• 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...

Now tell me fish can't learn !

Tom

I don't use hooks with a glossy finish as it can spook fish, if the pattern I want is glossy then a coat of matt green Umbro will make them blend in to the bottom of the river. The same goes for my swivels.

If I think that fish are getting 'hook wise' or that the weight of the hook is a problem then I put bits of rig tubing, cork, imitation maggot, foam, feathers or dubbed hair on the shank. It disguises the hook and some of the materials will neutralise the weight. Over the top? Not if you want to catch the wary ones.

Fish will get accustomed to our tackle over time so it pays to ring the changes. Big hooks are easier to see, feeders and lead weights can be detected and can be a turn off. The worst bit of tackle, when it comes to scaring fish, is the line from the back of your lead to the surface of the water. Disguise this as best you can and you will catch more.

Its all just common sense.
 
Hi Dave, I kind of owe you an apology.
In some points you made a little earlier in this debate I disagreed and made the distinction that fish were not capable of taking examples of some of the intelligence they display and passing them directly on to their offspring. Apparently, having briefly looked at 'The Origin of Species', Darwin makes the assertion the any animal will pass to their offspring that which is deemed an important part of it's instinct for survival, giving their offspring a better chance. It may be that the capture of a barbel is not a life or death matter for it, however, it is important enough for it to have learnt how to overcome the obstacles anglers throw at it, leading me to believe that Darwins theory applies here.
I will say however, that looking at the size of the fish I angle for and which have exhibited what might be deemed an intelligence, I find it hard to say that they've been passed this information. One reason is their age, and another is that I don't think, where I fish anyway, they've been put under enough pressue in years gone past to have had this intelligence or chracteristic passed to them.
I was going to say about the reasonably recent invention of hair-rigged particles where I fish, but it's neither here nor there, fishing with particles in any fashion would have been enough to have caused them to learn to aviod them but the pressure they've been under and my point about it still stands - the banksides of the Avon going back only as recently as '97 used to be fished on by far more pleasure anglers than you'll see now. It's only very recently that specialist angling has taken off.

It doesn't bode well for anglers if this is true; imagine another generation having already had passed to them the some of the finer points of avoiding capture.


Damian
 
Simon King said:
Hi Ian,



In the long term, much of this can become genetically transferrable. I've seen a paper where bass, in the USA, were isolated into groups of "easily caught" and "avoided capture" by anglers.
Over several generations, each group enhanced its "easily" or "avoided" tag through selective breeding.


It looks for all the world like intelligent behaviour, but I think much of it is to do with genetic survival traits and not "intelligence" as we apply the word via our unique, self-awareness.
Click to expand...


A point I made earlier, Damian. :)
 
A common mistake made by many, humanizing animals!

So many people seem to wrongly believe that animal reactions and other behavioural characteristics / traits are the same or at least comparable to humans.
 
Yes Simon, a point made that I didn't at first take note of.
I asserted that I didn't believe that such advances took place over one generation and that natural selection only really related to the physical aspects that had changed in an animal.

The problem for me though still exists.
Many scientists involved with such tasks as finding out what exactly intelligence is, agree that it involves 'a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience.'
Now I realise that humanising animals is something that we are particularly good at, especially with domesticated animals. Assuming that a dog shows affection by sitting on our laps of an evening after a long day at work, when really it would do exactly the same to a warm radiator were you not there is, to me, quite ridiculous. In the context of this debate, it could be argued that mans domestication of animals has reduced their level of intelligence, such is their dependence, anyway, I digress.
You cannot redefine intelligence, of an animal or otherwise. Clearly, with the examples that have been used thus far, the fish involved have shown the ability to solve problems, to learn from experience, and seemingly, learn quickly.
If this was a discussion about the fact that barbel now no longer touch luncheon where we might fish, much the same as I suspect the bass used in your example might not touch a lure of some description, I'd agree with your sentiment. This however, to follow using the luncheon meat, is an example of them not only distinguishing that lump which contains a hook from others, but working out a way to get that meat without being caught. That clearly is the exhibition of learning, and solving problems.


Regards,

Damian
 
Last edited:
I believe what is passed from generation to generation ( thousands ), is increased brain capacity, i believe for any measurable increase it would likley take, perhaps thoudsands of years to happen, i do think though that the very un natrural situation that fish find themselves living in now, is capable of speeding this process up. ( but read my comments further on )

I think the capacity for intelligence the barbel have now has probably existed for hundreds of years if not thousands, what is changing is the capacity thats now being USED within their brains, Just like that human who was born 20,000 years ago could be taught nuclear physics now.

Fish that show a propensity to learn will if all goes well for it get to pass on it's genes giving it's offspring the same capabilty to learn and utilise that capacity, the very few that have the capability of actually exceeding their brain mass will by virtue of natural selection have a greater chance of survival as well, and also pass their genes on probably an infinatley slower process, resulting in - ( over i don't know how many years, but at least thousands i suspect ), miniscule changes in their capacity to show intelligent behaviour traits.

That is how the fish have arrived at the point they are today, but to throw a spanner in the works, for any increase in their capacity to increase their capacity for intelligence, as a result of what we do now as anglers, there needs to be a mortality rate as a result of what we do, but ( apart from a few mishandled fish ) we put them back alive, which seriously interferes with any process of natural selection thats going on. The net result i belive is that even if anglers are around in 10,000 years time, the fish, barbel if we are talking barbel will not show any appreciable if any increase in their capacity for intelligence, other than the natural influences on them, where those that get to pass on their genes, are those that learn the hard lessons of nature.

So whilst i believe as a result of the stimuli that they recieve from us, may cause an individual exposed to it to make use of that capacity in it's brain, it cannot in all probability exceed that capacity, at least not by any influence we place on them.
How much are they capable of learning given the capacity they have now - god knows ! but i doubt they will be playing with rubic cubes, anytime within the next million years or so ... ;)

Ian.
 
Last edited:
Ian Grant said:
Expand a bit on that Colin ;)

Ian.
Click to expand...


Ian, My reply was in response to the fact that many people these days seem to believe that animals all animals have a similar thought process to ours (humans).
Which it is commonly accepted amongst scientists that they don't....

Of course they (animals) do have the capability to think and therefore make decisions based on their powers of thought but most animals survival is based purely and solely around instinct best explanation of this is here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instinct

We as humans tend not to rely on instinct rather using 'intelligence' instead (power of thought).

What we as anglers try to do is understand and outwit our chosen quarry.
By using our intelligence to learn from situations we come across.
Like everything in life some learn better than others or use the knowledge to greater or lesser effect.

A true sign of intelligence is the ability to communicate, an area which fish are severely lacking in.
Yes a fish scurrying past another fishes nose is a good indicator of danger BUT its not exactly a hard fact to deduce.
 
Iknow of a fish on one river in the north west that has learnt to smile for the camera as she has been caught that often!:D:D:D
 
Instinct, as your example describes Colin, relates to the pre-programmed ability of animals to do something seemingly inexplicable - an innate behavioural characteristic.
Again, what I've seen is much more than that! The diffierence between instinctual and learned behaviour is described in that webpage;
Instinctual actions - in contrast to actions based on learning which are served by memory and which provide individually stored successful reactions built upon experience - have no learning curve, they are hard-wired and ready to use without learning. Some instinctual behaviors depend on maturational processes to appear.

There is nowhere in the natural world of a chub, where it may come across a rounded food item, which it may have to very delicately prise from that which it may be attached. Similarly, there is too, nowhere in the natural world of a barbel, where it will have to ascertain whether that which it has quite finely picked up in its mouth is attached to something at the other end. Fishing and the pressure needed to create such behaviour patterns is really a very new phenomenon to these cretaures, there is no such instinct in their natural worlds needed for their survival, that comes close to what these fish are doing. The chub that purposefully take a feeder full of maggots and move them on the river bed to get at its contents, in the learned knowledge, that the one with the hook in is sitting some distance away.
These are really not instinctive behaviours Colin, as they mimic nothing that these fish will need instinctively in their wild environments.

Your point about the true sign of intelligence being that of the ability to communicate is only partly true. The most intelligent creatures on this planet will have gained the ability to communicate. It is by far accurate to say however, that those that do not communicate cannot display signs of intelligence. There are very many traits that a species can present that will show they have the capability of intelligence. We can continue, as is seemingly a human speciality, to consider ourselves seperate from the rest of the planet as we see it, and that IQ ratings and Wechsler Adult Intelligence Tests results prove that. Everything evolves though, and to where we come from, something will arrive. Though it may be lacking in certain aspects of intelligence which we may have seen in our species for some time and advanced beyond identification, it doesn't mean it's devoid of them.


Regards

Damian
 
I have argued with so many people over the past year, many very well rounded and respected anglers that the Barbel have not been wiped out of all our southern rivers by the 2007 floods, otters, cormorants or crayfish and have in most cases simply, due to massive pressure which multiplied ten fold if not more from 2006 to 2008, have wised up. People I know who have applied more thought to presentation, feeding areas, etc. have continued to be successful catching Barbel but those insisting on using the same tactics as the past 15 years or more "because they have always worked before and no reason to change" have not..............

I used to fish for carp on a water local to my home in Bolton, with a float, float rod and sweetcorn, around 3 people fished the lake and there was no real pressure, then carp angling and particularly bivvying up with multiple rods and buzzers became fashionable, the number of anglers on the lake went up to around 20 on average and within a year the carp became almost uncatchable. They can hoover up a kilo of boilies and not disturb the one with your neutrally balanced hook attached, even after you have waded out and buried your line all the way to that critically balanced hook.

In my opinion they learn well and very, very quickly when caught 6 or 7 times a week, I have noticed the last 2 seasons that the Barbel on the Kennet in particular have been very easy to catch the first month of the season, I guess they forget their instinct over the closed season to a degree but it comes back quickly..........
 
Ian, I'm just pressuming you concentrate your river fishing around the kennet area...if current Thames and it's tributaries declining barbel trends continue i would imagine the Kennet will be just as **** as the cherwell, upper thames, windrush, evenlode and thame within 10 years...your a bit of an oldy so it wont bother you too much...?

The truth in what is happening is gradually spreading downstream and you better be the best rig maker and barbel whisperer in shisten to catch barbel that aint there....

But the Kennet region's anglers wont let it get that bad ? will they ?

Just a few questions for you Ian... bit of a cross over with the do you really care thread....wot you reckon ?

Cheers
Jason
 
Hi Jason,

I posted my opinion but am not going to start pushing it as "the answer", it is just MY opinion at the end of the day. I do take notice of the regular EA fish surveys though and they do not thus far show any decline in populations on the Kennet or Loddon, i.e. over the last 3 years, but the numbers of fish being caught have definitely reduced. With regards the Upper Thames, Dominic Martin of the EA, who is now the Loddon Valley Consultative Committee rep for the EA was part of a major study on the Upper Thames which did show a huge decline in numbers of barbel, silting of spawning reds being a major contributor, this has led to a major initiative to improve Barbel recruitment through a number of measures such as habitat improvement together with juvenile re-stocking. I am sure that otters played a part in that decline, together with a number of major polution incidents over a period of time.

Unlike past polution incidents though, I do not recall any real news of hundreds of fish floating dead down the rivers during the 2007 floods, lots of live fish (not barbel) being returned from flooded fields and would therefore be personally sceptical of such theories of mass destruction..............again, only my opinion, I am a person who needs to see or hear evidence to agree to theories. To simply hear "I am not catching fish anymore and therefore they must all be dead" doesn't convince me. (that wasn't aimed at your goodself by the way!!)

My opinion/theory is just based my experience
 
Last edited:
Ian....there's something not quite right happening in this area around Oxford at the moment. Lots have fish have vanished...it does not seem to be getting better and all though I get along with the EA around here there is no answers... these are some clever fish round these parts, must have been on a david copperfield vanishing awareness course to decieve us clever nob anglers.....either that or they're just decided to die and future generations die out from poor habitat or be eaten by others............

If you fancy a look into the future come and have a weekend fishing the cherwell...might make you think....umm ?

Bit over the top but if the Teme's going downhill....what about the severn...wye...trent....and maybe the Kennet is already.... also these lovely northern rivers that are just starting to come on song....

it is a cross over to the other thread but both your therory and my reality are both the same in some respects

Cheers
Jason
 
Last edited:
Jason,

Like I said, there has been a masssive decline in the Upper Thames catchment, including Cherwell, Windrush, etc.......not sure how successful the improvement/recruitment works will be, it could take 5 - 10 years to really see the fruits of what actions are in progress today. The Loddon Consultative Committee is already starting to look at recruitment improvement to sustain future stocks in the Loddon Valley, I can't speak so much for the Kennet as I have no engagement with anyone from the EA or a consultative committee. My club are already starting action to improve/ensure the future of St. Pats Stream.

None of us can make them easier to catch though ;)
 
Oi :eek: you two....... keep it on track or we'll end up with two threads on the same subject !!!

