• You need to be a registered member of Barbel Fishing World to post on these forums. Some of the forums are hidden from non-members. Please refer to the instructions on the ‘Register’ page for details of how to join the new incarnation of BFW...

Barbel Catchers.... and Stu Wortley.

Rich Frampton

Rich Frampton

Senior Member
A big thank you to Stu Wortley and all the Barbel Catchers for allowing their catch returns to be used for the Barbel population work that is going to be carried out these coming months/years. Cheers.
Rich.
 
Like it will change anything at all Rich.

All this shouting and moaning will come to exactly nothing whatsoever. Just go fishing, you will be happier.
 
How do you work that out, Tony? Some decent evidence of fish number decline is something the EA and Angling Trust can use as guidance for habitat improvement and re-stocking surely?

If nobody is willing to do this sort of stuff, how do we ever progress in our knowledge as to why rivers suffer serious decline?
 
Jon Elliott said:
How do you work that out, Tony? Some decent evidence of fish number decline is something the EA and Angling Trust can use as guidance for habitat improvement and re-stocking surely?

If nobody is willing to do this sort of stuff, how do we ever progress in our knowledge as to why rivers suffer serious decline?
Click to expand...

The EA already have this evidence with their fishery report data. They have just been able to spin the data positively for so many years. Look how badly the EA reacted when they were made to tighten the criteria and subsequently only 17% of our rivers received good markings. Previously they could disregard a bad flow or wildlife rating.

They also have guidance in the EU water framework directive, they again have just been able to avoid dealing with the real issues for years as they are not held accountable by anyone.

Angler's catch reports would be unreliable data and only good for comparison between anglers and as a comparison for an individual over a time period.

There was nothing negative in Tonys post. He is positively encouraging someone to get rid of the negativity from their fishing.

He is probably quite right.

Nothing happens. People shout and moan loudly all close season. Nothing happens. Nothing happens because anglers just shout and moan but dont actually do anything. If anglers were doing positive things and shouting and moaning then lots would get done.

Getting caught up in the negativity surrounding rivers and waterways diminishes peoples enjoyment and even keeps them away as it is not as good as it once was.

Just get out there and fish. Or if your that bothered get out there and do some habitat restoration, a bit of flow management, build an otter holt, coppice a tree, take away some flow sapping pipe-reeds.

Something.
 
I think anglers overall perceptions. Like the survey we carried out are far more accurate than records supplied by individuals now and again as the mood takes one.

Regarding the ongoing survey, (not the one Rich refers to) I am only guessing but would be surprised if more than 50 anglers contribute on every trip taken. And those are more likely to be from the few rivers that have remained fairly prolific.

I would imagine though over the couple years not much change will show.

If it had been running 10 years more interesting and hope the longer term BC records are split out from the latter survey.

With all the stockings happening and planned shortly the next 5-10 years may show a minor increase.

Any news on the spawning survey?

Graham.
 
The BCC records will show how many fish were caught from the Teme for the last 20 years (assuming one of us had been fishing it that long), so assuming there has been a decline in the numbers caught this will be evident. There are limitations to the information, for example we only started to record blanks a few years ago, so it can be a bit miss-leading.

Logically there will be a spike around 8-10 years ago, then a drop off since the massive floods.
 
Jon.

Thats a shame about the BC records.re blanks.

I think therefore the records will only reveal what we already know and what you suggest.

A decision needs to be taken on all rivers then I would suggest to strip out the blanks and simply look at numbers caught when recorded to get any data partly worthwhile.

Quite frankly. As I said. Overall perceptions from anglers will yield a far better overview than partial information.

Just my view.

Graham
 
Good posts from Ash Jon and Graham whilst Tony has a valid point.

The thing is with the BCC membership it that it has members with varying levels of competence just like any other angling group. Therefore, catch returns mean very little simply because one angler with a high level of skill will catch more than another with lesser levels even though there might be a lot of fish out there in front of them both at the same venue? Therefore catch returns will always be misleading surely? Another thing to take into consideration is the amount of rod hours put in by various contributors. An angler who fishes three times a week will probably catch more than an angler who only fishes once every two weeks. Again creating misleading information?

Electrofishing or sample netting is really the only way of determining wild fish stocks on a near to accurate basis. But can anyone seriously see the EA fisheries teams undertaking what would be a mammoth survey task on all our rivers and streams?

Tony advocates "just go fishing" and he has a point whilst Ash advocates doing something for rivers in a positive way.

Regards,

Lee.
 
Lee Fletcher said:
Good posts from Ash Jon and Graham whilst Tony has a valid point.

The thing is with the BCC membership it that it has members with varying levels of competence just like any other angling group. Therefore, catch returns mean very little simply because one angler with a high level of skill will catch more than another with lesser levels even though there might be a lot of fish out there in front of them both at the same venue? Therefore catch returns will always be misleading surely? Another thing to take into consideration is the amount of rod hours put in by various contributors. An angler who fishes three times a week will probably catch more than an angler who only fishes once every two weeks. Again creating misleading information?

Electrofishing or sample netting is really the only way of determining wild fish stocks on a near to accurate basis. But can anyone seriously see the EA fisheries teams undertaking what would be a mammoth survey task on all our rivers and streams?

Tony advocates "just go fishing" and he has a point whilst Ash advocates doing something for rivers in a positive way.

Regards,

Lee.
Click to expand...

Electro fishing returns can reasonably reflect a picture of fish population on small stream or river , on bigger waterways they are not accurate in guaging the fish population . Not my view but the observations of a friend who does electrofishing for the EA .
 
Hi Mike,

Makes little difference anyway Mike because the EA won't ever be carrying out such a survey on all rivers. Then again, if one listens to the concerns being bandied around about the demise of barbel populations in UK rivers today, its almost exclusively happening on the smaller rivers so elecro fishing would apply? Interesting to note that barbel are highlighted in these population demises but very little mention of all the other species.

Regards,

Lee.
 
Lee Fletcher said:
Hi Mike,

Makes little difference anyway Mike because the EA won't ever be carrying out such a survey on all rivers. Then again, if one listens to the concerns being bandied around about the demise of barbel populations in UK rivers today, its almost exclusively happening on the smaller rivers so elecro fishing would apply? Interesting to note that barbel are highlighted in these population demises but very little mention of all the other species.

Regards,

Lee.
Click to expand...

Lee...would the dedicated roach/perch/chub/etc. fishermen bemoaning the decline in their favorite species, mention the similar problems being suffered by barbel? I think it's just a case of 'the species that floats yer boat' being the one you would naturally talk about, when you are putting the world to rights :D

Cheers, Dave.
 
Too true Dave,

In fairness, the Hampshire Avon suffered a decline in big roach numbers but then again such declines are fairly typical with the species so I'm told. Perch suffered a massive decline due to perch disease but have now made a fantastic recovery. Dace are back in the Trent in large numbers as are roach. Generally speaking a lot of rivers and a great many stillwaters are witnessing a revival in species coming in over the net in unheard of sizes.

Regards,

Lee.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top