I don't fish much in still waters and think that the idea of fishing for Barbell of all fish in a still water is stupid. and pointless, but each to his own. I also really don't give a flying wotsit about the history of the Barbel Society...life is too short for the rows of celebrity anglers over many years to so effect us mere mortals!
However returning to Ray's original questions
With the help of others should we still be persuading the E.A. to stock barbel in suitable rivers and to dissuade from stocking barbel in stillwaters?
As far as still water goes I wasn't aware that they were, but if they are and are using either tax payers money or our license fee to do so then this should be strongly opposed. If they are doing it commercially to make some cash to put back into real angling then I would be all for it.
Stocking rivers should be done when pollution or predation has caused a short term reduction in stock. If the problem is one of recruitment then the causes of lack of recruitment should be investigated and dealt with. Stocking is a short term option not a long term solution to problems on rivers.
Should we remain resolutely be opposed to the stocking of barbel in stillwaters?
Is this the royal we? I am pretty indifferent to which fish are stocked into still waters as long as it its done correctly, avoiding contamination of the river systems and without removing wild fish from their natural habitat. I am not keen on zoo's but I wouldn't stop other enjoying them.
The barbel is clearly highly adapted to life in flowing water with consistently low temperatures and high oxygen levels, and requires great care on return to the water after capture.
There is little evidence that barbel already stocked into stillwaters thrive or survive in the long term, or that there is a strong or genuine demand from anglers for stillwater barbel. Should we urge still fishery owners to refrain from stocking barbel into stillwaters, and also expect the Environment Agency to review their policy of allowing such stockings.
The first part is an obvious statement of fact. Barbel, as a species, cannot breed in still water, so as a species could not survive. If the royal Ray Walton wishes to ask the EA to review its policy then the royal Ray should do so.
The moral and ethical arguments against stillwater barbel are also considerable.
Not to me. It isn't a moral question or an ethical one to me. I do not believe in the concept of "Animal Rights". Only the human animal has the capacity to have morals, ethics or rights.
Are putting barbel into lakes like keeping kestrels in a chicken coop?
The Kestrel would have a lot of short term fun in a chicken coop, whilst the chickens wouldn't. I can't see the point of putting kestrels in coops as they don't taste too good (I don't know this from personal experience, but if anything tastes very good and is capable of captive breeding people would have done it long ago. I agree with keeping animals for human usage. I am not a vegetarian and even if I was I wouldn't want to force this on everybody. If we keep animals in captivity for food, or other purposes we should do this in the best manner we can, because this produces the best meat, if for no other reason. So I don't eat eggs or the flesh from caged birds. I don't eat farmed Salmon, but I do eat farmed trout I don't eat barbel at all, but iif people are silly enough to want to fish for them in still water then that is a matter for them and not something I would want to ban. I am not for banning things just because I happen to disagree with them. I leave that to this government!
Overall I think there are much bigger and more important issues than still water Barbel, and even more important issues than which particular celebrity angler is sponsored by which particular bait company. I still fish for barbell in rivers not still waters and select my bait on the basis of what is on special offer that week at my local tackle shop!
