Ribble Venue Reports - Do we need to weigh everything ?

While not as big an issue as the one on-going in Barney's topic on BR's latest article.......but why do some Ribble forum posters insist on weighing every small barbel they catch and then report on the forum?
Looking back through the forum all these guys have caught much bigger fish than "4lb 9oz" "5lb 5oz" fish they report on ... so why add extra stress on fish in times of low water levels and low oxygen levels.
I'm not a "kill joy barbel police" kind of guy and I haven't a problem with weighing (and taking piccies of ) potential doubles or pbs etc but come on lads ... what's the point?
Can't you just un-hook the small ones in the net and get them back as soon as possible and report them as "5ish" or "looked about a 6" or is your vanity everything ?
I've seen some of guys concerned on the bank and they strike me as competent caring anglers, and if they think my comment un-help then I'm sorry and don't wish to upset anyone, but it always concerns me when I look in there and see this type of report.

Rob thanks, that?s the best thing I've read this week ;o) and it's something I've been trying to fathom for a few seasons now....

I think there is something a bit more complex than a just a simple vanity thing going on here though.


I wait with baited breath. (no pun intended)

Although at the end of the day it will be personal preference, I can't argue with anything you say Rod and agree entirely.

Especially at this time of year with low water levels and high temperatures....

I only weigh fish that in the case of barbel look like there close to the 10lb mark the rest i guess and in better river conditions back up my guess with a quick weigh to see how close i am.
With chub i normally weigh anything that looks over 5lb.

One Ribble angler i know well enjoy`s taking a lot of record`s as part of his fishing,ive seen how he does it and have no problems with it.He has his scales to hand and when he land`s a fish he simply unclips the net,weigh`s the fish in the net and then releases it,at a guess the catch/return only takes an extra 10 seconds at the very most and all his fish are very carefully realsed afterward`s.

The most inportant thing is how the fish are released not if theve been out for a few extra second`s for weighing.
With the river as low as its been this year ive taking to holding babel in fast paced water until i cant keep hold them any longer and they tear away.
Its anglers who arrive at the water in trainers and expect the fish to recover after being put back in the bankside weed and slime that wind me up.

I'm a fairly regular poster on there myself. I have one of those landing net handles that pulls out leaving a short stub attached to the net.

This is my procedure.....

(hopefully) hook a Barbel. If it's under 5lb it can generally be landed very quickly. The hook is then slipped out when it's in the net. If it's strong it goes straight back but on occasions it needs holding for a while to regain strength. I'll guess the weight of the fish e.g 4.08.

Over 5 and they generally take a bit longer to land. I'll let these have a breather for 2 minutes or so in the net, while I pull the rest of the landing net out to leave just the stub. Then it's on to the unhooking mat where there is a second pair of forceps, and my scales. Hook out (no manhandling Barbel out of net onto the mat) and hook net to scales. I know the wet net weighs 14 ounces, give or take.

Back it goes, assisted as required.

My camera is also set up on a bankstick the right distance and height away (checked while setting up) in case I get a double.

I usually fish on my own.

I post on the forum because I have taken a lot from it. It's fair to give a bit back.

same as ric ,if it looks over 5 ill weigh it in the landing net,it only takes seconds ,i have a pro logic quick release gizmo on my landing net and scales to hand.i always wear waders so i can get in the water when releasing the fish, this in my mind is more important than an extra 10 seconds out of the water.

I know the lads personally who take part in the Ribble Venue reports, and have fished with most of them. To a man they take the utmost care of the fish they catch. It's nothing to do with anyone else why they weigh fish of less than so-called specimen weights.

Maybe it's time some had a read of <a href=http://www.fishingmagic.com/forum/forummessages/mps/dt/1/UTN/16315/last/1/V/6/SP/target=blank>this</a>.

Another thing that puzzles me. It's being said that the slight delay in returning the fish through weighing "adds extra stress on fish in times of low water levels and low oxygen levels."

Now, how can anyone not have "a problem with weighing (and taking piccies of) potential doubles or pbs etc," but have a problem with anglers who want to weigh the smaller ones for data collecting reasons?

If it's true that weighing them could be harming them then we shouldn't be weighing any fish, whatever they may weigh.

Or is it a case of if it's a specimen then I can ignore that, weigh it, and even increase the time it's out of the water by photographing it, and make glory my priority?

Maybe it's as well to remember that one man's specimen is another man's data.....

Glory ??? seen any of my fish pictured anywhere?, most of you won't even know me ..... of course if we wanted to reduce risk totally we would leave them alone and not stick hooks in them.....but we love fish and fishing and feel the risk is worth it.
I would rather see all fish un-hooked in the net, in the shallows and returned .... however I can understand guys getting excited by a big Barb, chub or whatever and wanting a weight and photograph and as I said in my initial post see most concerned as competent caring anglers but when you've caught dozens of fish bigger, is there really a need ?

If the same guys went spraying maggot/caster for the big roach at Sway for example, would they weigh every 4 and 5 oz roachling for their data collecting purposes ???

Data collection purposes or train spotting ?In a time where a organisation like the EA can't get a fix on the cause of a major north west fish kill in Cheshire and surrounding areas, what major insight can a couple of guys recoding the exact oz's of a fishes weight caught provide ? It can't provide anything because as with most things
outside a laboratory there are too many variables .. yes the barbs and chub do seem to be getting bigger but then again the river is getting more pressure from anglers fishing barbel/carp style than it's ever had. So more big fish are bound to be caught.
To call this data collection is a joke it's vanity pure and simple.

Maybe it's as well to remember one man's data is another man's cobblers.

Like Graham says you can't say it's OK to weigh a double but not a four-pounder from a fish welfare point of view, it's a touch hypocritical, and perhaps more importantly to some people a four pounder may be their first barbel and as such be a notable fish and deserve weighing.

What I cant understand (and its purely personal) is what does it matter when you've caught tens or even hunderds of smaller fish if it weighs 4.08 or 4.13. and I'm not talking about Ribble fish or barbel fish. Just fish in general. Even if your keeping records your still getting an accurate picture, does ounces really matter from a data collection point of view?.

When we went to the St. Lawrence a few years ago we caught so many 20lb+ carp that after the first few I only weighed the ones that may go thirty. Whereas my mate had a daily list looking like 22.13, 23.10, 25.03, 26.11, 19.12, 24,03, 24.05?and so on and so forth. I couldn't see the point myself but he's always liked to keep exact records. The same bloke used to come back from chubbing on the Ribble with a dozen chub each one weighted to half an once, whereas I'd have say 10 fours and two fives at 5.01 and 5.05

Doesn't mean any of us is right or wrong through??perhaps it's just because I'm lazy and can't be arsed !

Each to their own, what do know is that those who do take meticulous readings, will over time, have many very clear patterns and stats for their fishery, albeit the ribble or whereever!

Like you Gary, I can't be arsed with every single fish, but I might start giving it some thought, if I can be arsed that is!

Rod's point is something I've often thought myself.

I have in the past weighed fish when it was irrelevant and clearly an average fish for me, for the venue and served no purpose.

He's not saying it's wrong to weigh a 4lb barbel - if that's a good fish for you, the venue etc just pointless if you've had loads of them before.

I don't think it's hypocritical to feel it's unnecessary, whilst still feeling it's OK to weigh a bigger PB.

Don't some feel it's OK expose a fish to the mesh of a landing net, but not the mesh of a keepnet!!

I can't be arsed to weigh the smaller fish either, but I respect the right of those who can be arsed. Why they do it is bugger-all to do with me.

But everyone has a right to their opinion of course whether they can be arsed or not!

Funny thing! I have had a few barbel off the Dane over the last few weeks, 1 or 2 fish a session and certainly nothing mind blowing size wise (I've heard that before) but upon catching the fish I've given them a rough number 4ish, 5ish,whatever!

Yesterday I decided to weight the 2nd (smaller) fish I caught just to see how my guestimates weight wise were going, fairly accurately as it happens! Most of my fish this year have been like peas in a pod from this stretch and it's got me thinking whether to move on next season and try pastures new!

I then got talking to my mate, about this thread, and I alluded to the useful data that could be gained and utilised by keeping such meticulous records!

Over a season/seasons contributors here can tell you what was the size of their average fish, if that size has gone up or down from season to season, the most 'popular' bait, time of day, weather and so on!

Now for someone like me, with a young family and very limited fishing time, and a 100 mile round trip to the ribble to boot, that data would be/is absolute gold dust thanks to the venue reports here!

For someone with aspirations of catching specimens, to know if the average size of the fish is getting bigger or smaller, I would have thought could be quite useful also!

You might be better sticking it out next season Eddie, this years 4/5lbers will be next years 6/7+ lbers. Here on the my local river we are catching a lot of Barbel hovering around the 8lb class. So now I am Drooling in anticipation of a good haul of doubles next season. As for having to weigh everything, I think it a personal thing to everybody, it quickly done and relatively harmless, so why not? I am going camping on the River Wye at 1/2 term and the reports here and on bfw help me to decide what fish I might expect to catch in any given area on a river I have never fished.

As I?m probably the main Ribble Venue poster who weighs all Barbel and Chub above 1lb then here is my reason why: -
First, lets get this out of the way, it takes me less then a minute to weigh my fish and return it to the river and may be an extra 30 seconds to take a picture if it?s a PB for that swim. If it?s a proper PB with myself in the picture then I will retain the fish in the large landing net I use or a carp sack and the whole process only takes a few minutes. In three years on the Ribble I?ve only used the carp sack once, generally there?s been someone to take the picture.
As for the weighing all my fish, it?s for my records. I?m very interested in record keeping from a technical point and form just reading back through a dairy I also keep. The FM Venue report I write is printed out and then pasted into my diary with additional information such as the exact location, any photos of river and I also use the aerial photos you can down load from Multi-map.
The technical side involves transferring this information onto a spreadsheet where additional information re sunset and moon data are automatically filled in from tables downloaded off the Internet. The EA have also made available to me three years river level recordings for ?New Jumbles Rock? taken at 15-minute intervals. I?m now looking for similar historical barometric readings for the Preston area, so if anyone can point me in the right direction I would be very grateful?
Why? The main reason is I like doing it, I enjoy making and keeping records it?s not a chore.
Secondly I may eventually learn something from analysing these records.
Why so much information? Because I don?t know what information is important or what I?m going to compare with what, so I need as much information as possible and its going to take many years to get enough information for it t be meaningful.
Finally more people have said they like reading my records than those who don?t, I am aware that this does piss a few off, but so long as it doesn?t piss Graham off I shall continue to write my reports in a way that?s very convenient to me.

Well said John, which spreadsheet do you use?

Eddie I use Excel, its our works standard and I've always got plenty of advice from my colleagues at work if I get stuck with a formula or some logic I want to play about with. Microsoft gets knocked something rotten, but it links in with all the other packages. I?ve got the odd hyper link to sites that are of interest where I can download data.
Has anyone tried "Open Office"? I'm thinking of buying a new computer soon and I've a mind to give it a go.
Re fishing on the Ribble I?m often told, I could have told you that? My answer is ? but you didn?t so I?ve had to figure it out myself?. Or I?ve asked the lads I fish with on the Ribble and on the FM forums and they?ve told me without making me feel stupid.

John - I'm interested in just what you do with your data ? and what parameters do you use.

River level, water temp, air temp, moon phase?, etc, etc....

By the way, I fished the Ribble for the first time this year on Saturday. Have you ever seen the Ribble as low as it is now?

No, and the strange thing is, it's fishing it's nuts off.

I've Fished the waggler three times in the past few weeks and had mixed catchs', but every time I've had barbel having never had more then the odd one in the past.

I've been amazed by the number of small barbel (under a 1lb) that have shown. I had 15 in one short session the other week plus 2 decent ones.
5 yesterday, lost 2, from 1.5lb to 3.5lb from a different peg, whilst 4 people on the feeder struggled.

If you fancy some barbel on the float - now the time for it..

A while ago one of the members on here asked for help regarding captures of large barbel by area on the ribble.
Anyone know the outcome of this ?