think it was for the TV Cakey.

  8. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Cholmondeley-Corker (PaSC) View Post
    If you put barbel in a keep net for weighing later then there is a good chance that the first ray of its dorsal fin will get tangled in the net.
    I see your point, their shape and length does seem inappropriate for keepnets, although they do have a separate retention system (I'm not sure if it's a wider keepnet or Queensford type setup) for fish deemed too large for the normal net and they can request an immediate weigh in of the fish, I'm not sure what the procedure is after that though.

    As Graham said though the materials used is fish friendly and knotless also the dimensions are larger these days than they used to be.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    South Yorkshire
    Posts
    1,270

    Default

    Having officiated at several matches on commercial fisheries I cannot see how anyone differentiates between the serated dorsal of a barbel and that of a carp. They both have them and small carp in particular are notorious for getting hung up in keepnets.

    On the subject of retention I have only ever witnessed one barbel die in a retaining system and that was in a Queensford of all things. I've yet to see a barbel keel over in a properly staked out keepnet and if I'm being perfectly honest with you, a Queensford is merely a small keepnet with a zip along the top rather than an open end. Whether it is even legal to use one is debatable because it doesn't meet the criteria laid down for minimum keepnet lengths.

    It is fashionable to afford barbel 'special' status when it is no more precious than any other. In my current blog: http://www.bobrobertsonline.co.uk I broach this very subject.

    Articficially reared barbel may yet be the saviours of angling, particularly on those river systems where natural recruitment is poor. But this comes at a price. Someone has to fund the breeding project and manage the surplus production in a way that is ecconomically sound and humane. Sales to commercial interests keep the price down and make the entire process viable.

    The option is to slaughter the surplus fish stocks.

    Which would you rather happen?

    Without stillwater barbel the future for running water barbel is jeopardised. Without running water barbel what's left in our rivers? Where are the shoals of small chub and dace, of bream and roach. Those goliaths we catch today are not getting any younger and face increasing threats of predation.

    Carp at the levels we see today are potentially unsustainable. They are not indigenous to the UK and the risk of currently known diseases and potentially ones we don't even know of yet could lead to a catastrophic collapse of our fish stocks. And then what do we have let?

    Bio diversity is essential to future viability of fish stocks and for angling itself, be that in still or running water. To ring fence one species does no-one any favours.

  10. #20

    Default

    That's surprising Bob, the Q.R.S. has always been viewed as a safer prospect for specimen fish (as long as it's staked out correctly and the fish is facing the right direction), much safer than the older sacks that were/are? used.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •