Thanks Thanks:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 38
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    South Wales
    Posts
    1,516

    Default

    Barbel should be left in rivers..

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

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Location
    Cheshunt , Herts
    Posts
    34,298

    Default

    I wouldnt think anything is suitable for an overstocked match mud hole
    Last edited by Cakey; 22-07-2009 at 22:23. Reason: left a word out
    two wrongs dont make a right but three rights make a left !

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    metroland.....
    Posts
    7,280

    Default

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

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    In God's County: Wiltshire
    Posts
    22,040
    Blog Entries
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peter crabtree View Post
    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.

    Scholars have long known that fishing eventually turns men into philosophers.

    Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to buy decent tackle on a philosopher's salary. ~

    Patrick F. McManus






  5. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Jacobs View Post
    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 !
    PaSC Junior Development Officer ><((((°>

  6. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Piker View Post
    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?

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Location
    Cheshunt , Herts
    Posts
    34,298

    Default

    Im with you Rodney and I wouldnt call Cudmore a mud hole
    two wrongs dont make a right but three rights make a left !

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    South Yorkshire
    Posts
    1,270

    Default

    "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.

  9. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Roberts View Post
    "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.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    South Yorkshire
    Posts
    1,270

    Default

    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?

Page 3 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
  •