Albert Watkinson
Senior Member
The only sure thing I got out of the mail article is that Jb can blank like I do sometimes
Albert.
Albert.
-
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...
Anglers Mail - John Bailey Article
- Thread starter Ian Crook
- Start date
Ash Gould
Senior Member
Dibs..
Nobody (apart from Karen) knows the full details and outcomes of Karen's thesis yet as it has not been published. Next summer was the indication I had been given. Naughty boy
I think this thread has been confused by the Otter issue.
The OP was commenting about the perceived decimation in Barbel populations being conjecture and how scientific research did not back this up.
In his next post Ian then says:
Not all anglers who had noticed the barbel population crash blamed it on Otters. Me included.
The population crash which most anglers have noticed happened around 6 or 7 years ago, so the fact that all (but 1*) of Karens fish survived does nothing to disprove that the Barbel population crashed back then.
This is now impossible to prove as we never took a record of the barbel numbers in the first place! The fact that EA surveys show a year on year decline in fish numbers and density should go someway to highlighting the issue though.
On the day that karen and the team tagged the fish, they actually really struggled to find any fish to tag. The team searched and searched for fish, Pinchmill they found 2 monsters but that was it. Odell none. Where are the Odell resident fish? They were here in their hundreds a decade ago. As Karens study highlighted that Barbel populations tend to stay pretty much localised it is not fair to say that the Odell fish moved, they have gone. When they found the HCP fish they filled their boots and got a good percentage of the fish in that area.
As DG pointed out the lack of numbers of fish around spawing beds is another indicator that anglers use to survey fish populations. If there are still huge populations of barbel on the Ouse why do they not turn up at spawing time when say 10 years ago they did?
As Mark pointed out why can I know longer have a day observing barbel and trying to catch them in areas where they were know to reside season after season? We must all be numpties
I twice had Karen come through my swim when fishing and each time there was one tagged fish in my swim (the 2nd time was in a new area for me so that boosted my confidence for the day even though I didnt catch it). I doubt very much that the tagged fish was part of a shoal, rather each time I was sitting on the tagged fish and maybe 2 or 3 others.
I have ranted on abit here, but the main points I want to highight are that:
Karens study can do nothing to prove or disprove a crash in barbel populations 6+ years ago.
Not all Ouse anglers blame the otter for the decimation in barbel numbers.
There is evidnce to highlight Barbel populations are not what they once were on the Ouse.
The End.
*
*One of Karens fish went missing although she believes it has gone on a long trek somewhere as opposed to being dead.
Nobody (apart from Karen) knows the full details and outcomes of Karen's thesis yet as it has not been published. Next summer was the indication I had been given. Naughty boy
I think this thread has been confused by the Otter issue.
The OP was commenting about the perceived decimation in Barbel populations being conjecture and how scientific research did not back this up.
In his next post Ian then says:
Not all anglers who had noticed the barbel population crash blamed it on Otters. Me included.
The population crash which most anglers have noticed happened around 6 or 7 years ago, so the fact that all (but 1*) of Karens fish survived does nothing to disprove that the Barbel population crashed back then.
This is now impossible to prove as we never took a record of the barbel numbers in the first place! The fact that EA surveys show a year on year decline in fish numbers and density should go someway to highlighting the issue though.
On the day that karen and the team tagged the fish, they actually really struggled to find any fish to tag. The team searched and searched for fish, Pinchmill they found 2 monsters but that was it. Odell none. Where are the Odell resident fish? They were here in their hundreds a decade ago. As Karens study highlighted that Barbel populations tend to stay pretty much localised it is not fair to say that the Odell fish moved, they have gone. When they found the HCP fish they filled their boots and got a good percentage of the fish in that area.
As DG pointed out the lack of numbers of fish around spawing beds is another indicator that anglers use to survey fish populations. If there are still huge populations of barbel on the Ouse why do they not turn up at spawing time when say 10 years ago they did?
As Mark pointed out why can I know longer have a day observing barbel and trying to catch them in areas where they were know to reside season after season? We must all be numpties
I twice had Karen come through my swim when fishing and each time there was one tagged fish in my swim (the 2nd time was in a new area for me so that boosted my confidence for the day even though I didnt catch it). I doubt very much that the tagged fish was part of a shoal, rather each time I was sitting on the tagged fish and maybe 2 or 3 others.
