cracking bag of barbel!

[cg74]

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!

Fred, I really have no interest in providing you with the "well accepted facts" so I'll leave you happily ignorant, either that or do your own digging. Maybe try the Severn Rivers Trust; they're asking where have all the silver fish gone?

You mentioned the lower Severn's vast shoals of bream. Anyone who has fished there can tell you about them, that's because of the nature of that part of river lends itself to bream being the dominant species and the further down the river the more edged out the barbel become.
Conversely, heading up river into the middle reaches; Bewdley to Bridgnorth, then barbel are totally dominant, to the extent it's nigh on impossible to get a good days sport with anything else. The upper Severn is widely known as a game/chub/silver dominated river.

Yes, if what I've stated is correct (which you'll probably argue the toss about) that means the middle Severn offers a habitat best suited to barbel but barbel are an alien invasive species to that river.

 

[Damian Kimmins]

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

Without getting too personal, Simon, given your profession, I too would find it difficult to argue other you have. To suggest the barbel's adaptations for living life in running water do not appear to be large part of it's physiology is really symptomatic of your position.
The disproportionate size of the barbel's fins along with the muscle types responsible for it's burst of speed have little to do with feeding on the bed of a river. Two things which, playing mother nature as we are, and given an ability to reproduce, will change. Why do we see ourselves in the position that we can do these things? We are all brothers and sisters of the animal kingdom, must we forget our common ancestry. What might have become of us if, on our evolutionary journey, some idiot thought it his given right to change that path?
And the monkey analogy? It works if you have monkeys fed fruit and nuts by the hand of man!


Life would be that much easier if we learnt to accept nature for what it is rather than think it is for nature to accept us!

Damian

 

[Simon K]

Without getting too personal, Simon, given your profession, I too would find it difficult to argue other you have. To suggest the barbel's adaptations for living life in running water do not appear to be large part of it's physiology is really symptomatic of your position.
The disproportionate size of the barbel's fins along with the muscle types responsible for it's burst of speed have little to do with feeding on the bed of a river. Two things which, playing mother nature as we are, and given an ability to reproduce, will change. Why do we see ourselves in the position that we can do these things? We are all brothers and sisters of the animal kingdom, must we forget our common ancestry. What might have become of us if, on our evolutionary journey, some idiot thought it his given right to change that path?
And the monkey analogy? It works if you have monkeys fed fruit and nuts by the hand of man!


Life would be that much easier if we learnt to accept nature for what it is rather than think it is for nature to accept us!

Damian

Damian, you and I don't get personal, we're above that.

You should also know that any attempted use of alleged physiological adaptations perceived as "riverine", rather than stillwater, are, in evolutionary terms, pure bunkum taken on their own.
If that were the only driver, they'd be spotted like trout, to conceal themselves over gravel. They're not.

Animals are driven to their physiological make-up as much (if not more) by sexual preference for particular attributes as opposed to survival traits.
If we waited another millennia or two, we could easily see barbel with 12inch high dorsal spines as a result of this process and it would have nothing to do with their environment.

It's the same fallacy that endows the myth that chameleons change colour to camouflage themselves, which is pure urban myth. the colour changing is so they can communicate to each other on a basic level.

The monkey analogy doesn't take into account that barbel in stillwaters will find the same invertebrate food sources without anglers bait, whereas the monkeys wouldn't, they'd starve.

And before any "barbel liberationists" butt in, we're talking pure terms here, not how big or small, muddy or clear, highly or lowly stocked any particular venue is. :wh

 

[Fred Bonney]

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

Bob, I think you will see my first response to Colin stated my agreement with his view on stocking.

---------- Post added at 21:15 ---------- Previous post was at 21:03 ----------

Fred, I really have no interest in providing you with the "well accepted facts" so I'll leave you happily ignorant, either that or do your own digging. Maybe try the Severn Rivers Trust; they're asking where have all the silver fish gone?

You mentioned the lower Severn's vast shoals of bream. Anyone who has fished there can tell you about them, that's because of the nature of that part of river lends itself to bream being the dominant species and the further down the river the more edged out the barbel become.
Conversely, heading up river into the middle reaches; Bewdley to Bridgnorth, then barbel are totally dominant, to the extent it's nigh on impossible to get a good days sport with anything else. The upper Severn is widely known as a game/chub/silver dominated river.

Yes, if what I've stated is correct (which you'll probably argue the toss about) that means the middle Severn offers a habitat best suited to barbel but barbel are an alien invasive species to that river.

Colin,the only thing I would argue the toss about is your all covering view, but I bow to your superior knowledge on the subject of the the English river environment !

 

[Damian Kimmins]

Sexual preferences for particular attributes - read survival traits. And following; any abnormally high dorsal fin will remain a variation under nature for the life of the individual that owns it, because unless it carries with it a distinct advantage it will not be seen as having any particular attractiveness.
Are you a creationist, Simon?

 

[chub_on_the_block]

Barbel are a riverine fish, adapted for survival in river environments. They are adapted to hold position in the face of strong currents as large strong fish. In typical swims it would be difficult for a diver to hold position under the weight of water and flow velocity. In lakes or ponds the habitat is wholly unsuitable and i do not think they should be stocked in such waters. They are poor rather clumsy swimmers in that context, as their swim bladders do not provide the neutral buoyancy found in most mid-water coarse fish or even other bottom feeders like bream. They are associated with sand or gravel substrates. Absence of mottling coloration does not disprove this - think of salmon. As juveniles up to about 5cm or so they can or do have blotching. I have no problem with them being stocked in suitable river environments, unless to do so would impact valuable characteristics of the ecosystem. I would have similar concerns over the stocking of catfish, rainbow trout, zander or other alien species if we are trying to preserve natural environments, their fisheries and wildlife. This might apply in SSSI rivers for example.

 

[Simon K]

Sexual preferences for particular attributes - read survival traits. And following; any abnormally high dorsal fin will remain a variation under nature for the life of the individual that owns it, because unless it carries with it a distinct advantage it will not be seen as having any particular attractiveness.
Are you a creationist, Simon?

Whoa there..................how do you explain a Lyre Bird's tail as a survival trait? It's the survival of the gene, not the individual.

Or a Bower Bird's bower?

Male Birds of Paradise?

Or any of a host of other amplified male adornments brought on through female sexual preference through evolution?
How do these traits enable survival of the individual animal? It's the genes.

If a higher dorsal fin enables male barbel to gain greater access to females at spawning, those genes will pass on and become progressively amplified, much as females can show active preference for particular traits that have no positive correlation to the animals general survival prospects.

A higher dorsal fin might enable greater manoeuvrability and then get selected purely on the strength of the act of spawning, not survival. As any number of species show, the adornment (the gene for it) can eventually outweigh it's physical usefulness.
Why else would male Narwhal have those "unicorn"-like horns? They have no practical survival function.

I thought you'd read The Blind Watchmaker et al?

 

[cg74]

Colin,the only thing I would argue the toss about is your all covering view, but I bow to your superior knowledge on the subject of the the English river environment !

Fred, to put it in a simplistic way:
If you have an established riverine ecosystem. It should have reached a balance with its resident fish stocks and unless there is a imbalance with the predator numbers, the governing factor to the rivers sustaining capability is the food availabilty.
So if you add a new species into the equation; it must edge another species out and in the case of barbel, it competes most directly with roach. So roach numbers drop.
That said it is possible for a reasonable head of both roach and barbel to reside together, as demonstrated on the Hamps Avon and Dorset Stour up until about a decade ago.

But as is evident on the middle reaches of the Severn; barbel certainly rule the roost. Which to me is wrong!

 

[chub_on_the_block]

Fred, to put it in a simplistic way:
If you have an established riverine ecosystem. It should have reached a balance with its resident fish stocks and unless there is a imbalance with the predator numbers, the governing factor to the rivers sustaining capability is the food availabilty.
So if you add a new species into the equation; it must edge another species out and in the case of barbel, it competes most directly with roach. So roach numbers drop.
That said it is possible for a reasonable head of both roach and barbel to reside together, as demonstrated on the Hamps Avon and Dorset Stour up until about a decade ago.

But as is evident on the middle reaches of the Severn; barbel certainly rule the roost. Which to me is wrong!

Great post cg. The only part i would disagree with is that it is wrong for barbel to rule the roost. In the UK context, this is pretty rare. On that basis is it such a bad thing that one reach of the Severn is like this? If i lived anywhere near i would be quite hapy with the chance to bag up on the barbel?

 

[sam vimes]

On that basis is it such a bad thing that one reach of the Severn is like this? If i lived anywhere near i would be quite hapy with the chance to bag up on the barbel?

But surely that's the rub? As a rule barbel anglers are happy to castigate the stocking of barbel into an "alien" stillwater environment. However, most aren't remotely concerned about them being stocked into rivers where they don't occur naturally. Strikes me that we can't really have it both ways.

 

[chub_on_the_block]

I am not coming at this as a barbel "specialist". I certainly dont have a problem with barbel being stocked in suitable rivers where they might naturally be expected to occur, once previously occurred, or might conceivably be expected to occur, through natural colonisation over time. As they are a resident UK species they certainly have more in their favour than catfish, rainbow trout etc.

But as for stillwaters..well we certainly wouldnt naturally expect to find the likes of grayling, barbel, brown trout, salmon, dace or chub in such places. I have no interest in such "artificial" fisheries, and wouldnt get much out of catching F1s, goldfish, Orfe, Ide, or Koi either except perhaps as a one-off event to tick a few boxes. But i know i a lot of anglers dont share this view - i guess i must be a traditionalist.

 

[sam vimes]

I am not coming at this as a barbel "specialist". I certainly dont have a problem with barbel being stocked in suitable rivers where they might naturally be expected to occur, once previously occurred, or might conceivably be expected to occur, through natural colonisation over time. As they are a resident UK species they certainly have more in their favour than catfish, rainbow trout etc. But as for stillwaters..well we certainly wouldnt expect to find the likes of grayling, barbel, brown trout, salmon, dace or chub in such places. I have no intetest in such "artificial" fisheries, and wouldnt get much out of catching F1s, goldfish, Orfe, Ide, or Koi either except perhaps as a one-off event to tick a few boxes.

I don't particularly disagree. The snag being that barbel don't fall into any of the above categories on many of the rivers (Severn, Ribble etc etc) where they now exist due to artificial stocking, legal and illegal.

 

[chub_on_the_block]

I don't particularly disagree. The snag being that barbel don't fall into any of the above categories on many of the rivers (Severn, Ribble etc etc) where they now exist due to artificial stocking, legal and illegal.

The Severn and Ribble are eminently suitable rivers - more so than my local Ivel for example, due to its small size and susceptibility to otters and drought etc in a natural situation. I would have just as much of a grudge against the stocking of rainbows into the Ribble and the past removal of coarse fish and grayling by fluff chuckers/river boards. Over time as this river has become more enriched by sewage effluents etc what we have now is probably a better or more "sustainable" situation. It was only by geographic chance and an ice age that barbel were not naturally present in the Ribble and Severn, and that only applies for the last 10,000 years. They probably had freshwater dolphins in them if you went back far enough.

 

[Fred Bonney]

Your assumptions,which is all they are Colin, seem to accept that all of those rivers are or were, in prime order,which of course ,they aren't or weren't!

 

[smithdave]

I feel dirty for this, but I almost agree with Colin Gordon !
But don't forget the chub or poor old dace

 

[Lord Paul of Sheffield]

Barbel wars 6 or is it 7

well barbel scrap 1054

 

[sam vimes]

Barbel wars 6 or is it 7

well barbel scrap 1054

Some folks see a lot more than I see. Barbel minor disagreement at best.

 

[laguna]

Barbel and chub in still waters, reminds me of battery hens being cooped up all their lives... what a miserable existence - give me "free range" anytime!

 

[richiekelly]

It doesnt really matter if barbel are indiginous to a river that has had them stocked or not as the rivers that they have been stocked into are not natural either, they have all been messed about with by man some more than others.

what is natural is the ability to breed in the environment that you live in, some river fish put into a still water environment are still able to do this, barbel are not and that cant be right.

i cannot see how a barbel stocked into a still water can be as fit as a river fish as all they need do all day is wander about feeding on anglers freebies, could this lead to a barbel of record proportions being grown on in a still water?

 

[Fred Bonney]

It doesnt really matter if barbel are indiginous to a river that has had them stocked or not as the rivers that they have been stocked into are not natural either, they have all been messed about with by man some more than others.

what is natural is the ability to breed in the environment that you live in, some river fish put into a still water environment are still able to do this, barbel are not and that cant be right.

i cannot see how a barbel stocked into a still water can be as fit as a river fish as all they need do all day is wander about feeding on anglers freebies, could this lead to a barbel of record proportions being grown on in a still water?

It could possibly, but my imagination leads me to think I would hate to see the shape of it!