Barbel in Nets

[Graham Elliott 1]

Surely the Barbel Society is the right place to work together with to update the existing code?

After all, it's the fish welfare that we should all strive together to improve, taking the best view and comments put forward. No time for ego trips here surely?

Bob, whatever the real reasons, teamwork will give the best results...that's what we want isn't it.

Regards the thorn called Hazelford - I have only fished there twice.

1/ the first time it looked like a rubbish tip, thoughtless anglers dumping cans, bottles and bags of waste.

2/ When I popped there last time and walked up to the section it was very much improved. It appeared it had been taken from the careless masses and returned to a water to be proud of.

Having met Bob briefly I found him to be an honest, thoughtful person, there is no doubt that barbel welfare is his prime motive.

I am proud to call Tony, Fred personal friends who I also respect. (not met Chris)

Enough of this now tripe guys.

Graham

 

[Matt Brown]

Graham,The BS is a great place to discuss this if you wish to target anglers within the BS, or the sort of angler that might join in future. Obviously it's purely up to the BS to work on the BS Handling Code.

If the issue needs to reach a wider audience (I think it does - it'll save more Barbel) then it should be dicussed elsewhere too.

I think there are people outside of the BS who have a lot to offer, but can't post on the BS forum.

I really want to get match anglers involved but I'm not sure they have computers yet! ;-)

 

[Bob Roberts]

Barbel welfare encompasses ALL anglers, including those who fish stillwaters (GRRR!). To restrict discussion to the Barbel Society site alone is to stifle wider discussion, to make it insular and to make it harder for the ultimate policy to gain wider acceptance.

Match anglers catch barbel. Pleasure anglers catch barbel. Fact. If you want a democratic outcome you must allow them to have a say, too. If we just create another dictat then it will not be embraced.

This is why I am battering on the door of the Society to take up the NFA's previous offer to discuss the issue. Why not listen to the experts on match fishing BEFORE committing to a new policy.

My article has been offered to the Society. A copy was sent to them before it was posted on here. They are more than welcome to use it but I feel that fruitful debate must take place between BS members and non-members alike.

That means, if the mountain won't come to Mohammed...

Prominent members of the Society have refused to discuss the issues on here. Fine. I'm cool with that providing they discuss it on their own site and they take on board some of the very good suggestions that have/ will be made on this and other sites.

Angling needs a unified barbel care policy more today than ever before. I would like to see the BS as champions of that policy.

Frankly it would be so much easier to produce a Fishing Magic policy and cut out a lot of the huffing and puffing of certain luddites but I don't want to do that. I have no wish to steal the Society's thunder, I just want them to get off the fence and act.

Positively.

And quickly.

Is that too much to ask?

 

[Nigel Connor(ACA ,SAA)]

Can someone tell me in simple terms what is the problem with an article appearing on this website which sets outs some basic priciples of barbel care? If people want to call it a code or good practice guide then thats up to them.

The noddies who routinely mistreat fish aren't going to take much notice of the "political" fineries of which group has published a code as by and large they will ignore it anyway even if it ever comes to their attention.Dont forget these are the numpties who leave litter and light fires on the bank.Get real!The more publicity from whatever source that is given to promoting fish welfare the better.Its not about preserving little empires sureley?

All this huffing and puffing about not offending this group or that group quite frankly is irrelevant to the main fish welfare issue.

Matt is right.The BS code is for the BS.But there is no reason why other forums cant put the issues into the public domain.

The keepnet issue cant be too hard to get round can it?.Isn't the approach simply to say that in non-match situations the retention of barbel in keepnets is something an angler should consider not doing apart from in circumstances of short term retention of individual fish for recovery purposes.If however barbel are to be retained then the keepnet should be of a certain size/mesh typa and should be staked out in a correct fashion.

A code should be a guide to good practice not a wish list of good practice.There must always be recogniton that some anglers wont adopt it in full but even if some of it is adopted then thats surely a positive.

 

[Tom Rigby 2]

Bob Robert?s ?Mr Angry? series has been the best bit of angling journalism we?ve seen for a very long time.

It was challenging and thought-provoking. A piece of writing that anglers actually talked about and discussed rather than just read and discarded. It had an impact way beyond the people who look in on Fishing Magic.

The problem Bob has faced is that if you have something interesting to say then you are bound to upset somebody. In this case Bob particularly upset an officer of the Barbel Society and a little clique of people involved in the syndication of a stretch of the Trent.

The fact that the syndicate group respond to Bob in the way they have done on this thread was predictable and tells you all you need to know about them. That a leading BS officer should take very public offence at some mild mannered argumentation and leg-pulling is a little bit more worrying. But what is more serious is the inability of the BS leadership to take up Bob?s initiative or engage in any kind of rational dialogue on the points he has made.

 

[Nigel Connor(ACA ,SAA)]

I am coming to the conclusion there is a section of the fishing community who simply use these forums to make a name for themselves as "players". They love to see their names in lights and to be seen to be involved in arguments and rifts because it somehow makes them feel important and a cut above the anonymous anglers who simply want to go fishing to ease the pressures of their everyday lives not see those pressures reproduced.

I for one am growing very weary of it all.The internet is a wonderful tool but when it becomes simply the means to allow the public playing out of petty slights and jealousies, and therefore further fueling them, then I can quite live without it.

Let's be constructive , let's be helpful, lets be supportive.If you cant be then DONT POST!

 

[Tony Rocca]

Tom,
What a suprise, you have an ally Bob, smashing.

 

[Graham Elliott 1]

Yes Matt. The best idea is to take various views from ALL angling spheres and then consolidate them.

That is what the Barbel Society is there for. It would be a bit short sighted if another organisation put forward a Code for Barbel handling etc. that was not acceptable to the Barbel Society.

I think it's good that FM posters have some opinions to add.

No one should get too upset however if their "personal" views are not seen as being wholly accepted and adopted verbatim.

The fact is some people do their best to be disruptive and work against the Society at every opportunity. Bob's new friend is one of them.

Graham

 

[Nigel Connor(ACA ,SAA)]

Why should the Barbel Society and its members be the sole arbiters of good handling practice?

 

[Fred Bonney]

I can't see that anybody has said that Nigel?

 

[Tony Rocca]

Nope, they havnt.

 

[Nigel Connor(ACA ,SAA)]

Fred, I think Graham implied that above
when he said that it was the job of the BS to consolidate the views of other angling spheres.

I go back to my above post when I questioned what was wrong with FM having an article setting out good handling practice? Would the BS have problems with that even if it was to differ from their code on for example the keepnet issue?

 

[GrahamM]

This Handling Code is becoming more of a debate about who should author it rather than what is best for the barbel.

I don't care who authors it providing the conclusion we reach is the best possible conclusion for the fish.

If it's important to some people that the code is seen to be authored by the BS then that's fine by me.

But it should be fine by every barbel angler on the planet that the code is the best we can possibly come up with, and that means the more barbel anglers who constructively contribute to the debate the better the chance of it being the best code there is.

And that means opening up the debate to a wider audience than BS members only.

Why should that rankle some people, unless there IS some truth in that much used word, 'elitism'?

 

[Tom Rigby 2]

Fred,

Nobody would say anything so crass. But what Graham Elliot said just above : "It would be a bit short sighted if another organisation put forward a Code for Barbel handling etc. that was not acceptable to the Barbel Society." certainly implies a right to a veto.


Graham (Elliot),
Will you ever bury the hatchet?
I quite like the BS and know the officers work hard etc etc . Just don't agree with some of the daft petty rules policies like banning session fishing. If you want proof have a look at my comment on this thread.

http://seatroutfishing.proboards34.com/index.cgi?board=advice&action=display&thread=1131824654

 

[Tony Rocca]

"like banning session fishing"

What! Please explain Tom, or doesnt it belong here, dont want to go off the point again now do we.

 

[Fred Bonney]

It doesn't in my book,Tom.
It implies to me that another organisation should consult with the Barbel Society,if preparing a code for the handling of Barbel.

 

[Fred Bonney]

Good positive post Tom.(on the Sea Trout site)

 

[Tom Rigby 2]

Fred,

... and that it would be 'short sighted' to go ahead with one not acceptable to the BS. Now that is asking for a veto to all intents and purposes. Diplomatically put, but a veto nonetheless.

The point is that Bob has proposed a code that isn't just acceptable to the BS, but to other organisations including those with very different cultures to the BS.

When the BS clearly doesn't speak for all barbel anglers it is daft to posture as if it does. But that is the tone adopted by some BS ers.

 

[Tom Rigby 2]

Fred, posted when you posted. Cheers.
Tom

 

[Tony Rocca]

Hey Tom,
You not speaking to me then, I asked a question