The Go Fishing Show and Fish O'Mania 2009

[The Piker]

Barbel should be left in rivers..

They are not suitable for over stocked match mud holes..

 

[Cakey]

I wouldnt think anything is suitable for an overstocked match mud hole

 

[peter crabtree]

If KHV gets much worse,I think we will see most commercials stocking barbel instead of carp in the future.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

If KHV gets much worse,I think we will see most commercials stocking barbel instead of carp in the future.

Which is probably the reason why they have been stocked recently - commercial interest over the well being of the fish.

But then, in the last 15 years, what's new?

I really am becoming quite disillusioned over with the way Coarse Fishing seems to be going.

 

[Mr Cholmondeley-Corker (PaSC)]

I really am becoming quite disillusioned over with the way Coarse Fishing seems to be going.

Me too.

I've used the analogy before, but look what Macdonalds have done for eating out in the UK. 'Give em what they want' and WE ALL end up with the same c r a p !

 

[Rodney Wrestt]

Barbel should be left in rivers..

They are not suitable for over stocked match mud holes..

If you mean the barbel in Cudmore Fisheries I don't see any evidence of your argument, the fish are thriving, and growing well?

 

[Cakey]

Im with you Rodney and I wouldnt call Cudmore a mud hole

 

[Bob Roberts]

"That's surprising Bob, the Q.R.S. has always been viewed as a safer prospect for specimen fish..."

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Rodney Wrestt]

"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.

Hello Bob,
You've made several interesting comments in the last post, to be fair I do agree with most but to answer some of your questions:

1) In my case, I took the opinion of members on here whom I respect as people and admire as anglers, it would be up to them to step forward if they felt it necessary, who knows, they may have revised their opinion by now, but, I actually have 2 of Wol's version of the Q.R.S. they're excellent quality and I'm glad I got them when the opportunity arose (thanks again Wol) I'm not specifically a specimen hunter (the chance would be a fine thing up here) however I have found them useful in tight swims on occasion.

2) I'm not sure what you mean, the point with asking a non angler surly is that they wouldn't know what the benefits of either were? a bit like asking them the difference between fluorocarbon and standard mono?.

3) As above, I really don't know what to say to that????

4) I do prefer to use a keepnet (as per my previous post) the direction of flow, depth of water and stability of the stakes are all imperative for either retention method but the reason I mentioned the Q.R.S. at the start of my posts was for it's benefits regarding outsized fish, match keepnets are getting bigger in both length and diameter but the length goes against them (IMO) as smaller fish can be persuaded to swim along the net to the mouth before release where as the aforementioned outsized fish cannot maneuver around, obviously lifting them straight from the top entry on the Q.R.S. removes this concern.

 

[Bob Roberts]

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?

 

[ED (The ORIGINAL and REAL one)]

Barbel should be left in rivers..

They are not suitable for over stocked match mud holes..

Aren't the barbel used for stocking commercials raised and bred in stillwater --and if so they're not really a river fish are they??

 

[Bob Roberts]

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

 

[Rodney Wrestt]

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?

Hello Bob,
Sorry about the delay in replying but I didn't want to guestimate too much as I haven't been fishing for a couple of years and my memory isn't the best .

I see where you're going with the non angler view but if it was explained about the problems encountered with outsized fish and limited maneuverability (even in a match) then they may revise there opinion.

The dimensions are approximate but L36" W22" D18" it doesn't have intermediate rings but has top and bottom cords for staking both front and rear, the material is more like a soft carp sacking but the front and back have larger mesh to allow the water to flow through quickly.

I think we may be talking at cross purposes here as I'm viewing the Q.R.S. as an addition to a keepnet not a replacement, for example in a match a double figure fish, yes it will go into a keepnet, yes, it'll be fine on it's own but when bringing in the net for weigh ins then the problems may occur, where as a double figure fish in a Q.R.S. on it's own or with one other companion the removal for weigh ins or photographs if not a match situation holds less difficulties .

 

[delphi 73]

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

Well said - I did not realise that most of the young stock is a result of over production from selling to commercials.

Its very troubling that our rivers have such low recruitment of young fish. They must be too clean.

I was on the Avon yesterday and there was a good number of fry about but not what there used to be 2+ years ago before the floods.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

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?

Firstly, let me say that I have no association with any tackle manufacturer.

Now I was interested in Bob's comments enough to go and measure my Q.R.S. (which incidentally I've never 'lost' a fish in) and then compared those measurement with my Preston Innovations (Approved Lilly Water Mark keepnet - the results were:

Q.R.S. h) 15" x w) 20" x l) 40"

Preston Keepnet: h) 15" x w) 20" x l) metres (I didn't take it out of the bag totally) - but then one doesn't need to as the argument as presented appears to revolve around h) Height and w) Width.

The staking arrangements make it unnecessary to have any intermediate rings - so that part of the argument is also moot potentially.

As I said, I have no association with any tackle manufacturer, nor do i receive any good or items for "testing" so my experience is that of myself, alone, and based on many days when I've used both methods: a Q.R.S. for individual specimens to either recover or for me to arrange for weighing/photographing, and the Preston Keepent on many, many matches.

As to meeting the requirements of a keepnet, it doesn't have to, as it is not a keepnet (a rose is a rose by any other name?) so that argument is somewhat moot as well.

In the final analysis, I bought my Q.R.S. on the recommendations of a number of anglers on FM, who's opinion I hold in great respect, and have never suffered any problems when using mine.

So, there you are, not the logical (?) views of some non-angler but mine and mine alone, but then what do I know, I've only been fishing for a little over 45 years.

 

[Bob Roberts]

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?

 

[Rodney Wrestt]

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?

Bob,
Are you reading the replies or just the parts which suit your argument?

 

[Peter Jacobs]

The defence of, 'I've never lost a fish in a Queensford' begs the question, 'And how many have you lost in a keepnet?'

Sorry for the delay but it took me a while to search my records:

I've lost 2 Barbel in keepnets, a 9lb plus fish that fought very hard in a strong current and despite nursing it for over 2 hours it simply wouldn't 'straighten up and fly right' so to speak, and a 4lb plus fish that was in the net for the last 20 minutes of a match - a match incidentally where I only manged 3 fish in total, the Barbel and 2 small 3/4lb Carp.

After losing the large Barbel I sought some informartion from some of the long standing members here on FM and the nobtained my Q.R.S.

Others will of course have had different experiences, I can only recount mine.