• 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...

How far North do barbel live

Paul Bullinger

Paul Bullinger

Senior Member & Supporter
A week ago my wife and I were in Scotland as she was running in the Loch Ness Marathon (rather more brutal than she expected!!)
Anyway, we stayed up there for a few days to look around. The rivers were impressive. Many had fast sections but with areas of slack water. They seem ideal for barbel but they aren't found up there. Is it purely due to them not being introduced or is there another factor?
20241001_135252.jpg
20240928_112255.jpg
 
Not a chance of them being stocked in salmon rivers in scotland might be a bit cold that far north too
 
Christian Tyroll said:
I think (but stand to be corrected) barbel were naturally found here in rivers thought to be historically connected to the Rhine system? And everywhere else they’ve been introduced?
Click to expand...
This is what I’ve read in various different sources. Easterly flowing rivers such as the Thames, Trent, Gr.Ouse and so forth.
 
Once you get to Cumbria/County Durham and further north, you are firmly into game fishing territory. Details are anything but set in stone, but it's often suggested that rivers flowing to the south and west coasts do not naturally hold barbel. I know that the Tees holds barbel and the Wear does or did. I've seen plenty of suggestions that a few barbel have turned up in the Tyne over the years, but real evidence is thin on the ground. I've also heard the odd unconfirmed whisper about barbel in the Clyde. Whether barbel are indigenous to the Tees, Wear or Tyne is anyone's guess, I have my doubts. The most northerly river where there's little doubt barbel are indigenous is the Swale.
 
Chris Jones said:
Once you get to Cumbria/County Durham and further north, you are firmly into game fishing territory. Details are anything but set in stone, but it's often suggested that rivers flowing to the south and west coasts do not naturally hold barbel. I know that the Tees holds barbel and the Wear does or did. I've seen plenty of suggestions that a few barbel have turned up in the Tyne over the years, but real evidence is thin on the ground. I've also heard the odd unconfirmed whisper about barbel in the Clyde. Whether barbel are indigenous to the Tees, Wear or Tyne is anyone's guess, I have my doubts. The most northerly river where there's little doubt barbel are indigenous is the Swale.
Click to expand...
As far as i'm aware Chris, barbel are not indigenous to the Tees and It also receives stockings of barbel by clubs, one being Darlington Brown Trout.
 
David Robson said:
As far as i'm aware Chris, barbel are not indigenous to the Tees and It also receives stockings of barbel by clubs, one being Darlington Brown Trout.
Click to expand...

As I said, I'm not convinced that barbel are indigenous to the Tees, but it is unusual for the (current) EA to allow barbel to be stocked into rivers where they aren't considered indigenous. My understanding is that DBTAA does not routinely stock any coarse fish into rivers, though they do stock trout in the Tees and Swale. However, the EA do/did regularly stock coarse fish into areas of the Tees they control. The EA has also helped with stocking into DBT ponds. Recent EA stocking policy for the Tees has seen far more fish introduced into Clow Beck and the Skerne. The theory is that juvenile fish will have more cover meaning greater protection from predation when they are small.
 
The EA did stock 1600 barbel some five years back i seem to remember, and i thought DBTA were involved. Maybe i read it on DBTA web site and got mixed up?
 
The Wear fish are just below Durham with Ban the Bomb pool being a favourite for them. I fish the Tees for them at Bowl Hole and take a few out each season and it gives me more satisfaction than catching Swale or Nidd fish. Problem is, its a bit of a hike for me now so i fish the Swale more these days.
 
Joe Winstanley said:
These spate rivers in Scotland which originate in upland areas are just too acidic to support coarse fish like barbel. They are only suitable for Salmonids.

Likewise with most of the rivers of Wales and the far South West of England.
Click to expand...
Good point about the acidity of the water Joe. You could see the influence of peat in the water colour in some of the rivers.
I just wish we had barbel back in my home county of Norfolk. Very sad day when they disappeared from the Wensum 😪
 
Definitely barbel in the river Clyde, no idea how they got there. Just search it in YouTube, there’s loads of footage of them.

I remember someone claimed a very large barbel from the Clyde on here, years and years ago, it’s probably in the archives somewhere. Can’t remember the exact weight but it was something of a nationally large fish at the time, maybe 16lb or so.
 
The Clyde has a record of producing big coarse fish specimens. I was informed by a Scottish friend of specimen roach catches in the early 1980's.

I think Joe is on the right track as an explanation for the lack of Barbel in the Scottish rivers. Plus game fishing interests will persecute the barbel. Temperature I think has little to do with it. I've been fishing for Barbel on an Austrian river that runs colder than the Scottish rivers and they flourish in there.
 

Attachments

  • IMG20240712175203.jpg
    IMG20240712175203.jpg
    281.2 KB · Views: 63
I was under the impression that eastward flowing rivers, that were historically connected to mainland europe were natural barbel territory.

I don't know if the Tees, Wear or Tyne fall into that category, I reckon the Humber estuary definitely would and certainly the more southern waterways.

The Tees certainly lends itself to "natural" barbel territory, some stretches just scream barbel, winkling one out though can be another matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top