How does this relate to the OP being wrong to deplore pics and vid's of 6 big barbel? That's ok because no one has clean hands? Nobody should retain fish or take pics because it's all equally bad? No, there's better and worse fish care and different degrees of selfishness and abuse, even though we all catch them and take pic's now and then.
Six huge barbel abused for publicity pictures and a video. The Thames Six
- Thread starter Hallbo1
- Start date
How does this relate to the OP being wrong to deplore pics and vid's of 6 big barbel? That's ok because no one has clean hands? Nobody should retain fish or take pics because it's all equally bad? No, there's better and worse fish care and different degrees of selfishness and abuse, even though we all catch them and take pic's now and then.
The Sogster
Well-known member
Your advice. Are you going to answer my questions now?
@Clive
Well-known member
It is the way he has gone about it Kev. What has he achieved creating this name and shame witch hunt on here? If he is so enraged then let him vent his anger at the fishery owner or the EA.
John Aston
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2007
- Messages
- 995
- Reaction score
- 2,540
If only we had the same sense of outrage shown to anglers who leave their mounds of litter behind , hack down vegetation because it is in the sight line between car and rods .... Anyway , I dare say the object of the derision (whose actions I don't condone ) is now getting a litany of abuse on social media and the almost compulsory death threats . Did OP want me to join in the pile on - I wonder what outcome was looked for ? A chorus of 'yes, it's very poor behaviour ' ?
The whole point of this debate was to raise awareness of an incident where fish welfare was sadly lacking.
It happened a week ago and asking me if the fish survived has little bearing on the point I was making.
I could say that they all died and it could not be disproved but that does not address the post.
To avoid further attempts to drag the post off into endless talk about everything that is wrong with fishing please consider this fact.
It is a fact that Barbel do fight hard and often need help to recover.
Based upon that fact, was he causing unnecessary distress to the six barbel by retaining them for publicity?
YES. or NO
It’s that simple
It happened a week ago and asking me if the fish survived has little bearing on the point I was making.
I could say that they all died and it could not be disproved but that does not address the post.
To avoid further attempts to drag the post off into endless talk about everything that is wrong with fishing please consider this fact.
It is a fact that Barbel do fight hard and often need help to recover.
Based upon that fact, was he causing unnecessary distress to the six barbel by retaining them for publicity?
YES. or NO
It’s that simple
@Clive
Well-known member
Have you thought about actually contacting the bloke and directly dispensing your wisdom on him? And maybe a career as a tabloid journalist?
mikench
Well-known member
Yes is my unequivocal answer. The guy in the video was a prat and the type that gives fishing a bad name. He deserves to be condemned for his actions. Personally I have never used a keep net and have caught barbel only with anglers( members past and present on here) who don’t either and who have the highest regard for fish welfare across the board and who taught me to have the same. The advent of social media platforms like Twitface and TikTok cater for guys like him and give him the pseudo celebrity status he seeks. I would draw parallels with phsycopaths who need attention for their misdeeds.
I repeat to avoid any scope for misunderstanding that I find the video and the “ angler” ( I use the term loosely in his case) distasteful in the extreme.
I would add that this thread contains posts by a new member who launches into a tirade of ridicule and another who had made barely a dozen posts in 6 years and all 13 since yesterday. I find some of the indignation potentially disingenuous and verging on the deliberately provocative. The OP makes his initial point well and I am in full agreement with it. Yes this forum is for discussion as is the pub but launching into a tirade with total strangers is not going to endear you to your audience in either environment.
I repeat to avoid any scope for misunderstanding that I find the video and the “ angler” ( I use the term loosely in his case) distasteful in the extreme.
I would add that this thread contains posts by a new member who launches into a tirade of ridicule and another who had made barely a dozen posts in 6 years and all 13 since yesterday. I find some of the indignation potentially disingenuous and verging on the deliberately provocative. The OP makes his initial point well and I am in full agreement with it. Yes this forum is for discussion as is the pub but launching into a tirade with total strangers is not going to endear you to your audience in either environment.
Last edited:
John Aston
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2007
- Messages
- 995
- Reaction score
- 2,540
Yous asked for' a debate' , rathe than a binary yes/no vote and . y'know , you sort of got one ? Why do you even want a yes/no vote? If it's overwhelmingly yes , then what next ? Will this lever up your outrage another notch so you can confront the bad man with the vote and say 'look at this! They all agree with me! ' ?
I'm a bit mystified why the OP would be construed to be only whipping up outrage, provoking a "pile on" etc.
Inviting people to register disapproval of the original incident, or, implicitly, to explain why they don't if they don't, seems to be a valid thing to do on a forum. I don't see why anglers affirming some common value, ie no, we don't do this type of thing to trophy fish, or similar red lines, is to be dismissed as mob mentality. Neither is a chorus of disapproval and condemnation a sign that someone must be a witch hunt victim (who does that remind you of?). Perhaps they did something that merits it?
Inviting people to register disapproval of the original incident, or, implicitly, to explain why they don't if they don't, seems to be a valid thing to do on a forum. I don't see why anglers affirming some common value, ie no, we don't do this type of thing to trophy fish, or similar red lines, is to be dismissed as mob mentality. Neither is a chorus of disapproval and condemnation a sign that someone must be a witch hunt victim (who does that remind you of?). Perhaps they did something that merits it?
John & Clive
The whole point of the yes / no was because very few people will actually address the actual post.
We are anglers and fish welfare must be a priority.
From the comments it is clear that some people will not address what happened and that they would prefer that it was not spoken about.
To try and dismiss or degrade the incident with irrelevant comments does confirm to me that their priorities are wrong.
They will not say why it was acceptable to retain the Thames barbel so I have to assume that they consider the matter of little importance and not worth discussing.
If that is the case then go to another post and hide away from honest debate.
Maybe they are worried that if they have to justify their position against scientific data and best practice that they will be embarrassed in front of their peers.
Anyone who has read the post is aware of what happened and there is little point in discussing anecdotal evidence about what used to happen or the outcomes.
Look at it this way.
If you drive a car you know the limitations e.g. Do not drink and drive or exceed the speed limit.
If you killed someone because you were drunk or speeding and then stood up in court and said 'when I was a lad it was acceptable' would the Judge listen to you?
It is a shame that some people cannot answer a question. Its a yes from me.
Yes or No or Right or Wrong
The whole point of the yes / no was because very few people will actually address the actual post.
We are anglers and fish welfare must be a priority.
From the comments it is clear that some people will not address what happened and that they would prefer that it was not spoken about.
To try and dismiss or degrade the incident with irrelevant comments does confirm to me that their priorities are wrong.
They will not say why it was acceptable to retain the Thames barbel so I have to assume that they consider the matter of little importance and not worth discussing.
If that is the case then go to another post and hide away from honest debate.
Maybe they are worried that if they have to justify their position against scientific data and best practice that they will be embarrassed in front of their peers.
Anyone who has read the post is aware of what happened and there is little point in discussing anecdotal evidence about what used to happen or the outcomes.
Look at it this way.
If you drive a car you know the limitations e.g. Do not drink and drive or exceed the speed limit.
If you killed someone because you were drunk or speeding and then stood up in court and said 'when I was a lad it was acceptable' would the Judge listen to you?
It is a shame that some people cannot answer a question. Its a yes from me.
Yes or No or Right or Wrong
John Aston
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2007
- Messages
- 995
- Reaction score
- 2,540
It's a storm , but it's really not in as big a tea cup as you imagine. You seem to think that this is some sort of national scandal , and it really isn't - all it is about is some chap nobody knows who has attracted a bit of flak , and justifiably so, for not looking after fish as well as we now expect . You should already be able to gauge the fact that nobody has condoned the poor behaviour ,although they may have commented on changing standards over their fishing career.
I do struggle to understand why you continue to demand yes/no answers to your question when you can already infer that nobody condones ill treating fish. Is it to make you feel more important , to quote elsewhere or for another reason ? Just don't assume that peremptorily setting out hoops will have people queueing up to jump through them .
By the way I've driven for decades but must have missed the bit when causing death by speed or drunkenness was acceptable. Trust me , it never was and I'm amazed you think it was.
I do struggle to understand why you continue to demand yes/no answers to your question when you can already infer that nobody condones ill treating fish. Is it to make you feel more important , to quote elsewhere or for another reason ? Just don't assume that peremptorily setting out hoops will have people queueing up to jump through them .
By the way I've driven for decades but must have missed the bit when causing death by speed or drunkenness was acceptable. Trust me , it never was and I'm amazed you think it was.
Last edited:
Ray Roberts
Well-known member
I feel the main reason many people haven’t answered, is that none of them have to be answerable to you or your rude and hectoring companion. Why do you feel the need to have your views validated by people who don’t know you or the angler? It all seems rather odd.
I’m not going to start chanting; “Burn him, burn him!” Neither am I a Spartacus to champion your particular agenda, most people on here probably feel the same.
I’m not going to start chanting; “Burn him, burn him!” Neither am I a Spartacus to champion your particular agenda, most people on here probably feel the same.
The bad one
Well-known member
What the guy did causes serious concerns for me regarding fish welfare practices. I’ve not used a keepnet, sack, bathtub, or anything else to retain a fish for 40 years or more. I no longer photograph or weigh any fish I catch unless I think it’s a PB and or there’s something else distinctive about a particular fish. Ie big scar, fin missing, strange colour, etc.
Having written that I’ve just had a look through EA rules and regulations, and he is not in contravention of them either. So, it’s a moral/ethical perspective as far as the RRs are concerned.
Personally, if I knew him (I don’t) I’d be challenging him on his poor practices and asking him to change them. Then if he wouldn’t or didn’t then and only then would I take to social media and give him a metaphorical kicking.
To old now to give him a physical kicking!
I do however, find your attitude somewhat over the top and extreme to be honest and drowning your well-meaning argument.
Having written that I’ve just had a look through EA rules and regulations, and he is not in contravention of them either. So, it’s a moral/ethical perspective as far as the RRs are concerned.
Personally, if I knew him (I don’t) I’d be challenging him on his poor practices and asking him to change them. Then if he wouldn’t or didn’t then and only then would I take to social media and give him a metaphorical kicking.
To old now to give him a physical kicking!
I do however, find your attitude somewhat over the top and extreme to be honest and drowning your well-meaning argument.
Alan Whitty
Well-known member
When an angler catches a double figure barbel and he lands it he rests it,without removing it from the water,he gathers his scales,camera/phone,sling(wetted and zeroed)then removes the hook and weighs it,I then place the fish back into the water in the net and get him back to speed so to speak before taking him out to take a snap and returning after going through the revival steps again,the comments about sticking hooks into them is different,as that isn't going to kill them,bad handling,retention or reviving techniques definitely will,having six decent barbel sliding around on a plastic sheet is without doubt bad practice if two or more started to jump about he couldn't ensure them staying on said sheet,likening bream in a keepnet to barbel is very naive,as bream are a more robust fish than barbel,pike or grayling,and if you were caught doing shots like that on any club water I barbel fish you would lose your membership instantly,there is no excuse for it these days and I can't believe he put it up,because some comments were pretty scathing....
Alan Whitty
Well-known member
Peter,some of the comments by long term members on this thread lead me to believe they know little about barbel and shocked me greatly,the thought of any angler retaining 6 big barbel to as the man quotes 15lbs is obscene,nothing more,nothing less,let alone having them sliding on a plastic sheet....
Alan, you and I have been on this site for many years. In all that time we have never seen posts that favour the ill treatment of any fish, barbel included.
I doubt you’d find any member here that condones this sort of barbaric treatment.
I doubt you’d find any member here that condones this sort of barbaric treatment.
Alan Whitty
Well-known member
No,but aligning it to actually angling for them with a hook is stupid and was rightly pointed out,and anyone with any angling experience knows the delicate nature of barbel,pike and grayling in comparison to other species,that said I wouldn't put 200lbs of bream into nets these days either,or 100lbs of roach,I have in the past however,the knowledge that some of those barbel will have been retained for some hours is despicable. To add Peter,some of the so called long term members posted comments that lead you to believe they don't decry this anglers practices,that is why there is some angst.
Ray Roberts
Well-known member
That is my take too. People don’t like being told what to think or say, particularly by people who don’t know them from Adam. One of these two guys is slagging the members on here off on one of the barbel sites. I personally haven’t seen anyone on here advocating the mistreatment of fish.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Hello chaps I (if I can use that pronoun)?
The only reason I asked for a vote was to try and get an answer from some of the lurkers on the site but it seems to me that some are more interested in a row than looking at a recent incident and making a positive contribution.
Yes the individual was named but having a public profile to show how good you are at fishing means that you also stand the chance of being called out for your indiscretions.
We cannot talk to him directly because those involved have gone to ground and the facebook group have shown little interest in the matter so raising it with him is not achievable.
The fishery owners could also have some input but who knows who they are?
My post referred to fish welfare and it seems that the EA are now also looking into this incident. Ironically, last year Angling Times also raised the issue of fish welfare, and they asked if the current legislation was providing effective protection for the fish?
How do you think this incident comes across to those considering a review of the legislation?
Answer: It goes a long way to support the argument that the AWA 2006 may need to be amended to address this type of incident and the repercussions could affect many facets of angling that would not be needed if anglers demonstrated that they understood fish welfare and managed incidents effectively when they occurred.
If the use of keep nets was banned what would happen to match angling?
If the use of carp sacks was banned what would the effect be on carp fishing?
If all the barbel had died do I then assume that it would be okay because he stuck within the rules of the EA?
I have previously been asked if any barbel died but one dead barbel is too many and they can suffer a lot before they die.
There is no benefit for anglers if they ignore the issues and hoping that they will go away will always end in disappointment. We live in an age where we can instantly publicise our actions and stupid people do stupid things. If they go unchallenged they become acceptable and we will be tarred with the same brush.
I raised the issue because it was morally wrong and he ignored fish welfare best practice.
I have tried to lay out why I feel that what happened was wrong on so many levels but it is highly likely that some of the responses will still miss the point of the original post.
The only reason I asked for a vote was to try and get an answer from some of the lurkers on the site but it seems to me that some are more interested in a row than looking at a recent incident and making a positive contribution.
Yes the individual was named but having a public profile to show how good you are at fishing means that you also stand the chance of being called out for your indiscretions.
We cannot talk to him directly because those involved have gone to ground and the facebook group have shown little interest in the matter so raising it with him is not achievable.
The fishery owners could also have some input but who knows who they are?
My post referred to fish welfare and it seems that the EA are now also looking into this incident. Ironically, last year Angling Times also raised the issue of fish welfare, and they asked if the current legislation was providing effective protection for the fish?
How do you think this incident comes across to those considering a review of the legislation?
Answer: It goes a long way to support the argument that the AWA 2006 may need to be amended to address this type of incident and the repercussions could affect many facets of angling that would not be needed if anglers demonstrated that they understood fish welfare and managed incidents effectively when they occurred.
If the use of keep nets was banned what would happen to match angling?
If the use of carp sacks was banned what would the effect be on carp fishing?
If all the barbel had died do I then assume that it would be okay because he stuck within the rules of the EA?
I have previously been asked if any barbel died but one dead barbel is too many and they can suffer a lot before they die.
There is no benefit for anglers if they ignore the issues and hoping that they will go away will always end in disappointment. We live in an age where we can instantly publicise our actions and stupid people do stupid things. If they go unchallenged they become acceptable and we will be tarred with the same brush.
I raised the issue because it was morally wrong and he ignored fish welfare best practice.
I have tried to lay out why I feel that what happened was wrong on so many levels but it is highly likely that some of the responses will still miss the point of the original post.
mikench
Well-known member
Who are they Alan? I haven’t made that connection at all.