Retaining Barbel

[GrahamM]

In my view there are already too many things in everyday life that are not 'Politically Correct'. And I've got to wondering just lately how much this attitude has crept into fishing.

One of the non-PC things we are told we shouldn't do, for fear of being chastised from here all the way to the upper Great Ouse, is retain barbel. Not in anything.

This is something that is put forward by many anglers, me included to some extent, that barbel should be put straight back. I have to confess that I often follow this advice and repeat the plea to do it mainly because it is expected of me. It is the PC thing to do as far as barbel are concerned.

I was discussing it with Tony Miles only last night, during a conversation we were having about a magazine article that tells us where we are all going wrong.

I really should have given it more thought, for returning barbel isn't always the best thing to do. Many times barbel fight much too hard to be slipped straight back, only to be seen, sometimes as much as half a mile downstream, floating belly-up.

The best thing to do is nurse them in the water's edge for 20 minutes or so while they get their strength back.

But it isn't always possible to do that, either because it's dark and the banks are dangerous, and, of course, it isn't a good thing to do if you want to catch another fish or two before going home.

So - and I ask this question with all sincerity - isn't it best if barbel (and other hard-fighting river fish that fight to the point of exhaustion) are kept in a sack or carp-friendly keepnet for about 20 minutes, maximum, while they recover?

And I mean one fish per sack or keepnet. A keepnet that won't damage the dorsal spine, and a sack that will allow them to rest in slack water.

Think about it, and remember that if there is some reason you can't nurse the fish for about 20 minutes, it may float belly up and die.

How many barbel have you returned that you saw swim off, apparently strongly, only to float belly up well out of sight, some way downstream of you?

Your answer has got to be the same as mine. You don't know do you.

 

[Bar Barbus]

"But it isn't always possible to do that, either because it's dark and the banks are dangerous, and, of course, it isn't a good thing to do if you want to catch another fish or two before going home".


Does fish catching come before fish welfare -- Surely it is better to spend 20 minutes nursing a fish within the current, that can be caught again, to placing it in a keepnet where if it is too dark -- it is too dark to see how it is behaving.

If you cannot ensure your fish safe return through fishing conditions should you be fishing at all.

I think this is the more serious question.

During daylight hours a well pegged out and watched keepnet with fish facing upstream to allow flow thru' the gills may be permissible for the odd distressed fish but only for the exception rather than rule.

 

[GrahamM]

"Does fish catching come before fish welfare?" Bar Barbus asks.

It has to. If I don't catch anything I've got nothing to care for.

I want to fish, so I need to devise means whereby I can catch fish AND take care of them.

I think you miss my point. It being that PC dictates that I should always return barbel immediately and not retain them, even for a short period, for any reason.

I'm saying that there IS a case for retaining them for a short period when it isn't either feasible, sensible, or possible, to lie along the edge of the river nursing a barbel for a sufficiently long enough period to be certain it has recovered.

Not fishing at all is not the answer, for not fishing at all is the answer to all the things we anglers do that are in doubt or dispute.

"If you cannot ensure your fish's safe return through fishing conditions should you be fishing at all?" Bar Barbus asks.

No, you shouldn't, which is why I, before fishing, should make sure that I could stake a keepnet or keepsack correctly, just the same as you should make sure you can lie at the water's edge and return the fish.

One thing I'm certain of, by retaining the fish for a short period in a keepnet or carpsack, that my fish will swim off safely. More sure than anyone who holds a fish at the side and risks it slipping out of his hands or weigh sling, or whatever, before it is fully recovered.

Mind you, if we followed the advice of one of angling's most read anglers we should slip the hook straight out of the fish and let it swim off without even removing it from the water.

How many of his fish have ended up belly up several hundred yards downstream?

 

[Bar Barbus]

You have missed my point. You where commenting that under certain circumstances there may be considerations that the urge to catch further fish, in dark condition sor dangerous banks was upon you. I was saying that under those conditions, when one could not place a fish safely back in the water and ensure its continued health, then should then fishing be taking place since fish welfare comes first and the capture of further fish has to come second. I am sure that you are not advocating that in the pursuit of a "further fish or two" that it is suitable to allow it to be returned when neither aid or recapture - even if it goes belly up in 5 yards - is possible?

 

[GrahamM]

Surely it's obvious though that dangerous banks, etc, are noted before you actually start fishing. If you decide to fish a dangerous bank you realise at that time that it's not suitable for returning fish, particularly in the dark.

So you make the decision then to do one of three things:

1. Move to a safer bank.
2. Find a safe bank nearby where the fish can be carried to in the landing net and returned. or,
3. Retain the fish in something while they recover, then romove them and return them out of the landing net (which you know you can do or you couldn't have netted it in the first place).

 

[GrahamM]

I should add too, that you can't return them straight out of the landing net without retaining them for a short recovering period or they'll go belly up.

Incidentally, be sure that my motive for thinking we should retain them for a short spell is for the welfare of the fish. I have no hidden agenda.

I am convinced that a short spell in a sack or keepnet is far less risky to barbel than immediate release.

And I reckon that it needs about 20 minutes to be sure a barbel has recovered enough to let it go.

I wonder how many anglers would nurse each fish they caught for that amount of time?

 

[Paul Williams]

This is a difficult one, but thrashing out a compromise is always difficult, in my own mind i have always thought i could recognise when a barbel needed nursing and when it was safe to let go, i hope i still do.
The first part of the equation must surely be to use gear that will subdue a hard fighting barbel as quickly as possible, it seems to be the in thing in some quarters to bait heavy and fish light, that imho is the wrong road to take, use gear to land them quickly is the first rule for me. Secondly if retaining them is going to insure they survive then yes retain them,surely it's better to have them to hand under observation??? a purpose made tube made from friendly material is obviously first choice, that to me is where we need to educate others, i know keepnets are better now than ever but there is still room for us to talk and improve, i'm convinced this way forward is preferable to one "top anglers" unhook and release in the water method! all we need is to talk and come up with a real answer, rather than flawed pathetic ones!!!!

 

[GrahamM]

Good point Paul, about not allowing them to fight too long on too light tackle.

But beware the Barbel Police now you're saying you'd like to find a better, fish-friendly retaining system...........

 

[Paul Williams]

They don't worry me, i've got Rik, and Sedge on my side!!! if they fail we'll take cover behind your wallet and counter attack with frozen meatballs ...that should hold em off!

 

[STEVE POPE]

Hi Graham,

Just for the record, i've written the next Casting off piece for IYCF and I've tried to cover this subject in a more practical way than let's just say others have done recently!
I will state quite categorically that one barbel retained for a short while in a modern well staked out keepnet to allow the fish to face upstream is far better than immediate return in SOME situations.It is defining these situations which causes difficulty and to some degree only comes with experience.
But it is so difficult to get over just what those situations are and if you say publically that it is ok to put a barbel in a keepnet, you open the door to misquote and more important misuse.
Although I have done it myself I would not do it again and would not recommend the use of carpsacks. They are completely unsuitable. A tube or tunnel is the correct piece of kit.
If you are in a privileged position which allows you to either write or talk to anglers you have to be sure the advice you are giving is simple and cannot be misconstrued, to some degree this is where JB is coming unstuck in his writing. I happen to believe he is right most of the time, but he tends to make a philosophy out of a single example and you just cannot do that.
The bottom line is the barbel should be returned as soon as it is able to swim powerfully away leaving you in the certain knowledge it will not surface twenty yards downstream.
Six years ago I caught a barbel weighing fourteen and a half pounds, the fish of a lifetime.I landed it at ten in the morning and it was three in the afternoon before she swam safely away.
I stood in the water all that time ensuring the safety of the fish. She just would not swim away. My duty as an angler was to make sure she did and the length of time it takes just doesn't come into it, you MUST look after your capture.
I could write reams on this subject but as I've already done that for IYCF I can only point you in the direction of the march issue if you want to read more.

All the best,

Steve.

 

[Steve Baker]

Reading the comments so far has really concerned me. I am new to barbel fishing and had around 30 out of atcham last year. I fished in the deep slow water and all the barbel i had i held in the water for around 4-5 mins after capture untill they all swam of what i assumed was 'strongly' which is what all the mags and books tell you to do. But did any of those fish drown, i really hope not and is it best to bully the fish to avoid excess tiring? One of the fish did actually go belly up about 2 mins after release so i waded in and got him and held him till he swam off again. So whats the best practice as i know know that they can be decieving hardy fish?

 

[Rob Stubbs]

I personally think it's bad practice to retain any fish and wouldn't use a keepnet for that very reason. Now I mainly carp fish but I won't sack them either - except maybe a few minutes if I need to get someone.

Whilst I gather barbel are more sensitive (I've yet to catch one), it's fair to say that all fish need supporting for a while before they swim off. Now if it takes 10, 20 or 40 minutes then so be it, rather that than have a dead fish. The problem with saying 'it's OK to keep them under some circumstances' is that some people take it at face value and chuck a load in a keepnet.

Rob.

 

[DAVE COOPER]

This is all about common sense isn't it? We have to make a decision as to when a barbel can be released safely.

In summer, when oxygen levels are low in slower moving water, then retaining a fish in a specialist barbel tube is far better than letting it go too quickly and risking its safety. This is obviously on the assumption the angler knows how to use a tube properly, otherwise he may as well just let the fish go and leave its survival to chance.

Stuffing 20 barbel in any sort of keepnet is asking for ripped dorsals and distressed fish, possibly dead fish and is therefore unacceptable.

What I agree with Graham about is that Political Correctness should not influence the decision you make, the welfare of the fish should.

Let's hope the vast majority of anglers have a reasonable common sense level.

 

[Dave Johnson]

Pauls comments make good sense on using stout tackle for barbel-there is nothing clever about landing big fish on light tackle. Last year on the middle Severn i hooked an 9lb4oz fish while trotting for roach on 2lb line. I t took a good 30 mins to land and i was well knackered , as was the fish. Incidentally, after half an hour in the keepnet i stood knee deep in a bit of faster water for 10 mins and could as Paul said earlier feel the strength come back into the fish.
My ocal stretch of the Dove almost always allows you to place fish in well oxygenated flowing water-however, most middle and lower stretches of the Severn do not. In fact quite often the flow is almost non existent within 10 feet of the bank for miles on end, so how do you allow the fish to re-couperate then?
As i see it, I feel comfortable allowing a barbel if necessary to 'rest' in a net and have no qualms in doing so...I also believe that I have the barbels best intrests in mind when doing so.
Incidentally Graham, what were Tony's views?
Dave

 

[BUDGIE BURGESS]

I am no Barbel expert.In fact I only get to fish for them a few days a year.I have never caught a double.I have caught enough though I think to pass comment.I once suffered seeing a barbel which swam away strongly turn belly up out of reach.I don't think that the oxygen exchange is good enough in a sack.As most "tubes" are covered with a similar matirial I dont like the idea of them either.(As I have allready said I do not have a great deal of experience in this field so I will gladly conceed to the views of people who have used sacks and tubes without problem)I now either leave the fish in the landing net to recover or if the flow does not allow this I put them in a correctly positioned keepnet for 30mins.Never had any problems with this.
Now for a confession.In the bad old days of my youth it was the accepted thing to keep all of your catch in a keepnet.We often used to fish overnight and have our parents pick us up the next afternoon.The fish (or more acurately some of the better fish)would be retained untill the lift arrived to be proudly displayed.I can not remember any problems.Even then we could see that carp and nets did not mix.Yes I too have seen dead barbel after matchs but maybe this is down to handling/the way the net is used rather than just the use of a net? As I have said I do not know.One thing that I do know though is that Graham and the rest are totally right about this political correctness that is creeping in.

 

[GrahamM]

There are some excellent points being made, especially about the use of proper retaining systems such as tubes, etc. But that old PC thing of 'NEVER retain any fish', 'NEVER retain a barbel,' persists.

If retaining a fish in a proper manner for a short spell is the best thing for that fish then why not?

It's okay saying you would hold a fish for half an hour, or even half a day, if necessary, but the simple truth is that many anglers wouldn't.

And what Steve was saying about the fact that we have to simplify our advice is quite true. It's also true that we have to give advice that we know will be followed. Advising anglers to nurse fish in the hands, in the water, for several hours if necessary, is not advice that will be followed by the majority. Far from it.

So let's remove the blinkers, chuck the PC attitude into the bin, and open our ears and our hearts to a method that will ensure the safety and well being of the fish that the majority will accept.

That has got to be the retention of fish, in a safe container - when necessary. A container that the fish can lie in while it recovers its strength, for however long that takes. Let's educate anglers to use the right tools in the right manner.

Educating them, in this instance, means we devise a tube that the fish can lie in safely without the loss of mucous and scales, and without fin abrasion, that has a sufficient flow of oxygen. A tube that is suitable for just one fish (sensibly).

Educate them to the fact that the tube should be used for only one fish. That it should be staked out properly in suitable water.

And that it should only be used when necessary and not as a habit, and for the shortest possible time.

Okay, so, like keepnets, such a system is open to abuse. Everything we use is always open to abuse by those who don't know or don't care.

But ask yourself what the alternative is.

The alternative is putting fish straight back that will quite possibly appear belly up some way downstream, out of reach, possibly out of sight, and doomed to die.

Remember that you can't advise anglers to hold a fish in the water for several hours and expect the majority to do that. They won't. Make no mistake, I respect those angler who will do that, and I repect their view that that is what we should be advising anglers to do. But the simple truth is that they won't.

So all I'm saying then is, let's offer advice that is more acceptable, and will therefore save more fish from a watery grave.

 

[Paul Williams]

Those who don't give a damn will continue to abuse anyway, and not many "pleasure" anglers out on their once a week trip will nurse say a five pound barbel for the length of time that Steve Pope did so the size is irrelavent, (as is the species in a nursing back situation). We need to put forward workable ideas for the overall wellfare of the fish.
A safe short term retaining system, that is cheap, easy to carry and setup must be within our reach??
My suggestion is for an easily infalatable "tank" with handles and anchor points, water would obviously pass through it, the fish could be unhooked in it, carried into the water and either held or anchored in posistion, the inside could be barbel shaped, pike shaped or whatever, the fish could then be kept under a careful eye untill released.
Any other ideas?.

 

[Paul Williams]

PS. rather than inflatable which could be awkward to anchor down just water absorbent paddind would do the same thing easier.