cracking bag of barbel!

jasonbean1 · Nov 21, 2011

Study reveals barbel 'thrive' in stillwaters | Coarse Fishing News | Angling Times | Gofishing UK

I suppose a decent well looked after stillwater will be a happy home for barbel..all that free easy to digest food and friends to dine out with....beats being a loner on the ouse being chased by otters and constipating on crayfish shells!

Jeff Woodhouse · Nov 21, 2011

Is that the barbel police two-tones I can hear in the distance? Flashing blue lights just over the hill.

Titus · Nov 21, 2011

Back in the day when pond owners were paying pleasure anglers on the Severn and the Teme for their catches to stock their fisheries I had strong feelings about this. These days when the stock fish for these pools are simply a product of the aquatic trade I see no difference between them and the pasty carp they are replacing.

sam vimes · Nov 21, 2011

Titus said:
Back in the day when pond owners were paying pleasure anglers on the Severn and the Teme for their catches to stock their fisheries I had strong feelings about this. These days when the stock fish for these pools are simply a product of the aquatic trade I see no difference between them and the pasty carp they are replacing.

Make that two of us. Barbel on commercials aren't particularly my thing, though I have caught a couple. They went like trains and didn't seem to be remotely unhealthy. Provided the stock comes from a legitimate source, it's fine by me. I really don't understand why some get so wound up about it all.

Lord Paul of Sheffield · Nov 21, 2011

Barbe l- in still water

me The 13th Duke of Wymbourne, left alone with barbel in a still water - what were they thinking

Damian Kimmins · Nov 24, 2011

Did anyone read this report?

Fred Bonney · Nov 24, 2011

Yes!

Apparently it's what fishermen want, so it's ok.

To use an old adage, a kestrel will "thrive" in a cage if you feed it, but it don't make it right!

cg74 · Nov 24, 2011

Fred Bonney said:
Apparently it's what fishermen want, so it's ok.

What like stocking barbel into rivers they are not indigenous too, maybe worse they thrive and go onto completely alter a whole ecosystem; less silver fish, which leads to less predatory fish and logically follows; less Herons and Kingfishers.
I'm not saying that I like the idea of barbel being stocked into but at least they don't effect the natural balances found in a river prior to stocking.

And for the record, this anglers disagrees with stocking (all) non-indigenous fish into natural waters and unsustainable stock levels being placed in any water.

johnnyfby · Nov 24, 2011

sam vimes said:
Make that two of us. Barbel on commercials aren't particularly my thing, though I have caught a couple. They went like trains and didn't seem to be remotely unhealthy. Provided the stock comes from a legitimate source, it's fine by me. I really don't understand why some get so wound up about it all.

I am with Sam on this, the only thing I can add is not to overstock whatever fish and ultimately care for all fish when being weighed, as I hate to see fish being tipped into weigh nets, just makes me cringe when fish are dropped onto each other. We have to live with it but welfare must be at the top for all commercials and thats a fine line because anglers want to see an ever bulging net to the detriment of the inhabitants.

Fred Bonney · Nov 24, 2011

cg74 said:
What like stocking barbel into rivers they are not indigenous too, maybe worse they thrive and go onto completely alter a whole ecosystem; less silver fish, which leads to less predatory fish and logically follows; less Herons and Kingfishers.
I'm not saying that I like the idea of barbel being stocked into but at least they don't effect the natural balances found in a river prior to stocking.

Where's that then ?

"And for the record, this anglers disagrees with stocking (all) non-indigenous fish into natural waters and unsustainable stock levels being placed in any water."

Me too Colin

But, it's what the fishermen want, so it's ok..isn't it?

---------- Post added at 08:27 ---------- Previous post was at 08:24 ----------

johnnyfby said:
I am with Sam on this, the only thing I can add is not to overstock whatever fish and ultimately care for all fish when being weighed, as I hate to see fish being tipped into weigh nets, just makes me cringe when fish are dropped onto each other. We have to live with it but welfare must be at the top for all commercials and thats a fine line because anglers want to see an ever bulging net to the detriment of the inhabitants.

Apparently that's ok too, according to the report " crowding fish in a keepnet is not a problem so long as there is sufficient oxygen"

---------- Post added at 08:30 ---------- Previous post was at 08:27 ----------

If you take into account that the report is written by a lecturer in fish farming you can see what angle the report is coming from!

cg74 · Nov 24, 2011

Fred Bonney said:
Where's that then ?

"And for the record, this anglers disagrees with stocking (all) non-indigenous fish into natural waters and unsustainable stock levels being placed in any water."

Me too Colin

But, it's what the fishermen want, so it's ok..isn't it?

"Where's that then?"

