Rivers and Barbel decline?

[flightliner]

I don't think there's just one specific reason, but I believe that the ever increasing numbers of crayfish are high on the list of possible causes. They are eating many eggs reducing the numbers of fish reaching maturity, unfortunately this is a downward spiral as the increase in crayfish numbers means even less successful recruitment of the fish eggs.

Do you have them in the Dearne Phil -- loads in the river Rother at catcliffe !.

 

[108831]

Shouldn't think any of you would have a clue what the naturaly sustainable levels of barbel are (if at all) in the rivers your talking about. Just the levels they were best stocked to in recent years. So judging a decline is just how long is a piece of string.

Obviously not,nor do you on your rivers,you simply have no clue on the Ouse/Ivel at all(or the Kennet),the Ouse fish were stocked in the seventies and reproduced year on year,I believe the stocking on the Ivel was in the 80's,possibly early nineties and as I say they spawned there until recently,as I said the EA choose to keep us in the dark,something they didn't do when it was their perfect barbel river,be sure of this,it is a disaster on these two rivers,the Ouse in particular is in decline for other species too,if what I hear from M.Keynes anglers is correct and this was a river with a very high pedigree.The upper Lea has a higher barbel population per yard than most rivers in the country,if not all,this is a river where they have spawned naturally for a long time.

A question for you Brian,when were barbel stocked in the Ribble,they're not indigenous to the river I don't think,perhaps 'the bad one' could tell me,maybe the Teme was a 'poor' barbel river,that is why they're gone eh???

 

[Keith M]

It is a combination of many factors, not just one or two factors and the list includes over abstraction causing reduced flow and silting our rivers up, low oxygen levels, pollutions in the water (we've all heard of the things not filtered out from our water purifying plants which causes fish to change sex or grow extra barbules etc.)
and predators to name just a few (otters, foreign Crayfish, mink etc.).

Eg. Its ok re-introducing Otters into our rivers if the rivers were the same as they were before the otters disappeared; I have a great respect and like for the otter but (and it's a big but) when we also now have large foreign crayfish eating barbel eggs, cormorants eating our small barbel, otters killing both large and small barbel then add to this over abstraction reducing the flows and silting up the rivers, plus us humans polluting their environment with industrial and domestic pollutants; then was it really a good idea to add another major predator to an already threatened environment? and is it any wonder that the barbel (along with other species) are being severely threatened and thinning out in our rivers?

Humans are past masters at ruining whatever they interfere with in the natural world, when they try to be goody goodies, and when it goes wrong; which it invariably does; they blame everyone else and anything around them.

No-one seems to think things through properly nowerdays before they interfere with the natural world especially if it concerns sweet, fluffy and furry things.

Keith

 

[lutra]

Obviously not,nor do you on your rivers,you simply have no clue on the Ouse/Ivel at all(or the Kennet),the Ouse fish were stocked in the seventies and reproduced year on year,I believe the stocking on the Ivel was in the 80's,possibly early nineties and as I say they spawned there until recently,as I said the EA choose to keep us in the dark,something they didn't do when it was their perfect barbel river,be sure of this,it is a disaster on these two rivers,the Ouse in particular is in decline for other species too,if what I hear from M.Keynes anglers is correct and this was a river with a very high pedigree.The upper Lea has a higher barbel population per yard than most rivers in the country,if not all,this is a river where they have spawned naturally for a long time.

A question for you Brian,when were barbel stocked in the Ribble,they're not indigenous to the river I don't think,perhaps 'the bad one' could tell me,maybe the Teme was a 'poor' barbel river,that is why they're gone eh???

Alan unlike the Ouse Ivel and Kennet that have been continually stocked in recent years by the EA, the Ribble like other healthy self sustaining rivers hasn't needed it.

I believe the Ribble was first stocked with barbel in the 50s but not thought to have been successful. Then further stockings in the 60s by the AT and further ones by naughty anglers in the 70s maybe into the early 80s. But nothing after that that that I know of. Despite the long list of things that eat them, they don't need it.

 

[theartist]

It would be good to know if we could access information on stockings from the EA each year, not exact locations just the name of the river and how many of each species.

 

[davebhoy]

There's the answer to the question I asked early on and I think we all know the answer and it's down mainly to predators and abstraction. Why else do the huge numbers of stocked barbel not show each year on the rivers mentioned.

Incidently the club that runs the upper lea stretches pumps the gravel clean each year and has no otter or cormorant issues (Yet) it also has water below a sewage works and sees more pellets per cm2 of water than any river in the country - rest assured on that fact

I'd rather not go down the test scenario Keith mentions then we will all look at each other dumbfounded that it was predators and abstraction after all, much easier to blame pellets mg:

I dread the day otters turn up on the upper lea if they are as destructive as some say.