I have ranted on abit here, but the main points I want to highight are that:
Karens study can do nothing to prove or disprove a crash in barbel populations 6+ years ago.
Not all Ouse anglers blame the otter for the decimation in barbel numbers.
There is evidnce to highlight Barbel populations are not what they once were on the Ouse.
The End.
*
*One of Karens fish went missing although she believes it has gone on a long trek somewhere as opposed to being dead.
Ian Grant
Senior Member & Supporter
Has anyone got a link to Karen's study so we can all look at the scientific evidence she has?
Maybe a link to the new methods of catching barbel now they have learnt to avoid the old ones would help as well
Hi David,
How are you mate ?
As far as new methods go, i doubt there are any that you'll find that haven't been used for years, but fooling educated Barbel means fishing for Barbel that have been around for quite a few years, generally except if we're talking male fish will mean doubles, and there seem to be still a few of those around although natural mortality will eventually reduce their numbers, and likley are, but the issue here is that seemily there are very few coming through to take their place, at least on many rivers, particularly those local to us.
Catching singles by and large means immature fish that haven't had the education of many years being caught, and are still easy enough to catch with the time honoured tactics of years gone by, there's no need to employ complicated methods, they are still as obliging in taking your bait as they ever were - But ! they have to be there, you can't catch was doesn't exist no matter how advanced your techniques simple as that mate
As i've said there are some rivers that are fairing better than others, and some stretches of them that are still quite prolific for average size Barbel, and again as i've said previously i wonder if the reason is just Barbel from areas nearby migrating to areas which see plenty of bait intoduced, potentially severly reducing the numbers on stretches nearby, though i have no proof it's just theory, I can think of a few stretches where that theory might fit though.
All the best
Ian.
Last edited:
Dan Birkett
Senior Member
Karens study featured a sample of 20 adult fish from one short section of River - no one can draw conclusions from that small amount of localised data on any other river or any other section of the Ouse for that matter! Way too many variables come into play to make sweeping catch all assesments
Graham Elliott
Senior Member & Supporter
I think Dan and Ash make some very relevant observations and have put the initial statement/claim into some context..
Mike Hodgkiss
Senior Member
I reckon you could well be right Dan , however other observations of barbel decline are equally based on subjective observations , namely decline in observed fish or catch rates . Particularly with the latter , the anglers making the observations may be fishing where there are no barbel , or the river / weather conditions are poor , their bait or techniques may be wrong , fish may be pressurised the list goes on . Of late I have been reading the Angling Times and have noticed in there ,regular reports of barbel coming from the Gt Ouse which paints a different picture to the one illustrated on the BFW Gt Ouse thread which is of largely very poor catches . Now I am not saying that all the BFW posters are duff anglers but you get my drift . Another factor to bear in mind is that many , even the majority of anglers, never reveal or publicise their barbel catches , that in itself could indicate the empirical evidence that we use , i.e. our own personal experiences could be perceived as skewed or statstically unsound in terms of illustrating the true situation . Don't want to get in to the otter factor , but I do feel that the impact they have is usually greater on small rivers and streams, or rivers where otters have been stocked / re introduced at stupidly high levels , as for example on the Yorkshire Derwent or the Wensum .
Last edited:
Richard Hamlyn
No Longer a Member
Well, this is a post to get ones teeth into. Well done Mr Crook for having the nerve to go against the received wisdom and I welcome you to my world of the (hopefully) informed heretic.
It is not possible to review all the many excellent views put forward in a truly scientific manner as there really is no conclusive evidence either way. That will also ultimately apply the young ladies study as well when finally published.
What I would like people to consider is that many of us are brainwashed by an expression often used and that is “The Balance of Natureâ€. Somewhere in many people’s imagination there is a utopian world with no human beings on it where nature is allowed to take its course and there is true harmony in the world. The prey / predator equation is balanced and the rivers abound with fish of all species and the skies are full of birds (but no cormorants), in fact life abounds everywhere in an endless cycle free from human intervention and the greed and pollutants that man has wrought on the planet. In short a paradise ruined only by meddling humans.
This is of course complete and utter rubbish, and the balance of nature is a myth.
All species of animal and plant on this world are not in harmony but in a constant and never ending struggle for supremacy. As soon as conditions favour one species to the detriment of another then the numbers change. The driving factor usually climatic. The African rain forest has expanded and contracted over and over again during the millennia driven by climate. We think it possible that the dinosaurs became extinct due to climatic change that caused the global temperatures to plummet and favour the previously low population of creatures able to generate heat internally. As soon as the Giant Panda looks like its population is crashing then the conservationist are up in arms saying it must be saved; why? Creatures have gone extinct and new species taken their place since the beginning of life on the planet…..get used to it. Please also consider that we are just another species on the planet. We are not special, we are not God’s children, we are neither destroying nor saving the world, and our tenure on this planet is certainly not secure, as we could be wiped out by disease the same way the dodo was wiped out by humans.
All populations of every living thing on this world fluctuate through natural forces, nothing is ever constant……simples
It is not possible to review all the many excellent views put forward in a truly scientific manner as there really is no conclusive evidence either way. That will also ultimately apply the young ladies study as well when finally published.
What I would like people to consider is that many of us are brainwashed by an expression often used and that is “The Balance of Natureâ€. Somewhere in many people’s imagination there is a utopian world with no human beings on it where nature is allowed to take its course and there is true harmony in the world. The prey / predator equation is balanced and the rivers abound with fish of all species and the skies are full of birds (but no cormorants), in fact life abounds everywhere in an endless cycle free from human intervention and the greed and pollutants that man has wrought on the planet. In short a paradise ruined only by meddling humans.
This is of course complete and utter rubbish, and the balance of nature is a myth.
All species of animal and plant on this world are not in harmony but in a constant and never ending struggle for supremacy. As soon as conditions favour one species to the detriment of another then the numbers change. The driving factor usually climatic. The African rain forest has expanded and contracted over and over again during the millennia driven by climate. We think it possible that the dinosaurs became extinct due to climatic change that caused the global temperatures to plummet and favour the previously low population of creatures able to generate heat internally. As soon as the Giant Panda looks like its population is crashing then the conservationist are up in arms saying it must be saved; why? Creatures have gone extinct and new species taken their place since the beginning of life on the planet…..get used to it. Please also consider that we are just another species on the planet. We are not special, we are not God’s children, we are neither destroying nor saving the world, and our tenure on this planet is certainly not secure, as we could be wiped out by disease the same way the dodo was wiped out by humans.
All populations of every living thing on this world fluctuate through natural forces, nothing is ever constant……simples
Howard Cooke
Senior Member
Richard- it is not all about supremacy (it can be in certain circumstances i grant you) but you are ignoring dependency which can be a necessary ingredient in the bid to survive. Plus, we might be God's children, but that is a whole new debate for a different forum. Plus, I don't think the debate through this thread (which is very good and very current) is about ecology per se and I don't think anyone has displayed any table bashing alignment to the concept of nature in balance. I think most people get chaos theory. The debate seems to me to be about whether, based on our individual experiences, we believe there has been a genuine decline in barbel stocks and then if there has, what has been the cause or causes. No opinion or experience can be invalidated until there is a full and scientifically robust study performed. And another thing, the Panda should be saved because its very, very cute.
Last edited:
Andrew Boyne
Senior Member
Some good points made here, in particular Ash with reference to the fact the decline of Gt Ouse barbel had already happened before this study started. I'm also glad to hear the likes of Ash and Ian state they don't blame otters for the general decline. They get far too much bad press from the angling community and it doesn't do any of us any good. Those that continue to preach doom for all rivers due to otter predation should take note of the fact that only one of the tagged barbel went missing in three years. The fact that it completely vanished, rather than it's tag being located via its carcass on the bank suggests to me it probably got carried off in a carrier bag.
So what has caused the decline on some rivers? Let's be clear on that - some rivers - not all. In my opinion, we are simply seeing ageing populations die out. Most of our rivers have been stocked in the past, over time those fish have grown bigger and as there numbers are thinned out naturally, they get bigger still. The major problem on many rivers is the lack of suitable spawning habitat and poor fry recruitment meaning very few fish coming through to fill the gaps. Eventually those old fish die out - since they were probably stocked from the same batch they'll all go at pretty much the same time - within a year or two, and you see a population crash.