Come on Fred, you know as much as me which rivers barbel have been stocked by anglers, in case you don't here's a few: Avons Hamps, Bristol and Warks, Dorset Stour, Severn, Teme, Wye, Goyt, Dane, Ribble, Tame, Dee, do I need to go on?

"it's what the fishermen want, so it's ok..isn't it?"

It may legitimise the stockings but make it "ok" - Not to me.

Damian Kimmins · Nov 24, 2011

sam vimes said:
Make that two of us. Barbel on commercials aren't particularly my thing, though I have caught a couple. They went like trains and didn't seem to be remotely unhealthy. Provided the stock comes from a legitimate source, it's fine by me. I really don't understand why some get so wound up about it all.

I think for me it highlights present man's disregard for any moral or ethical question.
Stocking yet another species of fish into your commercial pond, you must question the effect this might have on fish already there, you must also question, particularly with a species such as the barbel, the impact on that species once stocked. It seems ludicrous that it's ok to stock a fish into a commercial pond having been so evolved to live it's life in a river, knowing full well that that fish cannot breed in that pond.
It's like taking a species of monkey, so evolved to live it's life in a tree, and putting it in a savannah just for your admiration and enjoyment. You are playing with that species physiology.
Consider for a minute that the species of monkey you introduce to the savannah is able to reproduce, then think of all the changes, if it is able to find enough to survive well enough, that that species would go through. Who are we to play with such things?
This planet and everything in it is not ours to do with as we please.

Damian

sam vimes · Nov 24, 2011

Damian Kimmins said:
I think for me it highlights present man's disregard for any moral or ethical question.
Stocking yet another species of fish into your commercial pond, you must question the effect this might have on fish already there, you must also question, particularly with a species such as the barbel, the impact on that species once stocked. It seems ludicrous that it's ok to stock a fish into a commercial pond having been so evolved to live it's life in a river, knowing full well that that fish cannot breed in that pond.
It's like taking a species of monkey, so evolved to live it's life in a tree, and putting it in a savannah just for your admiration and enjoyment. You are playing with that species physiology.
Consider for a minute that the species of monkey you introduce to the savannah is able to reproduce, then think of all the changes, if it is able to find enough to survive well enough, that that species would go through. Who are we to play with such things?
This planet and everything in it is not ours to do with as we please.

Damian

Fair enough. What I don't get is that there isn't the same vitriol when it comes to the stocking of barbel into so many of the rivers where it didn't previously exist until man, and anglers in particular, intervened. I don't see many complaining about having barbel in the likes of the Severn, Bristol Avon or Ribble. If we are going to be moralistic about interference in the natural order of things then we need to be consistent. If it's wrong to stock a species into water they don't occur naturally then that should apply equally to flowing and still water. If there's any genuine evidence for any fish suffering in any given environment then it may be a different story.

Damian Kimmins · Nov 24, 2011

Don't get me wrong Sam, I am in total agreement. The problem is that some want to break things down to suit their own needs, and in the case of stocking barbel into their local river, disregard the impact on the species present. Arguing for the stocking of a species specifically having evolved for life in fast water, into such a place doesn't present any questions for their moral compass. If nature has dictated to me as an angler that I must fish Eastern flowing rivers to stand a chance of catching a barbel, who am I to argue, I would actually delight if that were at all the case. The story of the barbel and it coming to have populated Eastern flowing rivers is a fantastic story in itself, certainly more magical than some greedy commercial owner having stocked them into his own pond for his own needs.
I flew 9.5 hrs, was then driven 4hrs to go and fish for mahseer. If I was so inclined to catch mahseer again I would be resigned to travelling for such time.
It's a shame that most do not realise that the capture of any fish is made special by the effort it took to catch it.
We must learn that all that we desire is not all that's good for us, or anything else it might involve.

Damian

Fred Bonney · Nov 24, 2011

Colin,you made a statement to the effect that as a result of such stockings that all of these rivers had been severely affected by the introductions,yet on reading the weeklies match results in some of the rivers you've listed good varieties of fish have made up the weights.

the Wye Festival

1st day 21lb.4ozs dace
2nd day 35lb 10ozs perch, 1200 bleak 34lb10ozs!

That's why I asked where's that then?

cg74 · Nov 24, 2011

Fred Bonney said:
Colin,you made a statement to the effect that as a result of such stockings that all of these rivers had been severely affected by the introductions,yet on reading the weeklies match results in some of the rivers you've listed good varieties of fish have made up the weights.

the Wye Festival

1st day 21lb.4ozs dace
2nd day 35lb 10ozs perch, 1200 bleak 34lb10ozs!

That's why I asked where's that then?

Fred, a quick web search and here you go, a match report from the Warks Avon: Barford Open, Warks Avon 2/10
Yes they (barbel) weren't the only species but their presence is proving very influential. I could dig deeper, as its well known the middle Severn's bio mass is held up with barbel.