There are cormorants there, I saw one in the water on the quieter stretch last winter and there used to be a pair of them in the tree near the shorter stretch but they don't seem to be able to do much damage to the fish stocks.

I am far from an expert, but I have fished there weekly for a few years and I think the fish stocks are increasing in numbers, all species and, as far as I know in the areas where little or no work is done to improve the spawning areas and on the stretch where not much anglers bait goes in. The river is low all year round, any rain raises the levels but not much and it runs off very quickly. The sewage works releases water into the river once a day.

The club does do plenty of work on the short stretch, but not much on the (relatively) longer stretch except for on the banks but the fish still thrive there. as you'll know it's a small fishery and the river is so low that that management is easier than on most rivers (I would have thought)

 

[tigger]

It is a combination of many factors, not just one or two factors and the list includes over abstraction causing reduced flow and silting our rivers up, low oxygen levels, pollutions in the water (we've all heard of the things not filtered out from our water purifying plants which causes fish to change sex or grow extra barbules etc.)
and predators to name just a few (otters, foreign Crayfish, mink etc.).

Eg. Its ok re-introducing Otters into our rivers if the rivers were the same as they were before the otters disappeared; I have a great respect and like for the otter but (and it's a big but) when we also now have large foreign crayfish eating barbel eggs, cormorants eating our small barbel, otters killing both large and small barbel then add to this over abstraction reducing the flows and silting up the rivers, plus us humans polluting their environment with industrial and domestic pollutants; then was it really a good idea to add another major predator to an already threatened environment? and is it any wonder that the barbel (along with other species) are being severely threatened and thinning out in our rivers?

Humans are past masters at ruining whatever they interfere with in the natural world, when they try to be goody goodies, and when it goes wrong; which it invariably does; they blame everyone else and anything around them.

No-one seems to think things through properly nowerdays before they interfere with the natural world especially if it concerns sweet, fluffy and furry things.

Keith

That's all relevant Keith but on the flip side otters will eat crayfish before fish .

They're also partial to chickens!

 

[lutra]

It would be good to know if we could access information on stockings from the EA each year, not exact locations just the name of the river and how many of each species.

Plenty on the web in the form of EA study and news reports and other news reports. Can't do links on my phone but just stick the name of a river followed by barbel stocking in google and it should come up with loads.

Judging by the amount and frequency some river that "I know nothing about" have been stocked, it seems the EA have know they were fooked for many years but just propped them up to make them look ok and keep anglers happy.

 

[theartist]

Plenty on the web in the form of EA study and news reports and other news reports. Can't do links on my phone but just stick the name of a river followed by barbel stocking in google and it should come up with loads.

Judging by the amount and frequency some river that "I know nothing about" have been stocked, it seems the EA have know they were fooked for many years but just propped them up to make them look ok and keep anglers happy.

Have tried that and there's next to nothing aside from forum speculation and the odd exception like the Great Ouse.

What i'd want is to know whats been stocked where and when, then we would get a better picture of the rivers that have been stocked and whether they are in terminal decline, clinging on through re-stocking or actually doing ok. Also be good to know if once polluted stretches are worth revisiting.

Shame the EA can't do this although perhaps it may reveal how little stocking goes on throughout the year?

 

[108831]

Alan unlike the Ouse Ivel and Kennet that have been continually stocked in recent years by the EA, the Ribble like other healthy self sustaining rivers hasn't needed it.

I believe the Ribble was first stocked with barbel in the 50s but not thought to have been successful. Then further stockings in the 60s by the AT and further ones by naughty anglers in the 70s maybe into the early 80s. But nothing after that that that I know of. Despite the long list of things that eat them, they don't need it.

In 'recent' years....the Ivel had stockings during the decline of stocks,not before,many of the recent stockings are above where much fishing is done,Shefford and just below,the Ouse on the Vauxhall AC water had no stocking since the originals in the 70's(officially stocked from the Severn),certainly not until after it's decline,if ever.The Kennet never needed stocking,it was chocka,until our decline started,let me earnestly say I hope the Ribble maintains it's stock,but one thing is for sure,if a decline hits,they are gone,all over,things alter and when it goes wrong serious questions need answering,rod licence holders deserve little less...I don't trust the EA any more,as I believe they have their fingers in too many pies...

Just to add,if you saw the Upper Lea,you would be shocked as to how small it is,but it is full of barbel,plus roach,chub,a few carp and tench,how rivers should be and were.

 

[Keith M]

Just to add,if you saw the Upper Lea,you would be shocked as to how small it is,but it is full of barbel,plus roach,chub,a few carp and tench,how rivers should be and were.

This is the upper Lea which is full of quality Barbel, Chub, Dace, Roach, Perch etc. Plus a few Carp.

Due to abstraction It is usually a lot lower but this picture was taken during a rainy period a couple of seasons ago.

This is where I'll be tomorrow evening with my barbel rod and where I was last Thursday evening with my son.
NB: I think that's him in the top right of the picture

Keith

 

[lutra]

In 'recent' years....the Ivel had stockings during the decline of stocks,not before,many of the recent stockings are above where much fishing is done,Shefford and just below,the Ouse on the Vauxhall AC water had no stocking since the originals in the 70's(officially stocked from the Severn),certainly not until after it's decline,if ever.The Kennet never needed stocking,it was chocka,until our decline started,let me earnestly say I hope the Ribble maintains it's stock,but one thing is for sure,if a decline hits,they are gone,all over,things alter and when it goes wrong serious questions need answering,rod licence holders deserve little less...I don't trust the EA any more,as I believe they have their fingers in too many pies...

Just to add,if you saw the Upper Lea,you would be shocked as to how small it is,but it is full of barbel,plus roach,chub,a few carp and tench,how rivers should be and were.

So when did this decline on the Ivel start Alan?

From googling the EA seem to have been sticking loads of little barbel in it for a lot of years. Like they have never been able to make it on their own.

You say they were first stocked in the 70s? Are they not indigenous to the Ivel?

 

[sam vimes]

Have tried that and there's next to nothing aside from forum speculation and the odd exception like the Great Ouse.

Here's one for the Ivel. 800 barbel in 2015.

Try the government publications website. Search in the press releases for "barbel" etc.

https://www.gov.uk/government/announcements?keywords=barbel&announcement_filter_option=all&topics%5B%5D=all&departments%5B%5D=all&world_locations%5B%5D=all&from_date=&to_date=

Alternatively, use the river name.

 

[The bad one]

Lots of theories going on here but some of the most prolific waters are directly below sewage works and see a lot of pellets surely ruling out those as possibilities.

That runs against all the scientific data collected and researched since Prof Sumptor first identified the problem on the River Lea and Stoke Bardolph on the Trent in the early 1990s.

The fact that fish are there doesn't mean they are healthy and free from inter-sexing. It most likely means they are there because there's a food source available to them coming from and living around the sewage works. Sumptor found that up to 70% of the fish sample not once but many times (scientific rigor is repartition) displayed signs of inter-sexing below sewage works. I also put up a link last week about endocrines https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/environment/one-five-male-river-fish-female-characteristics/
I note Charles Tyler who was at the time of Sumptor research his PhD student is now a Prof in this field.

 

[Jim Crosskey 2]

Interesting ideas put forward here and lets face it, any of them could be correct.

Here's just one observation I would make - when you look at a "thriving" population of barbel - I'm going to take the wye as an example - the actual numbers of fish therein does tend to give a ceiling on max. size of about 13 or 14 pounds. Which would in itself be a very rare fish there. I know this pushes forwards on the trent... however, even there it remains the fact that plenty of shoal size - I'm thinking 4 - 10 pound - get caught.

Whereas you look at the situation with a stretch like Adams Mill in its pomp - where a (relatively small) population of fish seemed to grow to much larger proportions.

Maybe - that was the time when as environmentally concerned anglers, we should have been saying to ourselves - something's not right here? Because to my mind (and isn't hindsight great!) that was probably the first sign on that river that things were out of kilter, in so much as a surviving group of fish were becoming the benefactors of much increased biomass in terms of food, i.e. new stock recruitment had crashed.

Is it possible that a similar think happened on the Kennett?

I don't have the answers to any of this I'm afraid - I just think in the future, we ought to look at these things more carefully (rather than just filling our boots while times are good...)

 

[thecrow]

Could being inter sexed have an effect on the growth of those affected resulting in more large fish as females tend to be larger than the males but those fish being without the ability to breed as a male or female.

 

[sam vimes]

Here's just one observation I would make - when you look at a "thriving" population of barbel - I'm going to take the wye as an example - the actual numbers of fish therein does tend to give a ceiling on max. size of about 13 or 14 pounds. Which would in itself be a very rare fish there. I know this pushes forwards on the trent... however, even there it remains the fact that plenty of shoal size - I'm thinking 4 - 10 pound - get caught.

Jim,
I suspect that the Wye has more in common with the Ribble and Yorkshire Dales rivers than most others. Rising in upland areas, and being relatively cold as a result, and being spate rivers being big factors in maximum sizes being limited somewhat.

The Trent is a bit different in many respects. It has tributaries that rise in upland, but the main river, not so much. The biggest single factor for Trent barbel is EA intervention. Calverton harvest barbel milt and eggs every year from the Trent. To negate their impact, they return many small barbel to the river on a routine basis. Unlike even the healthiest river elsewhere, the Trent is highly unlikely to suffer from an entirely natural poor recruitment year.

 

[Jim Crosskey 2]

Crow - there could definitely be something in that. I guess the point I was trying to make was that - in itself, the size of the barbel at that time coming out of a waterway that size was something that should have caused concern. Whereas, as far as I can remember - all we saw on the front of AT or AM every week was "Adams Mill goes from strength to strength"... (or whatever)

Sam - yes, I can see how that's true... so I guess the optimum feeding/ growing conditions are limited less time than on other waterways.

My own local river - the thames - used to have a pretty reliable population of barbel, and as a kid (30+ years ago) I used to catch the odd small one, say 2 or 3 pounds. Whereas now, I only hear of them coming out very, very occasionally - and when they do, they're always double figures. So potentially, albeit at a less dramatic rate than what we witnessed on the ouse, I think the same thing is happening. No science to back that up though I'm afraid. Just hours of mulling it over whilst watching a (motionless!) quivertip

 

[Graham Elliott 1]

Ref pellets. In particular high oil salmon feed pellets.


I did a lot of research on a question and answer session with the two major suppliers.

Both admitted that if these products ie elips types were used in quantity for coarse fish they would have a significant effect on the fishes health.


Another Senior Fish scientist ( Franklin, who has done a lot of EA work) also told me that a high level of intake could affect reproductive abilities.

Move forward to Research work completed by Pete Reading that showed that pellets made up to 75percent of Kennet barbel food intake. Both the Pellet manufacturers and Fish Scientist were shocked at this level. None realised this level of use in riverine environments.
One manufacturer even stated he would add notification on the website.

Now, on the Kennet and Teme, the high oil usage was extreme for smaller rivers and started aroynd 15 years ago........perfect time lag for effect and todays scenario.

I have detailed my investigations to the Student undertaking the Teme project for her consideration.

When I offered to provide the BS with all the correspondence more than a year or so ago, they had no interest. More concerns with gravel washing and adding....now proven to be pretty useless by latter research.

So...smaller rivers, low breakdown of oil pellets making them available. Heavy usage over smaller areas.

Added to this the fact that commercial fisheries all ban salmonoid high oil feed. Why?

Maybe worth further work/investigation?

---------- Post added at 15:04 ---------- Previous post was at 14:55 ----------

Also consider this.

Salmon pens used for fish farming.

What considerations for the feed?

Grow fatter quicker, and just maybe to prevent the aggression used during potential breeding activity.

 

[108831]

So when did this decline on the Ivel start Alan?

From googling the EA seem to have been sticking loads of little barbel in it for a lot of years. Like they have never been able to make it on their own.

You say they were first stocked in the 70s? Are they not indigenous to the Ivel?

As I said,you have no knowledge of the Ivel,I wouldn't expect you to have,the Ivel barbel were doing well in two stretches,one at Blunham,the other at Biggleswade,but are not indigenous,barbel have been stocked on the common below Biggleswade and on the stretches above the town almost up to the headwaters,from above any barbel would struggle to get downstream owing to a high awkward weir and as the river is the model of flood prevention too they wouldn't get around it(unless they were fry being washed through),the EA thought,wrongly,that they could make the whole length of the Ivel into a barbel river,that was never going to happen as much of the river is quite sedate,with no shallow water,Blunham and above the Mechano bridge was ideal,below on the common is in general a little too shallow,above the weir at Biggleswade is ok until Broome,then it becomes very slow.The Ivel was never going to become a copy of the Severn,by its very nature,so a stocking 4 miles upstream would not mean a spread throughout its length.



The majority of the Wye isn't fished enough for barbel to put any weight through anglers bait,but if pellets were the sole reason for barbel decline,the Trent and Severn would be devoid.



The Ouse above Bedford had its original stocking at Harrold I believe,they didn't spread too far,but the stockings at Radwell,Sharnbrook and Milton Earnest spread steadily down to Kempston,I believe some illegal movement put some around Renhold,Willington,but numbers remained very low.