Going back to the original post, i'm of the opinion that barbel do learn. Sure in certain situations they can be a doddle to catch but i've witnessed fish purposefully avoiding rigs in a baited area too many times to believe they can't.
So what has caused the decline on some rivers? Let's be clear on that - some rivers - not all. In my opinion, we are simply seeing ageing populations die out. Most of our rivers have been stocked in the past, over time those fish have grown bigger and as there numbers are thinned out naturally, they get bigger still. The major problem on many rivers is the lack of suitable spawning habitat and poor fry recruitment meaning very few fish coming through to fill the gaps. Eventually those old fish die out - since they were probably stocked from the same batch they'll all go at pretty much the same time - within a year or two, and you see a population crash.
Going back to the original post, i'm of the opinion that barbel do learn. Sure in certain situations they can be a doddle to catch but i've witnessed fish purposefully avoiding rigs in a baited area too many times to believe they can't.
Graham Elliott
Senior Member & Supporter
Sorry Andrew, only one of your theories work out for me for the rivers I mention. Poor fry recruitment. But why?
Lack of suitable spawning grounds?
Not on the Kennet, I can tell you, or on the Loddon (whatever the efforts at arborfield ) there are plenty of spawing areas on both rivers, mainly historic. ( you been reading too much BS stuff) they are not like the upper Stour that had been fairly recently dredged prior to the renewable and excellent Avon roach/Stour barbel projects.
Now if you had said that low water levels causing silt over spawn, it may have had a certain ring of possiblity
Regarding stocking. The Loddon and Kennet historically provided the fish on the Severn and Hants Avon etc. A very good population of long term duration on both rivers. There has been some very minor stocking since.
Up until 4-5 years ago the population of barbel in these rivers was mixed with many year classes.
So. Yes, poor recruitment from spawn to catchable size. Hopefully it is just a natural cycle...but I remember when the Kennet was full of dace like herrings and roach a chuck. They are just starting to show in small numbers on the canal sections...25 years later.
As one who has fished at Wargrave on the Loddon below the sewage outlet and seen the discharges when the river is flooded....I just hope it's not this
http://www.biolreprod.org/content/66/2/272.full.pdf
BTW what rivers do you fish?
Graham
Lack of suitable spawning grounds?
Not on the Kennet, I can tell you, or on the Loddon (whatever the efforts at arborfield ) there are plenty of spawing areas on both rivers, mainly historic. ( you been reading too much BS stuff) they are not like the upper Stour that had been fairly recently dredged prior to the renewable and excellent Avon roach/Stour barbel projects.
Now if you had said that low water levels causing silt over spawn, it may have had a certain ring of possiblity
Regarding stocking. The Loddon and Kennet historically provided the fish on the Severn and Hants Avon etc. A very good population of long term duration on both rivers. There has been some very minor stocking since.
Up until 4-5 years ago the population of barbel in these rivers was mixed with many year classes.
So. Yes, poor recruitment from spawn to catchable size. Hopefully it is just a natural cycle...but I remember when the Kennet was full of dace like herrings and roach a chuck. They are just starting to show in small numbers on the canal sections...25 years later.
As one who has fished at Wargrave on the Loddon below the sewage outlet and seen the discharges when the river is flooded....I just hope it's not this
http://www.biolreprod.org/content/66/2/272.full.pdf
BTW what rivers do you fish?
Graham
Adrian Williams
No Longer a Member
Darren George
Senior Member
Just a thought, but isnt it true that the perch is doing particularly well these days? They enjoy a good fry up!
Kevin Daly
Senior Member
Richard
Surely the ebb and flow of the dominant species is nature's constant fine tuning.
Surely the ebb and flow of the dominant species is nature's constant fine tuning.
Robert Richbell
Senior Member
i haven't read the article, so i cant comment on it, however to a large degree i believe what me eyes tell me. 3 years on the Kennet i had only seen 1 fish with damage to its tail, bit it was an old injury. Last year i saw 5, all doubles. This year i have only seen a couple of doubles without damage to their tail. This is not little scrapes but big chunks missing, in a couple of cases, still bleeding. On stretches of the Kennet where it used to be possible to see fish 3 years ago they have by and large vanished. Up to 3 years ago i had only seen otters a couple of times in my life, last year saw otters on 3 occasions, this year i see otters around 20% of my trips out.
