S
Stewart Bloor
Guest
Graham, I'm also off fishing this afternoon...but not for stillwater barbel though....I'm after carp...
Should barbel be stocked in stillwaters
- Thread starter GrahamM
- Start date
P
Philip Inzani
Guest
I love fishing for Barbel and although I dont have problems with them being stocked in stillwaters, I am not sure I would purposely fish for them there myself. Why ? Not sure really its just that I am used to fishing for Barbel in rivers, its part of the fun for me, looking for them drifting over the gravel in and out of streamer weed and all that?.not quite the same (for me) as watching one sat in a stationary position sunning itself in a big lump of Canadian pond weed! However I used to feel the same about Chub but then I caught a couple from a still water and my opinion changed - strange that!!!!! I guess I may be a bit biased as I did not have any still waters with Barbel in them on my doorstep, I may have had a different perspective if there had been some.
Regarding Barbel being the "in fish" I totally agree, I put them as number 2 after Carp. I dont think it will be too long before this type of specialist follwing drift onto other species as well?.Wels Catfish I would have bet on 5 years ago, and it is big on the continent but it has not taken off as I expected in the UK. I have a sneeking suspicion that a big surge in Pike interest may not be too far off.
Regarding Barbel being the "in fish" I totally agree, I put them as number 2 after Carp. I dont think it will be too long before this type of specialist follwing drift onto other species as well?.Wels Catfish I would have bet on 5 years ago, and it is big on the continent but it has not taken off as I expected in the UK. I have a sneeking suspicion that a big surge in Pike interest may not be too far off.
A
Andrew Miller
Guest
As someone who have fished for barbel in both rivers (not very sucessful so far !) and stillwater (reasonable sucessful with several doubles)I considered the 8lbs barbel I caught in the river a far greater achievement than the several barbels over 9lbs in the stillwater. Having seen the conditions of some of the barbels in the stillwater (which was not very nice), made me tends to go toward not stocking barbels in stillwater. I don't deliberately go for barbel in stillwater but just because there are barbel there it won't stop me fishing there.
R
Rob Brownfield
Guest
David, but Barbel occur naturally in canals and stillwaters also!!!! They got in the same way as gudgeon....floods!! Gudgeon ARE a river species, this is where they originally come from, but they are very adamptable indeed. But I am not entering into what is and what is not a river species...because it is impossible to define really, even Salmon have become landlocked and bred....so where do u draw the line. After several generations, any fish can thrive in a stillwater or a river.
As for the condition of stillwater Barbel, I honestly think this is more down to the stocking levels of the fisheries involved, rather than the fact that the Barbel is in stillwater.
As for the condition of stillwater Barbel, I honestly think this is more down to the stocking levels of the fisheries involved, rather than the fact that the Barbel is in stillwater.
J
John Tait
Guest
Graham said "Yeah, come on you purist barbel anglers, where are you?"
Life's too short to keep to one species, Graham. I know, I've been there in the past with carp. There's too many fish, and too much fishing to be done, to be single (specie) minded.
Jonty
Life's too short to keep to one species, Graham. I know, I've been there in the past with carp. There's too many fish, and too much fishing to be done, to be single (specie) minded.
Jonty
S
Stewart Bloor
Guest
Rob, the point is that when fish such as gudgeon end up in stillwaters, they thrive because they are able to do so. But barbel don't. Again, because they are a different species. Gudgeon, as you say, are adaptable, but barbel aren't. The issue of salmon is a seperate one, we're talking about barbel. So whatever other species are brought into the debate is irrelevant. They are a different biological entity.
The comment about adapting after several generations is also irrelevant as far as barbel are concerned, because they won't be breeding. In the article I mention they are a lithophilous species. That means they need gravel and running water to breed.
The quote in the article from the EA condemns stocking barbel in stillwater as a 'dubious practice'
AS far as I can see, the facts are evidently in favour of the motion that to stock barbel in stillwaters is wrong.
The comment about adapting after several generations is also irrelevant as far as barbel are concerned, because they won't be breeding. In the article I mention they are a lithophilous species. That means they need gravel and running water to breed.
The quote in the article from the EA condemns stocking barbel in stillwater as a 'dubious practice'
AS far as I can see, the facts are evidently in favour of the motion that to stock barbel in stillwaters is wrong.
S
Stewart Bloor
Guest
Graham, just going back a bit. I wasn't saying there was actually a statement in this thread in particular that was a sweeping statement towards barbel anglers, just that we need to beware of making them...Sorry if I was misunderstood...I knew there was something I needed to reply to, this was it...As well as getting argumentative in my old age, I must also be getting forgetful...
R
Richard Drayson
Guest
Sedge has obviously done his research and written another fine article. He`s spoken to the experts, not to people who THINK they are experts. Barbel ARE a river fish and that`s where they belong. They have thrived there for many thousands of years quite well without mans intervention. Escapees into stillwater is another matter entirely, the same as carp escaping from stillwaters to running water. I wonder what the carp boys would think if the tables were turned and found their local stillwaters devoid of carp. The carp having been transferred into the local river by unscrupulous anglers.
S
Steve Baker
Guest
I caught my first still water barbel last monday. Was only about half a pound but it was a right fat little thing and in good condition.
And Rob the quote "As for the condition of stillwater Barbel, I honestly think this is more down to the stocking levels of the fisheries involved, rather than the fact that the Barbel is in stillwater".
Totally agree with you here. One fact that keeps coming up is about the artificial oxegenation and that this does not happen in still waters. What did (or didnt) Lennox lewis do when he had to fight at altitude, arrive there 2 weeks before to get acustomised to the lower O2 level before his fight. Now all fish can also do this if you dont believe me turn up the heater on your tropical fish tank slowly, this lowers O2 levels but after a few days fish get used to it.
The fishery manager also told me that these little barbs were 4.50 each! Just to be clear i dont agree with the stocking of barbs in a stillwater but that is just my opinion as i dont think we need them there.
And Rob the quote "As for the condition of stillwater Barbel, I honestly think this is more down to the stocking levels of the fisheries involved, rather than the fact that the Barbel is in stillwater".
Totally agree with you here. One fact that keeps coming up is about the artificial oxegenation and that this does not happen in still waters. What did (or didnt) Lennox lewis do when he had to fight at altitude, arrive there 2 weeks before to get acustomised to the lower O2 level before his fight. Now all fish can also do this if you dont believe me turn up the heater on your tropical fish tank slowly, this lowers O2 levels but after a few days fish get used to it.
The fishery manager also told me that these little barbs were 4.50 each! Just to be clear i dont agree with the stocking of barbs in a stillwater but that is just my opinion as i dont think we need them there.
J
Jason Booth
Guest
A point that seems to have been overlooked, is that all fish stocking by anglers or angling bodies in this country is done for solely (and I mean 100%) selfish reasons - namely to give pleasure in their capture, not to beautify the waters concerned, or for the fishes welfare.
If we were to have a split, on 'true' barbel or otherwise, then are the vociferous purists now refusing to fish the Severn, Dane, Wear etc? Of course not, but the fish did not enter these river systems naturally, they were stocked. Ok, the actual flowing water is their natural habitat type, but these rivers weren't, they were introduced for the selfish reasons mentioned above.
If a fishery owner perceives a need or niche for stillwater barbel, and this gives anglers (some of whom may not have the access or knowledge of rivers) the chance to catch barbel, then long may it continue!
Angling, and especially specialist angling seems to be developing a holier than thou (sorry Rev) and elitist attitude, and is in grave danger of taking itself too seriously. If, in this age of falling angler numbers, stillwater barbel encourage or enthuses anglers, then where is the harm?
The choice is yours - fish these waters or if the aesthetics do not appeal - don't!
I don't think any stillwater barbel angler would consider a capture of his of the same 'merit' as a barbel caught on roving leger tactics on a wild and untouched river, but surely this game is about personal goals/ethics and happiness?
Sorry for the ramble guys, and no, I've never fished for stillwater barbel (yet - I do fancy a trip to Cudmore though, so who knows!!)
