Great Ouse Barbel

[STEVE POPE]

Hello Bob,

I stand by every word I have ever said about the Ouse, Adams Mill, record fish, the angling press and the anglers some of whom are very good friends who fish there.
Slagged off and rubbishing are your words not mine.
If, no when I am fortunate to catch one of the big fish I would not unless it was a record report it, Why? Because it is not in my opinion news, and that is the standpoint I have always come from.
Just for the record the situation at Adam's Mill is different now to what it was, the fish have spread out because anglers have fished further away and enticed the barbel to move.
The picture now is twenty or so huge fish in almost three miles of water, and for me that does present some sort of challenge.
I try to be very careful with my choice of words so I do not get into the situation where they come back to haunt me, for my own part my conscience is clear, others opinions may differ and that is their right.
I will still be spending all the summer and autumn on the Teme and Severn with the odd trip to the Ouse which apart from the Lea where I have spent many hours in the past, is my local river.
I do not feel desperate to catch one, I just want to for mine and no one elses satisfaction.

All the best,

Steve.

 

[Bob Saunders]

Hope you got the message Steve,
I will repeat some of it here.

You really need to look at back issue's of AT & AM your critisim of anglers that fished the mill was quite unaceptable,

Your assumption that a Severn or Northern barbel rate higher than an ouse 16 is ridiculous,a barbel is a barbel and a magnificent creature no matter how big or for that matter where it came from.

Only anglers like you would rubbish such fish, I can only guess as to why??

Your view of the Ouse at present is rubbish the big barbel on Adams Mill have always traveled down stream, and some of us have always known that and have been fishing for them for several years, but then low and behold the pioneers showed up to search out these this suposeley unfished water, excuse if I throw up, all these so called pioneers have done is follow other anglers who new the score.

I saw an article in coarse fisherman by one of these so called pioneers all he is doing is trying to pull the wool over peoples eyes and well you know it.

As I say I have no wish to get into a slanging match but you and several other members of the barbel society have been resposible for spoiling a quite secluded part of the Ouse Im glad your concience is clear.

 

[Carp Angler]

I don't know all the ins and outs of all this and I don't particularly want to, but your last comment about ruining a secluded part of the Ouse just smacks of someone being upset because others now fish there.
To my mind that is purely selfish.

 

[GrahamM]

Bob, you wrote, in reply to Steve Pope: "Your assumption that a Severn or Northern barbel rate higher than an ouse 16 is ridiculous,a barbel is a barbel and a magnificent creature no matter how big or for that matter where it came from."

Well, I made similar comments, and I really do rate a northern double-figure barbel much higher than an Ouse 16lb barbel - for several reasons. I think you know exactly what I, and others, mean, but are choosing to reply out of context.

Speaking for myself (I'll leave others to say whether or not they agree with me) I'm not saying that Ouse barbel are rubbish. Far from it, I agree with your comments that they are magnificent creatures. What I'm saying is that I value a big northern barbel far more highly because:

1. There are fewer of them per mile of river.
2. Because of that they are much harder to catch and that in itself makes them more valued.
3. Northern rivers are 'my' rivers.
4. It's quite possible that a northern whopper will be an uncaught, or at least rarely caught, specimen.
5. Most anglers will be very interested to hear about it.

None of that, as far as I can see, says that Ouse barbel are rubbish.

 

[Philip Inzani]

Sorry guys I had to renew this one?it seemed to die just as it was getting interesting! Any more from Rob on this, it was interesting to hear his views on it.
Also to add a bit more intrigue (who said to stir!) Does no one else have any comments about Grahams list ? What about point 2? is that not just looking at "difficulty" from one perspective?location ?
What about angler pressure, does that not contribute as well ?

 

[GrahamM]

Angling pressure does have a great bearing on how hard fish are to catch, but again, my views are probably different to popular opinion.

I reckon that angling pressure, in most instances (not all), actually makes fish easier to catch.

The hardest fish I've ever tried to catch were those in rich estate lakes where the fish had rarely, if ever, been fished for, and the fish had to be educated to take angler's baits.

The easiest fish I've ever caught (and I mean big fish) have been on waters which are hammered on a daily basis.

 

[John Tait]

Because they have come to know the food value of anglers' baits - and have also become more used to there being varying levels of bankside activity ??

Jonty

 

[GrahamM]

That's one reason, but the main reason is that where there are big fish in practically unfished lakes it means the natural food supply is more than adequate and you have a hell of a job breaking their pre-occupation with it.

 

[Carp Angler]

I can vouch for that on underfished big lakes where I target carp.

 

[Philip Inzani]

I feel fairly well qualified to comment on this as I am probably fishing for less pressured fish than the average UK guy.
I agree that some unpressured fish can be unbelievably difficult to tempt but I am not sure that the profusion of natural food is the (main) reason for it. I think just as importantly is that most anglers are just too noisy. I think John does has a point when he says pressured fish are more accustomed to this and in some cases may even move into a swim where an angler is in anticipation of food arriving (the sort of feeder splash syndrome) I think many unpressured fish are very catchable (stupidly so) if you approach them carefully and you use a bait they recognise i.e something chosen from the profusion of natural food they have in front of them?BUT I appreciate that is not always easy if they are preoccupied with say Daphnia or similar. I will also qualify my comments by saying that this is my experience more on rivers. I have not fished many virgin estate lakes in the UK.

 

[GrahamM]

We'll have to disagree here then Phil. I'm convinced that a profusion of natural food IS the main reason for the difficulty.

I take your point about bankside noise, and it is true that pressured fish are more used to disturbance in one form or another, but even on waters where you may be the only angler and being as quiet as is humanly possible the fish can still be extremely hard to catch. Not just on estate lakes but other types of water as well.

I agree that some unpressured fish can be really easy to catch and said so in an earlier posting, but - generally speaking - those fish that have rarely been caught are usually the hardest to catch.

Natural baits usually only work (on unpressured waters) when you can see the fish and cast the bait to them. Otherwise we have the blade of grass in a field syndrome.

The only way I've found to consistently beat unpressured fish on a rich water where they are preoccupied with natural food is to prebait long and heavily with a particle bait such as a seed, maggot or caster, and force them to become preoccupied with one of those in preference.