I still have not seen much evidence on the bank of dead Barbel personally but talking to others , dog walkers etc, they have told me quite a lot have been seen.
From Natural England, EA and Angling Trust press release:-
The recovery of otters in the UK is impacting inland fisheries through predation. The situation is complex, and it is not clear why some waters have not been affected, even though otters are present.
Otters catch and eat predominantly live animals; there is limited evidence of dead fish being eaten, although this does occur occasionally. Their average daily consumption of food in captivity is about 1.5kg/day.
Impacts on Fish Stocks
Eurasian otters eat a range of fish species, but generally they take whatever is most abundant. Studies reveal that on average the fish they take are less than 300mm length; although very large fish can be taken, their choice of fish prey generally reflects what is available in the environment around them.
For a variety of reasons fish populations in some river and still water fisheries have come to be dominated by large individuals. Large fish may be more vulnerable to predation, and their loss will be more noticeable.
However, it is clear that not all fisheries are being adversely affected by otters. Evidence gathered so far indicates that specimen barbel and chub populations have been hit hardest in smaller rivers, particularly where stocks are dominated by older fish, but rivers in the north and west, where otters have always been present, appear to be less affected.
and finally
Direct counting of otters is impossible due to their mobility, often secretive behaviour and largely nocturnal habit. Otter surveys are therefore based simply on presence and absence of otters as shown by field signs such as spraints (faeces) and footprints. It is not possible to use these data to estimate numbers, given the flexibility in the size of otter territories and the inability to distinguish between individuals using field signs. While the distribution and frequency of field signs is used as an indicator of the health of the population locally, any estimate of numbers would be highly speculative. Nevertheless, it is likely that there are several thousand otters present in England today.
You cannot go from a a few otters in danger of extinction to "several thousand" without have a pretty significant impact on prey species.
At least research is being done and the findings on the Ouse may be totally different on the Kennet , Loddon etc.
I personally wish they had tagged Barbel before the otters arrived to see the impact, not tag the survivors as anecdotally, otters appear, big Barbel numbers crash, then smaller fish, the otters then move to where there are still lots of fish.
The impact of all predators needs to be studied and IF REQUIRED they need to be controlled, in my opinion.
I still have not seen much evidence on the bank of dead Barbel personally but talking to others , dog walkers etc, they have told me quite a lot have been seen.
From Natural England, EA and Angling Trust press release:-
The recovery of otters in the UK is impacting inland fisheries through predation. The situation is complex, and it is not clear why some waters have not been affected, even though otters are present.
Otters catch and eat predominantly live animals; there is limited evidence of dead fish being eaten, although this does occur occasionally. Their average daily consumption of food in captivity is about 1.5kg/day.
Impacts on Fish Stocks
Eurasian otters eat a range of fish species, but generally they take whatever is most abundant. Studies reveal that on average the fish they take are less than 300mm length; although very large fish can be taken, their choice of fish prey generally reflects what is available in the environment around them.
For a variety of reasons fish populations in some river and still water fisheries have come to be dominated by large individuals. Large fish may be more vulnerable to predation, and their loss will be more noticeable.
However, it is clear that not all fisheries are being adversely affected by otters. Evidence gathered so far indicates that specimen barbel and chub populations have been hit hardest in smaller rivers, particularly where stocks are dominated by older fish, but rivers in the north and west, where otters have always been present, appear to be less affected.
and finally
Direct counting of otters is impossible due to their mobility, often secretive behaviour and largely nocturnal habit. Otter surveys are therefore based simply on presence and absence of otters as shown by field signs such as spraints (faeces) and footprints. It is not possible to use these data to estimate numbers, given the flexibility in the size of otter territories and the inability to distinguish between individuals using field signs. While the distribution and frequency of field signs is used as an indicator of the health of the population locally, any estimate of numbers would be highly speculative. Nevertheless, it is likely that there are several thousand otters present in England today.
You cannot go from a a few otters in danger of extinction to "several thousand" without have a pretty significant impact on prey species.
At least research is being done and the findings on the Ouse may be totally different on the Kennet , Loddon etc.
I personally wish they had tagged Barbel before the otters arrived to see the impact, not tag the survivors as anecdotally, otters appear, big Barbel numbers crash, then smaller fish, the otters then move to where there are still lots of fish.
