John Spilsbury
Well-known member
Took advantage of the recent warm weather to do a night's barbelling. It rained like hell, and it was damned windy, but with a warm air temperature. I suppose I could not have had everything.
I quickly lost two barbel, almost instantly following the strike, on a very sharp snag. The line was cut almost immediately. There were also fallen trees immediately upstream and also just downstream of me, and so, after the losses, I figured I had to hook and heave hard. The night was profitable, 3 very good chub, and 5 barbel to 9 pounds. All were, from necessity, more or less skulldragged in, on a 1&3/4 pound test, 12 foot rod with 10 pound line ( minus a bit for the knots). Clutch well tightened, and so none of the barbel, as a result, ever took more than a yard or so of line.
I got to thinking during the quieter spells, as I crouched under the umbrella, on my small gravel beach, hoping that the rising water would not force me off the peg. A foot of extra water was just fishable, more than that and everything would have been floating away.
I was surprised that none of the barbel was able to take more line. I had expected, in the difficult swim, to have had a few worrying moments, but none came. I had taken, until a year or two ago, a 30 year break from all my fishing, but surely barbel used to fight harder than this back then, 35 years ago? I have taken quite a few pike over the last three or four weeks and they did not disappoint. True drama, even when once more having to hold hard to prevent the fish reaching snags. One of the pike gave me the best fight I have ever had from a coarse fish. But the barbel, like others I have caught these last two years, seem to quite frequently disappoint. They have had neither the drama, nor the power and speed that the pike displayed.
So I looked at some of my old barbel photos: and comparing them to fish I, and others, have caught recently, there is a noticeable difference. The old fish were much slimmer, much sleeker. Could this be why the fights seem less powerful? Or has too much water passed under the bridge for me to still be a worthy judge? But would someone who has fished right the way through those years be a better judge? Maybe not. One's recollection of how a fish fights in general ( rather than individual notables) is based upon recent captures, which overwrites older data in the brain. Don't believe me? Try and remember how your mother looked 20 years ago. By remembering her directly, rather than by remembering through photographs. It is hard to overpaint the recent mental picture you have of her.
Many barbel anglers openly have friendly digs at the carp boys: sleepy young lads in their bivvies waiting for an overweight lump to hook itself in a puddle. Pond pig carp fed up over the years with angling's equivalent of fishy fast food. Most unhealthy for the fish? But are barbel any different. The banks of most rivers holding barbel are regularly lined with anglers chucking in hemp, boilies, pellets, meat and a hundred other food items. The barbel are these days living in long fish farms, and are almost force fed daily.
So the recent photographs mainly show barbel with very large girths. Many of the fish look like escondees from a fat camp. Make no mistake, a large barbel still looks a very handsome fish. Stunning even. But is it actually obese, from not doing any of the exercise it would have had to do years ago? When every freshwater shrimp was hard won, dug up from the gravel. When every snail had to be chased? Today the baits are presented on the bottom, in easy reach, and are effortlessly swept up by these fish, for very little actual expenditure of energy.
Have we caused a major reduction in our barbels' fighting fitness? Or does the size of a fish matter more now than the fight for some of us? In the past a ten pound barbel was quite a rarity. These days few barbel anglers don't have at least one double in their tallies. Most have far more. Many expect to catch doubles every season, and a number seem to expect them almost on a weekly basis, or even several in a session. The fish are certainly much larger these days, and a deal of that weight increase is undoubtedly due to the food we give them. But are they any longer? Hard to tell: The Dutch angling records go on length rather than weight, and might just provide some useful data. Our barbel are not the only species affected of course, but I chose them as they seem to be viewed highly as a fighting fish.
So, are we all ruining it for ourselves? Have we stopped our fish from fighting?
Any other opinions? Which do you prefer? Fit fish or fat fish?
I quickly lost two barbel, almost instantly following the strike, on a very sharp snag. The line was cut almost immediately. There were also fallen trees immediately upstream and also just downstream of me, and so, after the losses, I figured I had to hook and heave hard. The night was profitable, 3 very good chub, and 5 barbel to 9 pounds. All were, from necessity, more or less skulldragged in, on a 1&3/4 pound test, 12 foot rod with 10 pound line ( minus a bit for the knots). Clutch well tightened, and so none of the barbel, as a result, ever took more than a yard or so of line.
I got to thinking during the quieter spells, as I crouched under the umbrella, on my small gravel beach, hoping that the rising water would not force me off the peg. A foot of extra water was just fishable, more than that and everything would have been floating away.
I was surprised that none of the barbel was able to take more line. I had expected, in the difficult swim, to have had a few worrying moments, but none came. I had taken, until a year or two ago, a 30 year break from all my fishing, but surely barbel used to fight harder than this back then, 35 years ago? I have taken quite a few pike over the last three or four weeks and they did not disappoint. True drama, even when once more having to hold hard to prevent the fish reaching snags. One of the pike gave me the best fight I have ever had from a coarse fish. But the barbel, like others I have caught these last two years, seem to quite frequently disappoint. They have had neither the drama, nor the power and speed that the pike displayed.
So I looked at some of my old barbel photos: and comparing them to fish I, and others, have caught recently, there is a noticeable difference. The old fish were much slimmer, much sleeker. Could this be why the fights seem less powerful? Or has too much water passed under the bridge for me to still be a worthy judge? But would someone who has fished right the way through those years be a better judge? Maybe not. One's recollection of how a fish fights in general ( rather than individual notables) is based upon recent captures, which overwrites older data in the brain. Don't believe me? Try and remember how your mother looked 20 years ago. By remembering her directly, rather than by remembering through photographs. It is hard to overpaint the recent mental picture you have of her.
Many barbel anglers openly have friendly digs at the carp boys: sleepy young lads in their bivvies waiting for an overweight lump to hook itself in a puddle. Pond pig carp fed up over the years with angling's equivalent of fishy fast food. Most unhealthy for the fish? But are barbel any different. The banks of most rivers holding barbel are regularly lined with anglers chucking in hemp, boilies, pellets, meat and a hundred other food items. The barbel are these days living in long fish farms, and are almost force fed daily.
So the recent photographs mainly show barbel with very large girths. Many of the fish look like escondees from a fat camp. Make no mistake, a large barbel still looks a very handsome fish. Stunning even. But is it actually obese, from not doing any of the exercise it would have had to do years ago? When every freshwater shrimp was hard won, dug up from the gravel. When every snail had to be chased? Today the baits are presented on the bottom, in easy reach, and are effortlessly swept up by these fish, for very little actual expenditure of energy.
Have we caused a major reduction in our barbels' fighting fitness? Or does the size of a fish matter more now than the fight for some of us? In the past a ten pound barbel was quite a rarity. These days few barbel anglers don't have at least one double in their tallies. Most have far more. Many expect to catch doubles every season, and a number seem to expect them almost on a weekly basis, or even several in a session. The fish are certainly much larger these days, and a deal of that weight increase is undoubtedly due to the food we give them. But are they any longer? Hard to tell: The Dutch angling records go on length rather than weight, and might just provide some useful data. Our barbel are not the only species affected of course, but I chose them as they seem to be viewed highly as a fighting fish.
So, are we all ruining it for ourselves? Have we stopped our fish from fighting?
Any other opinions? Which do you prefer? Fit fish or fat fish?
Last edited:
