Barbel Care Revisited

A good article Bob and well worth fighting for.
The two main problems that I can't come to terms with are -:

1.. Any kind of retention system, for whatever purpose, would without any doubt get abused.
It's no good saying proper bailiffing would address the problem, because there are not enough of them about. (E.A. or club officials)

2.. Matchfishing.
A match is no excuse to put barbel in keepnets, it smacks of hypocrosy.

Until an answer is found for the above two problems, the only fair and decent remedy would be to enforce a complete ban on barbel in nets of any kind.
Just my oppinion.

Keep up the good work though, it is a very important issue.

The only retention system that i can see working is something based on a sheep pen. Withenty of room for the Barbel to recover. The gate would be open when it is fully recovered allowing the fish to swim of.

The biggest problem is getting people to use any system.

Keep up the good work Bob. Your articles keep people thinking and hopefully one day manufactures will take note.

Good on you Bob, its nice to see some one so passionate about his fishing and fish welfare.

Barbel should NOT be kept in keepnets especialy the bigger ones!

I think that there has got to be an easy answer to the fish recovery problem and you would think one of the tackle manufacturer's would love a new challenge like that.

Tight lines.

Nice article Bob, common sense exactly.
It's a shame they chose to ignore you, but I think Mr Angry may have upset people more than he intended! Hence the Blank.

Could be they all ready had it in hand and didn't bother with somebody taging on?

Harsh!

But True?

Sort it out boys!

I meant

'Could be they all ready had it in hand and didn't bother with somebody taging on?'

was harsh!

Yup!
Thats what I was referring to!

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh...so people are suggesting that Bob is tagging on?

Evidence?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

No Shit! Bob has pissed a lot of "Top" people off!

He's not a "Tagger" more a "Pisser" that they don't want!

What people Eddie,it was only me and Ive read enough to suggest to me that it's all been said before,therefore all after the event.

Bob give me a P.M and I will tell you what they are saying.

Cheers.

Steve.

I think things have moved forward. AT became involved and the cover story had an effect.

When I put forward the idea of banning Barbel in keepnets for pleasure fishing, the committe of Doncaster & DAA were aware of the campaign and agreed.

The forthcoming AT feature on Barbel handling will help make some people think twice.

Some people on this forum, and others, who initially wished for an outright ban on keepnets and / or match fishing have come around after much discussion.

Little by little things have been moving the right way. Not everyone is going to agree on the perfect compromise because, as anglers we're such a varied bunch, but people in the middle are being given the information they need to form a considered viewpoint.

Bob, Steve Pope, Paul Owens and many others have all played their part in making this happen.

The more clubs that come on board the better. There's a long still to go and even if the same discussion rears it's head the same time next season then hopefully, we'll move forward some more.

My last sentence should have read "There's a long WAY still to go and even if the same discussion rears it's head the same time next season then hopefully, we'll move forward some more"

Ok,I'll own up.
I came back from the pub last night after a frustrating meeting with a small portion of my pub's angling club,10 out of 25 of us in attendance.
And a few pints.
Having left the computer on, I decided on a quick glance around to see if there was anything interesting being said.
Without getting very far in the latest offering from Mr Angry,in my frustrated mood,I thought here we go again,same old negative stuff from Bob and his holier than though approach and what appeared to be sycophantic responses.
Well after a restless night,look at the bloody time!
I thought I should read what Mr Angry had to say,well I've not changed my mind too much,but the voice of reason, as produced by young Matt,has made me calmer.
All I can say to Bob is,why didn't you put a copy of your email,which nobody seems to have received, on Fm,you may have got a better reaction,from the appropriate people,if they had seen,the reactions on here.
And,why not design something yourself,along with your sponsers?
As an after thought,in my opinion and as much as I am against any fish needing to kept in nets.Match fishing is here to stay,so unless fishery 'owners' or match organisers,make a ruling that,like in some cases,pike and eels don't count,then the only option is to give very serious thought to a better retention system.
So I agree, we all have the answers with hindsite.

Oh yes and DB,why not share what they've ALL been saying and perhaps we could all be a bit wiser?

It's another good article from Bob, let's hope he writes many more on subjects which the angling papers don't seem to want to discuss.

Bob and Fred,
Please accept my apologies for my last post, I too had been drinking, it was stupid!

You are fighting a good cause Bob, keep it up and good luck.

Once again, I am sorry

Fred

To put the proposal on here would have been inappropriate. It was the only reasoned way forward at the time as we'd had the talk (and the shite) so it was time for action.

The world at large had had every opportunity to make clear what their feelings were during a debate that was engineered to raise the emotive stakes.

However, to raise the bar and achieve practical progress required more than this. It required the three parties to pull together. It needed one joined up policy and that required compromise on the part of the BS and NFA. In addition it needed the media to carry the word forward.

There is little point in me designing a retention system or a landing net because that would simply be a case of an individual trying to impose his own will. If that was a runner then the Queensford system would have sold thousands upon thousands and it hasn't.

What is required is a system that is created by 'real' anglers, Joe Public, the end user, and then road tested by respected anglers who have no commercial tie-in with the manufacturer, and then have the results published in the media thus raising awareness further.

Fred suggests no-one received the email. Well, I actually sent 'blind' copies to two other parties and they arrived okay.

Like I say, I've given it a good shot. It's time for others to take up the cudgel and see if they can do any better.

They'll need a thick skin mind because every step you take will be criticised. You'll be deemed negative, holier than though and anyone who dares agree with you is regarded as a sycophant.

Fortunately these knockers are merely the vocal minority. Lots of noise but nothing constructive. Any fool can do it.

You're not a member of the HPS by any chance are you Fred?