The impact of all predators needs to be studied and IF REQUIRED they need to be controlled, in my opinion.
Damian Kimmins
Senior Member
The rise in the use of high protein baits, I believe, has had a massive impact on fish behaviour too, making it easier for fish to become much more selective in their foraging.
I noticed this several years ago on the Avon whereby feeding periods would be seen to be much shorter when mass baiting with particles. Now, in my experience baiting with such particles is much less of an attractor.
Regards
Damian
I noticed this several years ago on the Avon whereby feeding periods would be seen to be much shorter when mass baiting with particles. Now, in my experience baiting with such particles is much less of an attractor.
Regards
Damian
Richard Hamlyn
No Longer a Member
Human beings do not decide how many otters are present on a stretch of river. The otter itself is responsible for managing its own numbers. We can introduce as as many or as few as we like but within a relativly short space of time the number present will be the same. They are terratorial and they will repel other otters from their stretch of river unlike some other creatures who will expand numbers to accomodate the food resource available.
Don't blame the otter if you are not catching. The fish are there and not only that they are not the smartest fish either. I can assure you that the 10% are catching as many fish as they ever have,
David Tainton
Senior Member
Facts
Hi,
Please-this is just my opinion, I cannot count the number of times I have been told that a stretch has been ottered etc, but I can count the number of times that someone has given facts (once) eg where they have seen a barbel that was eaten by an otter (though whether it was caught by it-they could npot say) Otters do eat fish including Barbel, but too what extent they are a problem who knows? I was told repeatedly about Otters on the Lower Teme, and what a problem they were/are. When you ask if they have seen an Ottered fish-more often than not the answer is a no. I walked the banks of the Teme/Severn morning and night for 5 years, and once came across a barbel that had been eaten by an Otter/Mink, and one Carp-both on the Severn below Worcester. My Old Dear walks the banks of the Severn every day, and in ten years came across 1 carp. The John Bailey article is one of the few offering facts-how relevant can be debated-they relate to the Ouse. I now fish the Loddon and Thames around Reading-have seen numerous Otters (monthly basis), and have not come across one dead fish that was taken by an Otter/Mink yet.
Earlier in this thread "some lake fish were taken" which lake? how many fish?
There is always "someone told me", "I heard that........."
How much Otters are a problem-I don't know, but I would be willing to bet that recruitment of fish may be a bigger issue-why are the numbers of small fish coming through? is it because of predation? habitat, pollution eg slight inbalances, poaching-guess they all contribute. I know the amount of barbel spawning on the Teme "seems" to be in decline, but maybe we need to quantify this-eg sample a stretch (Powick) with whatever crude means we can eg spotting fish/count of redds (spawning scrapes), however inaccurate it is an attempt to quantify the problem. Do the same with fish suspected of taken by Otters-eg how many fish have been reported from Readings waters or Twyford, collect the numbers year on year, that way some data/facts are being collected (if not already).
Apologies for my rambling-its just that I have personally not experienced the issues discussed-or spoke to anyone who has offered substantial facts, just their oipinion (however worthwhile!)
Cheers DT
Hi,
Please-this is just my opinion, I cannot count the number of times I have been told that a stretch has been ottered etc, but I can count the number of times that someone has given facts (once) eg where they have seen a barbel that was eaten by an otter (though whether it was caught by it-they could npot say) Otters do eat fish including Barbel, but too what extent they are a problem who knows? I was told repeatedly about Otters on the Lower Teme, and what a problem they were/are. When you ask if they have seen an Ottered fish-more often than not the answer is a no. I walked the banks of the Teme/Severn morning and night for 5 years, and once came across a barbel that had been eaten by an Otter/Mink, and one Carp-both on the Severn below Worcester. My Old Dear walks the banks of the Severn every day, and in ten years came across 1 carp. The John Bailey article is one of the few offering facts-how relevant can be debated-they relate to the Ouse. I now fish the Loddon and Thames around Reading-have seen numerous Otters (monthly basis), and have not come across one dead fish that was taken by an Otter/Mink yet.
Earlier in this thread "some lake fish were taken" which lake? how many fish?
There is always "someone told me", "I heard that........."