Tight Lines,
Jason
If we were to have a split, on 'true' barbel or otherwise, then are the vociferous purists now refusing to fish the Severn, Dane, Wear etc? Of course not, but the fish did not enter these river systems naturally, they were stocked. Ok, the actual flowing water is their natural habitat type, but these rivers weren't, they were introduced for the selfish reasons mentioned above.
If a fishery owner perceives a need or niche for stillwater barbel, and this gives anglers (some of whom may not have the access or knowledge of rivers) the chance to catch barbel, then long may it continue!
Angling, and especially specialist angling seems to be developing a holier than thou (sorry Rev) and elitist attitude, and is in grave danger of taking itself too seriously. If, in this age of falling angler numbers, stillwater barbel encourage or enthuses anglers, then where is the harm?
The choice is yours - fish these waters or if the aesthetics do not appeal - don't!
I don't think any stillwater barbel angler would consider a capture of his of the same 'merit' as a barbel caught on roving leger tactics on a wild and untouched river, but surely this game is about personal goals/ethics and happiness?
Sorry for the ramble guys, and no, I've never fished for stillwater barbel (yet - I do fancy a trip to Cudmore though, so who knows!!)
Tight Lines,
Jason
D
Davy North
Guest
I haven't logged on for a while so I've missed most of this one, which is a pitty because it's seemed to be quite good.
Personally I don't believe barbel should be intrduced to still waters, quite simply because nature designed them for rivers, their very body shape is made for flowing water. The fact that barbel can survive in ponds from either stocking or floods is really neither here or there. There are pond next to tidal stretches of river that have flat fish in them due to flooding, this doesn't mean the commercial boys are going to stock a couple of hundred pound of flounder into their fisheries (mind you, you never know).
My main objection to barbel being stocked into stillwater is why? what's the need? Does a fat, slimy barbel really encourage or enthuse anyone, surely there must be enough species more suited to stillwater that can do that.
To end with here's a thought for all the purists. How would you feel if a record barbel, or chub was to come from a stillwater? Quite possible with chub.
I'd be horrified, or am I just being holier than thou. I get a bit like that at times, I know it's wrong, sorry.
Personally I don't believe barbel should be intrduced to still waters, quite simply because nature designed them for rivers, their very body shape is made for flowing water. The fact that barbel can survive in ponds from either stocking or floods is really neither here or there. There are pond next to tidal stretches of river that have flat fish in them due to flooding, this doesn't mean the commercial boys are going to stock a couple of hundred pound of flounder into their fisheries (mind you, you never know).
My main objection to barbel being stocked into stillwater is why? what's the need? Does a fat, slimy barbel really encourage or enthuse anyone, surely there must be enough species more suited to stillwater that can do that.
To end with here's a thought for all the purists. How would you feel if a record barbel, or chub was to come from a stillwater? Quite possible with chub.
I'd be horrified, or am I just being holier than thou. I get a bit like that at times, I know it's wrong, sorry.
D
Dave Johnson
Guest
I raised the record thing a while ago Davey, The chub record will without a doubt go to stillwater soon, the barbel will probably have to wait until the Ouse thing blows and Makins catches up......however, I think that the whoile thing is about change, something we all naturally dislike. Unfortunately, where do we go, seperate records for running water etc, I dont think so...life changes, people change and thats gauranteed...for certain!!!!
Chub
Chub
S
Sean Farrell
Guest
I remember in the late seventies when several barbel were put into my local park lake. These fish lived only for a couple of months and were caught at least three times a week. This convinced me that certain species of fish cannot adapt easily and will be under undue pressure as they try to survive in alien circumstances.I was futher convinced when the next year three chub were put into the lake.No one ever caught these and they lived for years. Could it be that the chub were more adaptable.I admit to a bias as Iam a member of the Barbel Society but I formed these views long before I ever caught a barbel or a chub for that matter.
P
Paul Williams
Guest
RMC angling have now stocked barbel into stillwaters, the Barbel society intends to use this stocking to "monitor" how barbel fare in stillwaters...............any thoughts?
S
Stewart Bloor
Guest
Paul, I've been thinking long and hard over the last few days about the RMC stocking of barbel and the BS response. To be honest, I can't quite make up my mind what I think. It is a difficult one for the BS, I accept that. It's a lose-lose situation.
P
Paul Williams
Guest
I have also been giving the situation much thought and after an intitial reaction of RMC are wrong and the BS have soon done a U turn i just can't make up my mind to be honest!!
One of the points that has crossed my mind though is the repercussions this could have on rivers....will anglers desert them further?
If this "trial" is a succsess and the barbel thrive ("thrive", is a debate on it's own!)they will be fished for all year....how will those who want to banish the river close season use that?
The move by RMC is a bold one,personally i feel their waters already offer some of the best fishing available without the barbs, but at the end of the day any succsessful body has to listen to it's punters, are the barbel belong in rivers brigade the minority?
There is no doubt in my mind that anglers today get more emotional about fish in general and barbel in particular and this was one of the points at the start of this thread, i honestly think that the aversion to barbel in stillwaters is indeed an emotional thing, it now appears that there is no real proof that they wouldn't thrive in the right sort of stillwater, why else would a group like the BS agree to this trial?
Perhaps this RMC thing could indeed prove constructive,i said earlier in the thread a rich pit doesn't compair with a muddy hole in the ground.......but it's no good us throwing our rattles about if they do thrive!
One of the points that has crossed my mind though is the repercussions this could have on rivers....will anglers desert them further?
If this "trial" is a succsess and the barbel thrive ("thrive", is a debate on it's own!)they will be fished for all year....how will those who want to banish the river close season use that?
The move by RMC is a bold one,personally i feel their waters already offer some of the best fishing available without the barbs, but at the end of the day any succsessful body has to listen to it's punters, are the barbel belong in rivers brigade the minority?
There is no doubt in my mind that anglers today get more emotional about fish in general and barbel in particular and this was one of the points at the start of this thread, i honestly think that the aversion to barbel in stillwaters is indeed an emotional thing, it now appears that there is no real proof that they wouldn't thrive in the right sort of stillwater, why else would a group like the BS agree to this trial?
Perhaps this RMC thing could indeed prove constructive,i said earlier in the thread a rich pit doesn't compair with a muddy hole in the ground.......but it's no good us throwing our rattles about if they do thrive!
GrahamM
Managing Editor
- Joined
- Feb 23, 1999
- Messages
- 9,773
- Reaction score
- 1
If I could just throw another spanner into these works there is another aspect to this debate that, as far as I know, hasn't yet been broached.
RMC are dead set against the import of big carp from abroad, and make a lot of noise about fighting the good fight for True Brit Carp. Now, I know that the stocking of British barbel into British stillwaters isn't the same issue as stocking foreign carp into British waters. But there are some very similar issues at stake aren't there?
Stocking fish in waters where the species don't belong is one issue. The health of the fish being at stake is another. If a record barbel is caught from a stillwater will raise yet another issue. And so on.
Think carefully about this one. Are we not back to what I often say, that, depending on which side of the fence we sit, we can justify anything?
I still say that a legal and controlled stocking of foreign carp into British waters would not necessarily be a bad thing. Maybe a legal and controlled stocking of barbel into stillwaters may not be a bad thing either.
Why is it so easy to be blinkered about one issue and so open about another?
RMC are dead set against the import of big carp from abroad, and make a lot of noise about fighting the good fight for True Brit Carp. Now, I know that the stocking of British barbel into British stillwaters isn't the same issue as stocking foreign carp into British waters. But there are some very similar issues at stake aren't there?
Stocking fish in waters where the species don't belong is one issue. The health of the fish being at stake is another. If a record barbel is caught from a stillwater will raise yet another issue. And so on.
Think carefully about this one. Are we not back to what I often say, that, depending on which side of the fence we sit, we can justify anything?
I still say that a legal and controlled stocking of foreign carp into British waters would not necessarily be a bad thing. Maybe a legal and controlled stocking of barbel into stillwaters may not be a bad thing either.
Why is it so easy to be blinkered about one issue and so open about another?
DAVE COOPER
New member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 0
- Reaction score
- 0
It's a bit strange when people are talking in one breath about barbel not thriving in stillwaters, then talking about the potential for a british record coming from a stillwater in the next. If the barbel is not thriving how could it attain record proportions? Just a thought.
Whether barbel do 'thrive' will be up to the barbel to prove. They are in stillwaters now and will either grow or die. At the end of the day, like it or not, the experiment has begun and the fish itself will prove it either way in the next few years.
The question is then about your own personal ethics, whether you feel comfortable fishing for them in stillwaters or only in rivers. Personally I feel the magic of the barbel goes with the running water, so I will stick with the rivers. If others want to fish for them in lakes, that's up to them. All I want to see is is the stocking done legally, not through illegal netting from the rivers.
Whether barbel do 'thrive' will be up to the barbel to prove. They are in stillwaters now and will either grow or die. At the end of the day, like it or not, the experiment has begun and the fish itself will prove it either way in the next few years.
The question is then about your own personal ethics, whether you feel comfortable fishing for them in stillwaters or only in rivers. Personally I feel the magic of the barbel goes with the running water, so I will stick with the rivers. If others want to fish for them in lakes, that's up to them. All I want to see is is the stocking done legally, not through illegal netting from the rivers.
S
Stewart Bloor
Guest
It is true that we all have our own 'pet' subjects and topics and it is easy to get polarised particularly if one is inclined that way. However, no matter how I've tried to be open about the whole thing, I jsut can't accept that barbel should be in stillwaters.
The issue of carp being stocked is different, because we are looking at really taking fish from one environment and then placing them in a similiar one. Barbel are a different species, I know the argument can be that fish were bred in a stillwater environment, but it still needs to be 'artificial' ie higher oxygenation. Once put in a stillwater, it becomes a totally different situation.
The fact that comments are made about barbel not thriving in stillwaters and also that the next record may come from one are not strange or contradictory, purely because it's not the same people who are saying both. Well, I wouldn't anyway. I say it is improbable for a barbel bred in 'captivity' and then released in a stillwater to grow to record proportions under normal circumstances.
The issue of carp being stocked is different, because we are looking at really taking fish from one environment and then placing them in a similiar one. Barbel are a different species, I know the argument can be that fish were bred in a stillwater environment, but it still needs to be 'artificial' ie higher oxygenation. Once put in a stillwater, it becomes a totally different situation.
The fact that comments are made about barbel not thriving in stillwaters and also that the next record may come from one are not strange or contradictory, purely because it's not the same people who are saying both. Well, I wouldn't anyway. I say it is improbable for a barbel bred in 'captivity' and then released in a stillwater to grow to record proportions under normal circumstances.
S
sam oddy
Guest
Not too sure about this issue at all.
Presumably barbel are only being stocked into commercial fisheries. I don't know much about RMC waters but surely these can be defined as commercial as they are run as a business as opposed to a non profit/mutual trading organisation.
In this case surely all fish would be viewed as a commodity and therefore with barbel increasingly becoming the vogue fish it is only natural (sic)that commercial waters will want to stock them.
Whether this is right or not is probably irrelevent in that the fish stocked will have been bred as stock fish and were it not for the demand to stock them in commercials they quite probably would not have been bred in the first place. It goes without saying I would not countenance barbel being taken from rivers to be stocked in still waters.
Presumably barbel are only being stocked into commercial fisheries. I don't know much about RMC waters but surely these can be defined as commercial as they are run as a business as opposed to a non profit/mutual trading organisation.
In this case surely all fish would be viewed as a commodity and therefore with barbel increasingly becoming the vogue fish it is only natural (sic)that commercial waters will want to stock them.
Whether this is right or not is probably irrelevent in that the fish stocked will have been bred as stock fish and were it not for the demand to stock them in commercials they quite probably would not have been bred in the first place. It goes without saying I would not countenance barbel being taken from rivers to be stocked in still waters.