But chucking my two penny worth into the pot, i think there is merit in both of your opinions.

But as far as your theories go Crooky, they just don't stack up where i've been concentrating my fishing this year.
Unless my tactics have proved so good this year to give me a total of 20 Doubles to 1 single on that particular venue, which are geared towards eliminating the attention of smaller barbel, I would have to conclude that the numbers of single figure fish have been dramatically reduced from previous years.
To factor that into your theory, it would mean that the doubles are becoming mug fish, and the younger smaller fish are getting very cute indeed.
I've fished most weeks throughout the summer and autum, and to only catch one single, is just not heard of.

Mostv of the guys on there would argue with you till blue in the face some having put in a lot of time and caught nowt ! I'm not sure that all the singles are dead, but certainly not there in numbers they have been in previous years.

It may be in part that my tactics work, i'm convinced they do, since i've been practicing them i've been very happy with my results of doubles to singles ratio and have been getting better year on year as i've perfected the method, but i'm not that daft to kid myself that the ratio has taken this mega leap because of anything i'm doing. For sure it's made catching the doubles easier having far fewer singles to contend with, but they have gone believe me, where to i have no idea.

I do whole heartedly agree that barbel wise up, and can do so very quickly if enough pressure is placed upon them, but the fact is there has been very little pressure on that particular venue, this year or last, sometimes this summer i've had the whole venue to myself, so that part of your theory also doesn't add up in my opinion.

I don't believe though that any problems apparent on the Thames are much to do with anything thats specifically happening on the Loddon. which i believe is going through a natural cycle, though i also think there are other problems.

I'm not going to go any further on the subject here as it's more suited to the do you really care thread. i.e the effects of pollution which i think are most definatly in part at least resposible for the downturn in fishing on our local stretches of the Thames.

Ian.
 
Hi Ian G.

Just a question. How many fish do you really reckon the 20 doubles represent?

As I have mentioned before, I recently looked through some of my pics and noted one fish from the Loddon I had caught 3 times over 5 years ago at 13+

I have seen that same fish in at least 3 pics of other anglers on BFW in the last 2 seasons.

Although this thread seems to be a crossover, I can assure you that the normal barbel captures (not indv fish) on a river like the Pats would have been in the region of 3000 plus fish a year 6-7 years ago. I suspect it's nearer 200 now. If we still believe, and I realise you don't, that it's just the methods used, they sure got clever!:(

Overall many rivers have had markedly reduced barbel showing, not just the Thames. The same applies to parts of the Teme, Severn and W.Avon. The floods and effluent.

Graham
 
Last edited:
Ian,

I really do believe your methods are having phenominal results, there are not many anglers having anywhere near the results you are on that stretch as you know. You and I have discussed this at length this season and agree on many apects, I don't know why you are catching more doubles it may simply be beacuse thy need more food to sustain them and are therfore prepared to take more risks, in the same way that I will risk all and get a pastie from the garage on the way home from fishing because i'm starving having not eaten for an hour, whereas you will await your good lady's carefully prepared dinner. :D

There is a Loddon EA survey site very close to where you have been fishing this season and it has not show any decline in numbers or average size of barbel present in the last 2 years.
 
Graham,
I know for sure without a shadow of a doubt 2 of the captures were the same fish first easily identifiable by a patch of missing scales on its left hand side just below and behind it's dorsal fin . there were 3 others that were near identical to each other, if not absolutley in that the were completly devoid of marks, that i could use to identify them. two of them were both 12lb 4oz and i'm almost sure it was the same fish - absolutly clean no marks, hard to tell shape from photos but on the bank, and a few weeks apart they looked very similar in shape as well so i believe at least 4 of the 20 captures represented 2 Barbel, a third very similar was again devoid of marks and again similar shape but caught at a weight 10oz heavier at 12.14. i believe it probably was the same fish as the two latter above, making a total of 5 recaptures, representing 2 Barbel.

Several fish i caught had patches of scales missing of varying sizes, and various parts of their bodies so were easily identifiable from those.
Another had 3 very distinctive black spots on it's left hand gill cover, so again was easily idenfiable, i'm prety sure none of the others were recaptures.

I've never spent anything like the time on this venue in previous years as i have this year, and was a little suprised not to have caught a fish i've caught 3 times over the previous 2 seasons, one that you could never miss, being almost completly stripped of scales on it's right hand flank.

Ian.


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