How much Otters are a problem-I don't know, but I would be willing to bet that recruitment of fish may be a bigger issue-why are the numbers of small fish coming through? is it because of predation? habitat, pollution eg slight inbalances, poaching-guess they all contribute. I know the amount of barbel spawning on the Teme "seems" to be in decline, but maybe we need to quantify this-eg sample a stretch (Powick) with whatever crude means we can eg spotting fish/count of redds (spawning scrapes), however inaccurate it is an attempt to quantify the problem. Do the same with fish suspected of taken by Otters-eg how many fish have been reported from Readings waters or Twyford, collect the numbers year on year, that way some data/facts are being collected (if not already).
Apologies for my rambling-its just that I have personally not experienced the issues discussed-or spoke to anyone who has offered substantial facts, just their oipinion (however worthwhile!)
Cheers DT
David Chant
Senior Member
For the first try this: http://www.theriverstrust.org/seminars/archive/coarse_fish/RT - Speaker 11 - Karen Twine.pdf
As for the second one no chance!
Darryl, thanks for the link, but, unfortunately the link does not give the full report, which I believe from other posts may not have been produced yet anyway.
It seems that there is further information in the Anglers Mail but I no longer subscribe as I found it a bit facile.
As for the barbel. I have only been barbel fishing for a few years so can only go on hearsay, however most experienced barbel anglers I have spoken to agree that the Loddon barbel are not catchable in the quantities they were seven or eight years ago. Are the Otters an easy scapegoat (if you will excuse the mixed metaphor
) or is the increase in perch numbers, pollution causing physiological changes, the weather, mink or any one of a dozen other reasons, who knows? From what I have read of Karen's work it seems to be based upon a very small sample and, as this discussion shows, is open to question in a number of areas not least the fact that she hasn't found otters eating barbel and chub, which is a fact that has been seen and recorded innumerable times.
What I want, and I suspect a number of others also want, is not to know what hasn't happened but why there is a marked difference to what was happening in barbel fishing ten years ago. If we get this information and it exonerates the otter, so much the better. But until then we know there is one animal that eats fish that wasn't on our banks in numbers ten years ago so, for me, they stay top of the suspect list until we have proof that the problem lies elsewhere.
Jim Foxall
Senior Member
Darryl, thanks for the link, but, unfortunately the link does not give the full report, which I believe from other posts may not have been produced yet anyway.
It seems that there is further information in the Anglers Mail but I no longer subscribe as I found it a bit facile.
As for the barbel. I have only been barbel fishing for a few years so can only go on hearsay, however most experienced barbel anglers I have spoken to agree that the Loddon barbel are not catchable in the quantities they were seven or eight years ago. Are the Otters an easy scapegoat (if you will excuse the mixed metaphor
From what I have read of Karen's work it seems to be based upon a very small sample and, as this discussion shows, is open to question in a number of areas not least the fact that she hasn't found otters eating barbel and chub, which is a fact that has been seen and recorded innumerable times.
What I want, and I suspect a number of others also want, is not to know what hasn't happened but why there is a marked difference to what was happening in barbel fishing ten years ago. If we get this information and it exonerates the otter, so much the better. But until then we know there is one animal that eats fish that wasn't on our banks in numbers ten years ago so, for me, they stay top of the suspect list until we have proof that the problem lies elsewhere.
Good post, well measured.
Graham Elliott
Senior Member & Supporter
I'm just pleased that Richard H also agrees that a very significant number of anglers (he says 90%) are not catching barbel as they were.
Some interesting thoughts David T. my view is also re recruitment, but if so we need to look back 10 years or so for reasons for change.
On a personal note. Never seen an Otter on the Loddon or the Kennet yet, but a few pals tell me they have. I have never subscribed to the fact that they are the main reason for the decline in fish, although I appreciate those anglers on the Bristol Avon Ouse and Wensum seem pretty much convinced.
Dave, are you Ron Chants lad?
Graham
Some interesting thoughts David T. my view is also re recruitment, but if so we need to look back 10 years or so for reasons for change.
On a personal note. Never seen an Otter on the Loddon or the Kennet yet, but a few pals tell me they have. I have never subscribed to the fact that they are the main reason for the decline in fish, although I appreciate those anglers on the Bristol Avon Ouse and Wensum seem pretty much convinced.
Dave, are you Ron Chants lad?
Graham
Last edited: