B
Big Swordsy :O)
Guest
Sorry off thread!
B
Big Swordsy :O)
Guest
Back on thread
I think we are making progress
I think we are making progress
B
Big Swordsy :O)
Guest
glen livet
good shit!
:O)
good shit!
:O)
Simon Kelshaw
New member
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2005
- Messages
- 0
- Reaction score
- 0
Stuart, yes i think we a both saying the same thing, Baz, cheers for the comments.
Woody, i agree we reason too much, I think by doing what we think is right for a fish, it helps us balance out the fact we are pulling a creature from the water with hook
Andy S, there is a 3rd question for the list
3) should barbel be retained in a multiple catch situation, i.e. a match
I really think the only people that can answer all those questions are the scientists, sadly no one seems to want to fund this, even the BS havent done any research (or i cant see any on there site) in 10 years!
even the 100 fish analogy you give with shed some light on it, anyone fancy the challenge?
if its not proven one way or the other, then its simply fishermens tales or urban myth, and the argument rumbles on.
Woody, i agree we reason too much, I think by doing what we think is right for a fish, it helps us balance out the fact we are pulling a creature from the water with hook
Andy S, there is a 3rd question for the list
3) should barbel be retained in a multiple catch situation, i.e. a match
I really think the only people that can answer all those questions are the scientists, sadly no one seems to want to fund this, even the BS havent done any research (or i cant see any on there site) in 10 years!
even the 100 fish analogy you give with shed some light on it, anyone fancy the challenge?
if its not proven one way or the other, then its simply fishermens tales or urban myth, and the argument rumbles on.
stuart clough
New member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2004
- Messages
- 0
- Reaction score
- 0
Andy S, Simon,
I think the question of insufficient oxygen is due to incorrect positioning of the keepnet (not in the flow), or from overcrowding, rather than due to the keepnet per se. Now it may be that those who write guidelines figure that even if a long winded explanation on the appropriate positioning of a keepnet were provided, some anglers would still get it wrong, and some barbel would still be at risk. I can certainly see how a basic stance against keepnets could follow this logic. Indeed it must be tempting to set any guideline to account for the lowest common denominator. I think the way forward is for clear explanations of the reasoning behind guidelines to be given, as this would reduce the opportunity for misinterpretation or any suspicion about the underlying political motives.
I think the question of insufficient oxygen is due to incorrect positioning of the keepnet (not in the flow), or from overcrowding, rather than due to the keepnet per se. Now it may be that those who write guidelines figure that even if a long winded explanation on the appropriate positioning of a keepnet were provided, some anglers would still get it wrong, and some barbel would still be at risk. I can certainly see how a basic stance against keepnets could follow this logic. Indeed it must be tempting to set any guideline to account for the lowest common denominator. I think the way forward is for clear explanations of the reasoning behind guidelines to be given, as this would reduce the opportunity for misinterpretation or any suspicion about the underlying political motives.
Bob Roberts
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2002
- Messages
- 2,334
- Reaction score
- 8
Can I raise a simple question here?
Forgive me if it sounds naive, but is there a difference between the oxygen levels on the outside of a bend and that in the steadier water on the inside?
I know that we as humans only extract a tiny percentage of the oxygen from the air we inhale. Many fish happily avoid fast water and seek out steadier areas. Do they suffer from a lack of oxygen?
I can see that a fish held in fast flowing water has more water passing over its gills/head, thus more oxygen passes by it, but does this mean it automatically extracts more oxygen each time it breathes?
Please treat these questions seriously.
The goldfish in my garden pond, indeed those living in a fish tank, appear to get enough oxygen with no flow whatsoever.
Bearing in mind that water by its very nature consists of two parts hydrogen to one part oxygen and if you remove one or the other it is no longer water, hell I'm confusing myself now.
I can see that an overcrowded, sealed room full of people can lead to problems, but could you surround the same number of people in the same space with netting and cause suffocation?
This isn't a defence of keenets, it's a case of trying to understand the logic behind the situation and how we then make appropriate changes to erradicate the actual risks involved.
I've caught barbel from the Great Ouse in swims that barely move yet the barbel appear fine in them. Swims with the same pace on the Trent would only contain bream (sometimes), perch and pike, plus fry of course. Stillwater barbel don't even have an option, they always live in water without flow.
Forgive me if it sounds naive, but is there a difference between the oxygen levels on the outside of a bend and that in the steadier water on the inside?
I know that we as humans only extract a tiny percentage of the oxygen from the air we inhale. Many fish happily avoid fast water and seek out steadier areas. Do they suffer from a lack of oxygen?
I can see that a fish held in fast flowing water has more water passing over its gills/head, thus more oxygen passes by it, but does this mean it automatically extracts more oxygen each time it breathes?
Please treat these questions seriously.
The goldfish in my garden pond, indeed those living in a fish tank, appear to get enough oxygen with no flow whatsoever.
Bearing in mind that water by its very nature consists of two parts hydrogen to one part oxygen and if you remove one or the other it is no longer water, hell I'm confusing myself now.
I can see that an overcrowded, sealed room full of people can lead to problems, but could you surround the same number of people in the same space with netting and cause suffocation?
This isn't a defence of keenets, it's a case of trying to understand the logic behind the situation and how we then make appropriate changes to erradicate the actual risks involved.
I've caught barbel from the Great Ouse in swims that barely move yet the barbel appear fine in them. Swims with the same pace on the Trent would only contain bream (sometimes), perch and pike, plus fry of course. Stillwater barbel don't even have an option, they always live in water without flow.
D
David Bumblebee
Guest
Bob,
The oxygen that fish breathe is not the oxygen bound up in the water molecules; to break that bond takes more than fishes' gills - electric current for example. It is dissolved oxygen that matters, and this gets into the water through surface contact with air and that transpired by water plants through photosynthesis. The amount that can be dissolved varies according to the temperature, the warmer the water the less dissolved oxygen. Features like broken water, weirs and waterfalls are very good at oxygenating water, hence aerators that disturb the water or pump air through it.
So in a fastish river with weirs even the slack water will get mixed with the faster water and will be oxygenated. But there can be other demands on the oxygen from bacteria (or algae and plants at night).
With a fish like barbel its oxygen demands depend on what its being doing so at rest this is less, there will also be more demand if the temperature is higher as its metabolism is higher to digest food etc. So warm water is a double whammy; less dissolved oxygen and higher needs.
The oxygen that fish breathe is not the oxygen bound up in the water molecules; to break that bond takes more than fishes' gills - electric current for example. It is dissolved oxygen that matters, and this gets into the water through surface contact with air and that transpired by water plants through photosynthesis. The amount that can be dissolved varies according to the temperature, the warmer the water the less dissolved oxygen. Features like broken water, weirs and waterfalls are very good at oxygenating water, hence aerators that disturb the water or pump air through it.
So in a fastish river with weirs even the slack water will get mixed with the faster water and will be oxygenated. But there can be other demands on the oxygen from bacteria (or algae and plants at night).
With a fish like barbel its oxygen demands depend on what its being doing so at rest this is less, there will also be more demand if the temperature is higher as its metabolism is higher to digest food etc. So warm water is a double whammy; less dissolved oxygen and higher needs.
Matt Brown
Member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2005
- Messages
- 8
- Reaction score
- 0
Bob, maybe in SHALLOW areas without flow the heat might lower the oxygen content being reduced in the same way that happens in stillwaters.
I would guess that flowing water would mix and replenish the Oxygen quicker.
Of course I'm assuming that Oxygen doesn't transfer through water very well in the same way that heat doesn't. Remember the experiment in school where you had a test tube with boiling water at one end and an ice cube at the other?
Is this last assumption true?
I would guess that flowing water would mix and replenish the Oxygen quicker.
Of course I'm assuming that Oxygen doesn't transfer through water very well in the same way that heat doesn't. Remember the experiment in school where you had a test tube with boiling water at one end and an ice cube at the other?
Is this last assumption true?
Stuart your right about their being a 3rd question of should we be keeping multiple barbel in a single keepnet. This question I think would be fairly easy to resolve scientifically: take 10 anglers and go out and catch barbel, retaining the fish captured in a few keepnets. The keepnets should be pegged out in varying degrees of flow and depth. Each net should have a monitor who records barbel behaviour within the net over time. He/she could use an underwater camera on a stick to record events for later analysis. This should be carried out at various times throughout the year and on different rivers recording water temp/o2 levels and any other relevant stats. Obviously barbel wellfare would be of upmost priority so the keepnets should not be too far from the furthest angler. Both Match and Barbel groups should be involved in this kind of experiment with everybody remaining as impartial as possible.
If done properly to me this would answer many questions. The net monitors could also record\film any barbel that get their fins caught in the nets. On release of the fish you could also have a team of people with nets in the river looking for signs of barbel going belly up, this would also be recorded. Finally as a control you could have further keepnets, again with monitors holding non-barbel species such as chub \ roach etc... then the barbel could be directly compared to the other species to see if indeed they do require special treatment. The above tests would need repeating several times to even begin to build up any evidence for/against the use of keepnets.
OK its not that easy to organise, it will need funding and it will take some time BUT it will provide solid concrete scientific answers, which is what we need in order to create a barbel handling code. It may well transpire that the current code is pretty much spot on then again it may show it requires amending. At least we'll all know how barbel really behave in keepnets and also whether they do require special treatment.
Stuart/Bob again on the o2 levels thing the above test would shed some light on this. Maybe its a case of conditioning: ie because barbel in stillwater are used to lower levels of o2 passing over their gills maybe they're just more adapted to it. A similar human comparison would be humans that live at high altitude in the Himalayas etc.. they have no trouble breathing with lower levels of o2 yet if you put a normal altitudinal, (??is that a word), person up their they would start gasping until they had aclimbatised.
If done properly to me this would answer many questions. The net monitors could also record\film any barbel that get their fins caught in the nets. On release of the fish you could also have a team of people with nets in the river looking for signs of barbel going belly up, this would also be recorded. Finally as a control you could have further keepnets, again with monitors holding non-barbel species such as chub \ roach etc... then the barbel could be directly compared to the other species to see if indeed they do require special treatment. The above tests would need repeating several times to even begin to build up any evidence for/against the use of keepnets.
OK its not that easy to organise, it will need funding and it will take some time BUT it will provide solid concrete scientific answers, which is what we need in order to create a barbel handling code. It may well transpire that the current code is pretty much spot on then again it may show it requires amending. At least we'll all know how barbel really behave in keepnets and also whether they do require special treatment.
Stuart/Bob again on the o2 levels thing the above test would shed some light on this. Maybe its a case of conditioning: ie because barbel in stillwater are used to lower levels of o2 passing over their gills maybe they're just more adapted to it. A similar human comparison would be humans that live at high altitude in the Himalayas etc.. they have no trouble breathing with lower levels of o2 yet if you put a normal altitudinal, (??is that a word), person up their they would start gasping until they had aclimbatised.
Bob Roberts
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2002
- Messages
- 2,334
- Reaction score
- 8
Thanks for those prompt replies.
With regard to slack swims that might be de-oxygenated then, the use of a landing net for retention whilst a fish recovers would surely be just as bad as a keepnet?
If there are areas of barbel rivers that are dangerously depleted of oxygen, such that to use a keepnet for half an hour would prove detrimental to a fishes chance of recovering, how long would you dare risk holding a fish there in a landing net?
With regard to slack swims that might be de-oxygenated then, the use of a landing net for retention whilst a fish recovers would surely be just as bad as a keepnet?
If there are areas of barbel rivers that are dangerously depleted of oxygen, such that to use a keepnet for half an hour would prove detrimental to a fishes chance of recovering, how long would you dare risk holding a fish there in a landing net?
Simon Kelshaw
New member
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2005
- Messages
- 0
- Reaction score
- 0
micro pourous keepnets with mobile aerators attached D
thats the answer.
I suppose the diffence with keepnets and landing nets (i assume as you are not letting go of the handle?) you can swish the landing net about, therefore creating your own mini weir pool, its something ive done with trout in the past in still waters.
I still think we are all posting on what we belive is correct or what has been passed on to us by what other anglers believe is best practice, without any proof.
thats the answer.I suppose the diffence with keepnets and landing nets (i assume as you are not letting go of the handle?) you can swish the landing net about, therefore creating your own mini weir pool, its something ive done with trout in the past in still waters.
I still think we are all posting on what we belive is correct or what has been passed on to us by what other anglers believe is best practice, without any proof.
L
Les Clark
Guest
Isn`t this all going over the top rather ?
I personally would`nt use a keepnet just for the sake of trophy shot at the end of a session ,but to nurse a fish to recover then I would ,but would stay with the fish untill deemed safe to release.
Then it is in lap of the god`s ,failing that pack up fishing and take up golf .
I personally would`nt use a keepnet just for the sake of trophy shot at the end of a session ,but to nurse a fish to recover then I would ,but would stay with the fish untill deemed safe to release.
Then it is in lap of the god`s ,failing that pack up fishing and take up golf .
I think Graham has nailed the topic well and truly!
Surely this is all a matter of what is relatively possible depending on such criteria as: Swim location and available waterdepth?
In a swim where it is not possible to hold the fish head to stream until it has sufficiently recovered to swim off, then a landing net or a keepnet is better than nothing!
Think of the alternative, a belly-up decent Barbel floating out of your reach - not something any angler would want to see.
I am unconvinced that any amount of research, trials etc., would provide any hard and firm evidence other than to say that; given the perfect location, on a given perfect day, with perfect flow and oxygen levels that a keepnet is better than a landing net.
I would venture to suggest that there is not a regular contributor to this thread, or this site, who is not able to take the best possible precautions to ensure the long lasting health of any Barbel after capture. This prompts me to wonder if we are trying here to legislate, regulate or give guidelines to anglers who quite simply shouldn't be allowed to fish for Barbel in the first place.
There is not, and probably cannot ever be, one answer that will fit all situations.
Common sense tempered with our own experience is the best that we can hope for!
Surely this is all a matter of what is relatively possible depending on such criteria as: Swim location and available waterdepth?
In a swim where it is not possible to hold the fish head to stream until it has sufficiently recovered to swim off, then a landing net or a keepnet is better than nothing!
Think of the alternative, a belly-up decent Barbel floating out of your reach - not something any angler would want to see.
I am unconvinced that any amount of research, trials etc., would provide any hard and firm evidence other than to say that; given the perfect location, on a given perfect day, with perfect flow and oxygen levels that a keepnet is better than a landing net.
I would venture to suggest that there is not a regular contributor to this thread, or this site, who is not able to take the best possible precautions to ensure the long lasting health of any Barbel after capture. This prompts me to wonder if we are trying here to legislate, regulate or give guidelines to anglers who quite simply shouldn't be allowed to fish for Barbel in the first place.
There is not, and probably cannot ever be, one answer that will fit all situations.
Common sense tempered with our own experience is the best that we can hope for!
F
Fred Bonney
Guest
Quite right Peter,education through the club's and angling press,primarily on the use or not for a keepnet, is the way forward.
Unfortunately, not everybody who fishes has common sense, when it comes to the handling of fish.
Unfortunately, not everybody who fishes has common sense, when it comes to the handling of fish.
L
Les Clark
Guest
In that case Fred , they should`nt be fishing should they ?
And while we are talking about common sense or not ,are the use of unhooking mats being used 100% or is it less than that ?
To me ,just has important to the recovery of all fish .
And while we are talking about common sense or not ,are the use of unhooking mats being used 100% or is it less than that ?
To me ,just has important to the recovery of all fish .
Les,
Whenever I am fishing I set my stall out as follows:
Close to my swim I try to find an area of shade where my unhhoking mat goes, together with my scales, weighing net and a spare bait box of water. I zero the scales and leave everythig there for when I need to weigh a fish. My camera is put there as well.
I think one of the big problems comes from people (fishing alone) being unprepared and then having to place the fish in a precarious position whilst they get their weighing and camera gear ready.
To me this is simple common sense, and lets be honest, it takes about 3 minutes to get everything ready before you start fishing.
Maybe it is the fact that having been a match angler I want everything to hand where I need it, when I need it
Whenever I am fishing I set my stall out as follows:
Close to my swim I try to find an area of shade where my unhhoking mat goes, together with my scales, weighing net and a spare bait box of water. I zero the scales and leave everythig there for when I need to weigh a fish. My camera is put there as well.
I think one of the big problems comes from people (fishing alone) being unprepared and then having to place the fish in a precarious position whilst they get their weighing and camera gear ready.
To me this is simple common sense, and lets be honest, it takes about 3 minutes to get everything ready before you start fishing.
Maybe it is the fact that having been a match angler I want everything to hand where I need it, when I need it
F
Fred Bonney
Guest
Maybe Les,but who's stopping them?
L
Les Clark
Guest
Peter ,The same here mate ,the landing nets first ,unhooking mat ect ,the rod`s are only set up after ,nothing worse that hooking into a fish and then finding out not all`s right and the fish has to suffer for your mistake .