cg74
Well-known member
Last edited:
richiekelly
Well-known member
Thanks for that Bluenose, from what I read the water in question was spring fed, gin clear and with a stone lake bed, perhaps Barbel in still water have found a way to breed if the right conditions exist in the waters they are living in, or could it be that they have in some waters adapted to do what come naturally to them without running water ?
sam vimes
Well-known member
If breeding success is the only indication of healthy barbel, they probably shouldn't be in the majority of our rivers either!
cg74
Well-known member
Ironically the most successful rivers regards barbel spawning are mainly rivers that barbel are alien to: The rivers Wye, Teme and Severn immediately come to mind.
If you have a look around that time mate, and maybe a few years later, there were a few decent threads on the topic. I think Mike W contributed to another thread also, indeed he may have done an article on it, or possibly linked one from somewhere (not 100% sure) but there were a few decent contributions for sure.
Fred may well remember when he looks in!
richiekelly
Well-known member
I asked can/did Barbel spawn in still water, nothing in my post about how healthy the fish were, is spawning a sign of a fishes health? or does the urge to spawn override other matters?
I am indifferent as to whether Barbel should be stocked into still waters or not so long as the still water they are put into is not over stocked ( that goes for all species ) what I do know for sure is that still water Barbel can and do put weight on, is that a sign that they are content/healthy?
A
alan whittington
Guest
Stillwater barbel attempt to spawn,as do all species,generally they dont succeed,but then nor do carp in majority of southern(maybe more)England,if fish are surviving and in fair condition surely that is all that matters.
The ultimate aim of all life is to procreate and keep the species going.
If it's not doing that, it's not surviving!
---------- Post added at 09:56 ---------- Previous post was at 09:48 ----------
So effectively any fish that is in an unnatural environment,ie placed by man, it's just there for man's enjoyment/benefit.
If it's not doing that, it's not surviving!
---------- Post added at 09:56 ---------- Previous post was at 09:48 ----------
So effectively any fish that is in an unnatural environment,ie placed by man, it's just there for man's enjoyment/benefit.
Last edited:
chav professor
Well-known member
I can't speak for anyone else's enjoyment or opinion....
For me personally, the thought of catching a still water barbel would be a hollow empty experience.
On a river, its always a pleasure.
Funny thing is.... Still water Chub do intrigue me. Having said that, don't have a still water near me that is stocked with Chub to my knowledge.
Its only a personal opinion.... Can't see it doing a species specially bred for stocking any significant damage.... just not for me.
For me personally, the thought of catching a still water barbel would be a hollow empty experience.
On a river, its always a pleasure.
Funny thing is.... Still water Chub do intrigue me. Having said that, don't have a still water near me that is stocked with Chub to my knowledge.
Its only a personal opinion.... Can't see it doing a species specially bred for stocking any significant damage.... just not for me.
sam vimes
Well-known member
As a species that might be true, as an individual it's patently not. An individual can survive perfectly well without procreating. That's before you even start to anthropomorphise and witter on about being happy, content, fulfilled etc.
Which is fine and dandy, but we are sailing very close to condemnation of all "unnatural" stockings. If that's the angle we are going to persue, I suspect that an awful lot of rivers are going to be devoid of barbel in fairly short order. Then it must be considered that quite a few current barbel rivers should never have had barbel put in them in the first place. Are the "no barbel in stillwaters" crowd really prepared to persue this to its logical conclusion? Are they going to be happy that their local (non-easterly flowing) river is now not going to have the non-indigenous, non-breeding, but fast dwindling barbel population supplemented by EA stockings because it's unnatural?
I'm really not bothered at all by barbel being stocked into stillwaters, provided they don't suffer for it (by suffer I mean disease, poor condition, lack of oxygen etc). As far as I'm aware, the vast bulk of barbel rearing is carried out by the EA. The stillwaters that stock them don't get the barbel for free. I would assume that the EA actually makes some money out of it. If that income means that one single extra barbel goes into a river (preferably an easterly flowing one
:wh), I'm all for it. They can fill their muddy holes with barbel.
Good job we're not talking about individuals then, because an individual all on it's own is merely surviving and awaiting the inevitable !
Not certain that the EA makes any money out of fish breeding, they are certainly, to the best of my knowledge, not in the business of fish sales to muddy hole owners.
I also think there are probably many who are of the view that barbel shouldn't be stocked anywhere they haven't previously been a natural occurrence!
---------- Post added at 10:50 ---------- Previous post was at 10:45 ----------
As for stocking in stillwaters that are unsuitable, that is already allowed for and shouldn't happen....unless stolen.
So, it all comes back to the original issue, those who objected to stillwater barbel, were more concerned about their removal from rivers for stocking and I'm sure they still are.
Not certain that the EA makes any money out of fish breeding, they are certainly, to the best of my knowledge, not in the business of fish sales to muddy hole owners.
I also think there are probably many who are of the view that barbel shouldn't be stocked anywhere they haven't previously been a natural occurrence!
---------- Post added at 10:50 ---------- Previous post was at 10:45 ----------
As for stocking in stillwaters that are unsuitable, that is already allowed for and shouldn't happen....unless stolen.
So, it all comes back to the original issue, those who objected to stillwater barbel, were more concerned about their removal from rivers for stocking and I'm sure they still are.
Last edited:
sam vimes
Well-known member
Sorry, I don't buy that can a single, childless being not survive and be be perfectly happy? It can easily be siad that every living entity is simply awaiting the inevitable, regardless of what's done in between the beginning of life and the inevitable end.
I'm not certain either, but a few have suggested to me that this is the case.
I can agree entirely with the concern over nicked river fish. However, those days, for most part, are long gone. Why any body gives a monkey's about captive bred fish going into another artificial environment is beyond me. The whole happy, content and breeding arguments against it are simply red herrings that do not stand close scrutiny.
I'd love to see the locations of all the objectors, especially if they are fishing the likes of the Ribble, Severn, Stour, Avon (Warks or Hamps) etc. If their objections are genuine, they surely can't be too happy about the oft illegal original barbel stockings and subsequent "unnatural" stockings of fish into rivers where they aren't indigenous?
bennygesserit
Well-known member
Surely there is an obvious asthetic difference between stocking a river fish into a stillwater where it cannot breed or into a river where it breeds succesfully.
I venture some anglers wouldn't even know which fish were indigenous but virtually all would know that a barbel can only breed in rivers.
sam vimes
Well-known member
There is a difference, no doubt, but the arguments people are using against barbel being stocked in stillwaters are high on ideals and a little thin on reality. For a start, you are making a large assumption that barbel can't breed in stillwater. There is limited evidence that isn't necessarily always the case. In addition, there are plenty of indications that barbel aren't breeding successfully in many of our rivers.
Fish being stolen and illegally transferred from one water to another is totally wrong, regardless of where they originate or end up. Fish being bought legitimately to be stocked is another, provided they don't suffer wherever they end up, what does it really matter?
I have fished the River Dee from the weir at Chester up to Bala Lake since I was a kid. In 2002 a massive spillage of industrial effluent virtually wiped out fish stocks from downstream of Trefnant to the sea.
The river Dee is a trout and grayling water in its upper reaches and a good coarse fishery from Wrexham downstream. It also has an annual run of salmon.
The re-stocking, in 2003, after the fish-kill included chub and barbel. The River Dee was not noted as a chub and barbel fishery prior to the spill, in fact I had never heard of a barbel being caught from it. However they have thrived in the river ever since and both species are welcomed by Dee anglers.
An introduced species then, but introduced into an environment where it would be completely at home.
The river Dee is a trout and grayling water in its upper reaches and a good coarse fishery from Wrexham downstream. It also has an annual run of salmon.
The re-stocking, in 2003, after the fish-kill included chub and barbel. The River Dee was not noted as a chub and barbel fishery prior to the spill, in fact I had never heard of a barbel being caught from it. However they have thrived in the river ever since and both species are welcomed by Dee anglers.
An introduced species then, but introduced into an environment where it would be completely at home.
The barbel may thrive, possibly to the detriment of other species that they are directly competing with!
There were barbel being caught at Worthenbury pre the pollution I believe Jack.
Judas Priest
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2008
- Messages
- 1,292
- Reaction score
- 2
and well before that at Farndon
A
alan whittington
Guest
Im afraid ive heard it all before,you know the words,'dont want to catch fat,out of condition barbel in stillwaters','river fish shouldnt be in lakes',these comments are in general from river anglers who have never caught a stillwater barbel,the breeding element is total garbage,as as many anglers know our barbel are not breeding well in many of our rivers,the BS stockings on the D.Stour in recent years and elsewhere by the EA support this.The idea that chub are ok in lakes,but not barbel is extremely hypocritical and as i mentioned earlier carp in the southern half of the UK dont spawn succesfully in the main,im sure their lives are a total disappointment to them.
ONE MORE THING,BARBEL ARE NOT WEAKENED BECAUSE THEY LIVE IN A LAKE,THEY FIGHT AS HARD AS MANY OF THEIR RIVER COUSINS.
ONE MORE THING,BARBEL ARE NOT WEAKENED BECAUSE THEY LIVE IN A LAKE,THEY FIGHT AS HARD AS MANY OF THEIR RIVER COUSINS.
bennygesserit
Well-known member
Fill a hole full of water build a massive fence around it leave it fifty years then go back , it will almost always have fish in sometimes spread by waterfowl sometimes ny who knows what, I venture the fish in that pool may be roach , or perch etc I venture they will never be barbel.
Unless we want to be massively pedantic this is proof to me that barbel will not achieve a viable population in a natural pool.
On the other hand fish don't feel pain so it doesn't matter what we actually do to them , we could put 20 barbel per cubic metre of water , it wouldn't mater a jot fish don't feel pain.