Fishing the Teme last winter during one of the cold spells, I opted to try for chub with bread and I struggled to get past the barbel.

It's a well accepted fact that if you add an alien species to an environment suitable to that species, it will thrive and in doing so push species already there. Please don't tell me you think by adding barbel to a river the numbers and bio mass of the species originally present will remain unchanged and the barbel added merely increase the overall bio mass of fish?

Simon K · Nov 24, 2011

Damian Kimmins said:
I think for me it highlights present man's disregard for any moral or ethical question.
Stocking yet another species of fish into your commercial pond, you must question the effect this might have on fish already there, you must also question, particularly with a species such as the barbel, the impact on that species once stocked. It seems ludicrous that it's ok to stock a fish into a commercial pond having been so evolved to live it's life in a river, knowing full well that that fish cannot breed in that pond.
It's like taking a species of monkey, so evolved to live it's life in a tree, and putting it in a savannah just for your admiration and enjoyment. You are playing with that species physiology.
Consider for a minute that the species of monkey you introduce to the savannah is able to reproduce, then think of all the changes, if it is able to find enough to survive well enough, that that species would go through. Who are we to play with such things?
This planet and everything in it is not ours to do with as we please.

Damian

Sorry Damian, but neither of those points stand up.
A commercial pond is an enclosed environment, it makes absolutely no difference to those barbel whether they breed or not. If the barbel is able to find food and isn't out-competed by other residents it will do very nicely. Studies have shown this.

A monkey in the savannah is a completely different prospect. Most monkey species have evolved very specific food source dependence and the vast majority would die very quickly from a) starvation and b) predation.
Unlike the pond-stocked barbel.

There is no argument from a physiological point of view why barbel cannot adapt to stillwaters. The evolutionary adaptations have less to do with running water and more to do with bottom feeding.

There are 100's of types of similar "running water" species kept (and bred) in home aquariums that, in essence, are no different to barbel in terms of their environmental niche. E.g. Corydoras.

If you'll excuse the phrase, the old "riverine evolution" argument holds no water.

We've all been through this "debate" a thousand times before, so I've said my "anti" bit to redress the balance and that's as far as I can be bothered to take it. :wh

Fred Bonney · Nov 25, 2011

cg74 said:
Fred, a quick web search and here you go, a match report from the Warks Avon: Barford Open, Warks Avon 2/10
Yes they (barbel) weren't the only species but their presence is proving very influential. I could dig deeper, as its well known the middle Severn's bio mass is held up with barbel.

Fishing the Teme last winter during one of the cold spells, I opted to try for chub with bread and I struggled to get past the barbel.

It's a well accepted fact that if you add an alien species to an environment suitable to that species, it will thrive and in doing so push species already there. Please don't tell me you think by adding barbel to a river the numbers and bio mass of the species originally present will remain unchanged and the barbel added merely increase the overall bio mass of fish?

As I don't have those "well accepted facts" Colin, perhaps you can steer me in the right direction ?

lower Severn vast shoals of bream seem to thrive and some cracking roach , the Ribble has a thriving roach population too, so I think your statement is just stretching the mark............. quite a bit.

I would suggest that different environments in all your highlighted rivers support separate populations of species, as one would expect!
Perhaps just not in your swim!

Bob Hornegold · Nov 25, 2011

Fred,

Are you saying it was correct to stock Barbel into Rivers that previously held No Barbel ?

And as a result those Barbel were caught for the pleasure of anglers ?

If that is what you believe, then the stocking of Barbel in Still Waters is for the same reason, the pleasure it gives to Anglers

Yes, they do not bred in still waters, but they have to be reguarded as a Crop, much the same as many crops bred by man over the years that are infertile.

And those Crops are usually for Food or Mans pleasure ?

I mean, we are talking FISH here, not Human Beings !!

Bob

gazguildford · Nov 25, 2011

stocking of fish in non natural circumstances is like pet owining no pet in the world has asked to be kept at your house (even if they do love it like my soppy mutt seems too)

some people like the challenge of the wild rivers others like a day on a commercial i however like both and as long as the fish are healthy then i will continue to fish in these places...

i wont say stocking in unatural situations is wrong or right because ppl will always disagree i cant see the harm in stocking barbel into a section of river where they dont tend to be, as surely after time the fish will just move on to a spot where they do want to be?

i do feel that stocking should be done with great care and many factors should be involved such as enviroment and will it give nature a helping hand but im not a scientist or biologist whatever u want to call it ill leave that to the so called experts

cracking bag of barbel!

Well-known member

Moaning Marlow Meldrew

Banned

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Banned

Well-known member

Well-known member

Banned

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Active member

Banned

Well-known member

Well-known member

Banned

Well-known member

Well-known member