Ribble Barbel Research

Ok Guys here’s your chance to help me do some research on the Ribble Barbel. What I’m proposing to do is, to build a profile of the stock dynamics of the river.

Why am I doing it, and for whom?

I am carrying it out purely for my own curiosity as an ecologist, and because I’m getting a bit rusty with my research and data analysis skills and I also believe that we can all learn something from it.

Where will the information be available and to whom?

It is my intentions to publish this information on this site in the form of a scientific paper/article. (It is my intention to make the paper as user friendly as possible for Ribble anglers to understand.) The paper will then be available to anyone who then wishes to look at it on this site.

When will it be available?

Hopefully by mid May at the latest.
It’ll give me something to do during the close season.

So how am I proposing to carry it out?

At the moment there are over three hundred reports on this site, this will form the basis of the bulk of the research data. It’s also interesting the way we report our catches on this site, which is, for confidential reasons, split into only two sections; above Ribchester and below it. However, it would be better for research purposes, if it had been split into three, including below Salmsbury. As this is not the case, I’ll have to make a judgement call on where I think the angler was fishing when he reported a particular catch. Unless of course, you wish to volunteer that information to me, privately in an e-mail.

If you do, I only wish you to confirm one of the three lengths e.g., Above Ribchester, below Ribchester or below Salmbury. I do not wish to know the precise stretch you were fishing, that is none of my business.

I know that many read this site but don’t for good reason report their catches. I would appeal to you if you have kept records of your catches over the last three years to e-mail me with the weight of the fish and which of the three areas you caught them from.

All information will be kept in the strictest confidence and destroyed after the weights and areas are entered on the data sets.
The bottom line on this one is, I’m putting my scientific reputation, my worth as an individual, and an angler on the line here, and I value that more than anything in the world.

From the cursory observations I’ve made so far, I think this research will throw up some very interesting information about the stock dynamics of the whole river, and from that, we can all learn something.

So come on don’t be shy let have the information ASAP.

sent you an e mail phil hope it helps look forward to seeing the results

Phil
The Environment Agency are running a Ribble Barbel Survey at the moment, which is contributing to a national survey on barbel growth rates in river and still water. It should also help us get a better picture of the population dynamics in the Ribble system.
It sounds like you might be interested. Drop me an email if you would like to get involved. Same applies to anyone.

martin.james@environment-agency.gov.uk

Cheers,
Martin

Martin , your email address doesnt work. I cut and pasted it from above but it just got returned.
Can you check it out or send me a mail as im interested in helping out.

jim

Phil,
Did you get my e-mail? as you probably know I am more interested in chub, but I will be glad to help out when I can.

Yes Baz
I'll e-mail you back when I've time.

Phil,
Report in this sat.21/2.edition of Lancs Evening Telegraph of a 14lb 1oz new river best. It apparently beats the old 14lb benchmark taken in march 2000.

Ian , sorry but theyve got that factually incorrect.
The fish of 14lb 1oz was featured in this weeks angling press (both of em) to mark halstead who already holds the current Ribble record at 14lb 7oz if memory serves me correctly.
I think neil mciver held the record before mark with a fish of 14lb 5 oz .
I stand to be corrected though.

jim

That sounds more realistic Jim.
Next few weeks should see the river getting even busier now!

Jim Ian could do you know which length under the above criteria.

You have PM Phil

Jim. Absolutely correct on the anglers names and the wieghts of the 14+ fish

What do you mean by below Samlesbury Phil. Strikes me it is a pretty broad definition in river terms. Especially when I would expect that a lot of fish may be caught AT Samlesbury anyway. You need to be more specific on boundaries I think. Do you mean below the weir?

Samlesbury was picked because its just down from the weir and most people know it. I could have said any of the stretches either side of the river, or as you point out below the weir, but for confidential reason I picked this place Mick.

If a report /email say Samlesbury I know it’s from below the weir. As I stated in the above post the Bulk of the data will come from the reports on this site and other emailed to me privately.

Most of the guys who post on this site I’ve met, and have been most helpful. As to how helpful, I’m not at liberty to say, as those are private correspondence and they’ll stay that way.

Mick, you may think they’re broad definitions but actually for what I’m carrying out they aren’t, and all will be revelled in time.

Saying that, if anybody reading this thread thinks it’s going to tell you precise locations of where fish are being caught from, your going to be very disappointed indeed. Because that not what it’s about at all, I can assure you of that!

I am not quite sure what you are getting at in the last post Phil? I have no interest in other peoples catches, if that is what you were saying. I am far more interested in protecting my own fishing if I am honest. For the purpose of anyone (me included)considering submitting reports I was seeking clarification of your boundaries as I thought they could be interpreted differently by different anglers, which wouldn't help the scientific accuracy of your report would it.

You state in another thread you have a hypothesis before collating all of this data, but don't mention what it is?

You state in another thread you have a hypothesis before collating all of this data, but don't mention what it is?

Yep I have, and it'll be in the report when it's finished.

The statement wasn't aimed at you, just making it clear to everybody it won’t put anybody on fish or stretches where there are fish, other than in the very broadest of terms, in case they were think it would.

It may appear to some that I’m being overly secretive but I can assure you I’m not.
I am however protecting the info supplied to me by both people I know, have met or have sent me. I gave them that commitment and I’m stick to it.

It’s now up to your good selves whether you want to do as others have done and supply me with info or not.

Thanks to all those who have, and you know who you are.

Any further discussion for me is now close on this subject and forum until I report the findings on here.

Apologies if anybody gets upset about that, but that’s the way it’s going to be.

I'm in total agreement in what you say Phil,
Good luck.

Sorry Phil but can't find the hypothesis in the thread I was referring to. You do state that you or doing it to prove or disprove a hypothesis but don't state what it is.

I don't think you are being over secretive at all, I would expect the levels of confidentiality you promise if I were to submit reports. I do however feel you are being a little unclear, you can be secretive without being cloak and dagger.

All I was seeking was clarification of the location of the boundary between above/below Samlesbury and above/below Ribchester. If I was to submit data then surely I would have to know which of your three river sections I was referring to. If I stated I caught a barbel above the weir no-one would be any the wiser as to the actual location. It could have come from Red Scar woods or Osbaldeston, hardly giving swims away is it! I just want to know that any data I supply will be used in an accurate scientific study, but as I don't know what the study is and the parameters appear deliberatly vague I am none the wiser.