Six huge barbel abused for publicity pictures and a video. The Thames Six

[Ray Roberts]

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.

You and the other guy have publicised his actions even more and created more publicity than he would otherwise have had.

Do we really want more rules and restrictions on angling as a result of the stupidity of one person?

I very much doubt that any member on here would behave in a like manner. We should be careful what we wish for, as someday it may be decided that not just the way we treat our catch is questionable but the entire sport.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Philip]

Exactly Ray. .

EA appear to be involved as well now.

Its not difficult to extrapolate were inquires by government bodies into effective protection of fish in an angling context is going to eventually end one day.

Its incredible to me that they cannot see the bigger picture. Thanks to this attempt to publically hang him on fish welfare grounds its pushing the EA even more to review legislation. We appear to be drawing the knot just that little bit tighter round our own necks.

 

[mikench]

“ 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” . The words of the OP


You have been lurking for over 6 years without a single post. Suddenly you get all animated and make 13 posts in a day. I don’t understand why and where you have been in all that time.

 

[@Clive]

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

I can guess who that is. And that is why I no longer post on that well known single species forum.

 

[Alan Whitty]

It's all over Facebook...

 

[mikench]

It would be. That kind of stuff is why I never look at twitface and never have.

 

[Alan Whitty]

I am and always have been anti barbel society,but that doesn't alter the video content which is poor,whoever does it,only a beginner who doesn't know better can be forgiven...

 

[@Clive]

I am and always have been anti barbel society,but that doesn't alter the video content which is poor,whoever does it,only a beginner who doesn't know better can be forgiven...

That is why he should have been quietly taken to one side, personally or online and spoken to. Or the fishery manager could have been informed to do the same. Now it is reflecting badly on all anglers and that is down to people who should know better.

 

[Aknib]

If i'm fortunate enough to encounter a sizeable or particularly striking specimen tomorrow i'll certainly be taking a pic.

The shot will be set up whilst the fish recovers in the landing net and only after being sure it needs no support, and the fish will benefit for an extra couple of minutes rest whilst I set up the shot for what will amount to an extra four or five seconds on the bank.

It will then be rested in the net again before being taken by the wrist of the tail whilst supporting it underneath, pointed upstream until the inevitable strong flick of the tail tells me all's well, usually after a couple of less determined efforts on behalf of the fish.

I don't think that's a bad trade off or a bad way to handle fish of any species but, and it's a big but, if the circumstances won't allow it such as steeply sloping or overgrown banks, or particularly hot weather, I won't entertain the idea.

What I can't understand about the angler in question is why it was so important to them to have the group shot, why not set up a shot for each fish and return them all, once fully recovered, immediately after capture and still go for the publicity if that's what they sought?

My biggest satisfaction from catching Barbel is seeing them go back just as strong as they came out and the job really isn't done until then, the fresher and stronger the better and to the best of my knowledge i've never had one go belly up on me.

I'm not going to speculate about the angler's motives, I hope it wasn't sponsorship because I don't think that would be panning out very well.

 

[no-one in particular]

How many barbel are caught in the Thames, and 10klb+ ones at that, incredible catch from the Thames, unheard of, he looks like an experienced angler and he knew no one would believe him so I reckon the bloke videoed them like that because no would have believed him if he hadn't. A picture would be said to be doctored remember the Canadian carp and 6 15lb barbel is not far off that for believability especially from the Thames.

 

[Alan Whitty]

Problem is,if you are like me you don't give a Tom t1t if your nor believed,because you wouldn't have said you had 6 15's,you would have said 6 to 15lbs,you wouldn't have had a trophy shot,and you may not have named the river as you may have been identified on it,it's all about media coverage and always has been...
As for having a word,nah,his reputation needs tarnishing,there have been many like him over the years, I'm sure some could post some names,I will not....

 

[Aknib]

How many barbel are caught in the Thames, and 10klb+ ones at that, incredible catch from the Thames, unheard of, he looks like an experienced angler and he knew no one would believe him so I reckon the bloke videoed them like that because no would have believed him if he hadn't. A picture would be said to be doctored remember the Canadian carp and 6 15lb barbel is not far off that for believability especially from the Thames.

I get your point Pete but I still don't understand why it was so important to be believed, no matter how remarkable the catch either in this or Clive's (not nicepix) infamous power station come railings come canoes Carp case.

I would just be grateful of the experience and if anything i'm with Alan on it, keep as quiet as possible. I don't seek or need any recognition or adulation for it, again if that was the case.

If I were lucky enough to encounter and divulge such a catch, and people didn't believe me, i'd be safe in the satisfaction that I knew better.

We all enthusiastically report our catches as part of general interaction and taking part in the spirit of things but i'm a bit lost on this one's actions and motives, maybe he's just different to me and in his mind just as right as me, or i'm just as wrong as him?

Only general opinion will be the judge and in some eyes one will be right and in other's the other will be right, i'm very comfortable about where I sit and my opinion of what this angler did.

For me Philip made an excellent comment earlier, we can't be too kid glove about things but I believe there's a balance and I don't personally think it's at the end of the scale of that angler's actions but that's just my opinion and my opinion is as throwaway as chip paper.

It doesn't have to prevail as being right and it won't change my view if it's wrong.

 

[markcw]

How many barbel are caught in the Thames, and 10klb+ ones at that, incredible catch from the Thames, unheard of, he looks like an experienced angler and he knew no one would believe him so I reckon the bloke videoed them like that because no would have believed him if he hadn't. A picture would be said to be doctored remember the Canadian carp and 6 15lb barbel is not far off that for believability especially from the Thames.

A 16lb barbel was caught at Sanford Weir on the Thames on opening day last year .

 

[no-one in particular]

I get your point Pete but I still don't understand why it was so important to be believed, no matter how remarkable the catch either in this or Clive's (not nicepix) infamous power station come railings come canoes Carp case.

I would just be grateful of the experience and if anything i'm with Alan on it, keep as quiet as possible. I don't seek or need any recognition or adulation for it, again if that was the case.

If I were lucky enough to encounter and divulge such a catch, and people didn't believe me, i'd be safe in the satisfaction that I knew better.

We all enthusiastically report our catches as part of general interaction and taking part in the spirit of things but i'm a bit lost on this one's actions and motives, maybe he's just different to me and in his mind just as right as me, or i'm just as wrong as him?

Only general opinion will be the judge and in some eyes one will be right and in other's the other will be right, i'm very comfortable about where I sit and my opinion of what this angler did.

For me Philip made an excellent comment earlier, we can't be too kid glove about things but I believe there's a balance and I don't personally think it's at the end of the scale of that angler's actions but that's just my opinion and my opinion is as throwaway as chip paper.

It doesn't have to prevail as being right and it won't change my view if it's wrong.

He could have been so chuffed that he just wanted to show everyone what he had done, I get your point that many of us would have just been happy and sod what anyone else believed but we cant expect everyone to be the same, it can be a very frustrating thing knowing you have done something quite amazing and no one believes you. I don't know, I just feel that is what this bloke wanted, to be believed more than anything else. I take Marks fish of a 16lb one but that is very rare in the Thames and 6 of similar weight is quite incredible. If someone told me they had caught 6 fish like that from the Thames I would have my doubts they were telling the truth and so would have a lot of other anglers, I bet this bloke was aware of that. Anyway, neither here or there as it seems we will never know what his reasons were.

 

[Aknib]

Just stepping outside the box here for a moment and opening another can of worms...

Let's say the controlling club bans the angler in question, or the EA steps in and takes some sort of action, as unlikely as that is in my mind as the latter can't even carry out their primary responsibilities in my opinion but that's a different matter.

Said angler then receives a punitive action from one, another, or both.

Was it the angler at fault or is it the negligence of the controlling club and/or the EA for not banning the retention of Barbel and the publicising of their capture in their rules and byelaws?

Again I will add a very hefty 'if' that is/was the case.

The angler could potentially claim he was acting in full accordance with the club and EA rules and was therefore doing nothing wrong.

Can you just imagine the response from the controlling club if all these posts and those elsewhere were landing on their secretary's doormat with 'How Could You Let This Happen' written in blood on the envelopes?

Maybe there's a heads up for clubs here too?

I'm assuming these fish were caught from a 'controlled' water, if so could anyone confirm if the controller's rules include such protections?

 

[@Clive]

I raised this point earlier Steve. Currently there are no regulations outside the close season other than net size and mesh covering the retention of coarse species.

 

[Alan Whitty]

Apart from a clubs rules,the Thames has been producing fish to well over 18lbs for at least 5 years,but in the main it is extremely hard to catch barbel,so his catch is obviously exceptional,be assured,he planned the 'sheet' shot as you wouldn't normally go with such gubbins geared for retention,six retention slings??? I wonder where he would find room on a river like the Thames to set them out safely....

 

[no-one in particular]

Apart from a clubs rules,the Thames has been producing fish to well over 18lbs for at least 5 years,but in the main it is extremely hard to catch barbel,so his catch is obviously exceptional,be assured,he planned the 'sheet' shot as you wouldn't normally go with such gubbins geared for retention,six retention slings??? I wonder where he would find room on a river like the Thames to set them out safely....

I am obviously not up to speed on Thames barbel but that would have been unheard of in my day, a bit behind the times, I still think it is amazing though, shame he spoiled it so much with all the media ho ha. In my day it would have been a picture with an old camera and you would have only heard about it by word of mouth unless it was put into the angling times or something. But then how many would have believe it back then, not many back then probably. However, times change and move on, no stopping that.

 

[Alan Whitty]

If he would have took a picture of the largest and not made a circus event of the video it would have been better,just thank your lucky stars you caught five others and look forward your the next session...

 

[Telboy63]

Just stepping outside the box here for a moment and opening another can of worms...

Let's say the controlling club bans the angler in question, or the EA steps in and takes some sort of action, as unlikely as that is in my mind as the latter can't even carry out their primary responsibilities in my opinion but that's a different matter.

Said angler then receives a punitive action from one, another, or both.

Was it the angler at fault or is it the negligence of the controlling club and/or the EA for not banning the retention of Barbel and the publicising of their capture in their rules and byelaws?

Again I will add a very hefty 'if' that is/was the case.

The angler could potentially claim he was acting in full accordance with the club and EA rules and was therefore doing nothing wrong.

Can you just imagine the response from the controlling club if all these posts and those elsewhere were landing on their secretary's doormat with 'How Could You Let This Happen' written in blood on the envelopes?

Maybe there's a heads up for clubs here too?

I'm assuming these fish were caught from a 'controlled' water, if so could anyone confirm if the controller's rules include such protections?

As I said to clive earlier in this thread but he chose to ignore ..I’m led to believe the fish were caught from a boat .. so there is no controlling club
As for the comments about no one believing him so he retained them for a group pic I find that kind of odd I don’t think his name is uri gellar how did he know he was going to catch six large barbel ..
I have never in 55 years of angling met anyone who carries 6 sacks so either he had multiple fish in sacks or he used a keepnet or he was fishing in the middle of johnson ross