• 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...

Advice Please

Status
Not open for further replies.
"Hi Richard, This topic has certainly created a great deal of interest and deserves further thought. Unfortunately, there are people on here who have created silly, puerile and unnecessary diversions."

I dont think they were unnecessary Jim.
 
Mmmm.. I hadn't considered that. The point that I was trying to make was that Richard's topic has merit and deserved some in-depth thought. I hope that Richard adds some photos to see if we can try and be more specific with our responses. I think that the signal krayfish theory could be on the right lines. To prove or disprove this would require some krayfish traps to be set. They can be bought on-line very cheaply. In fact I had my p.b. barbel in one of these traps as it got stuck in the netting.
 
I think you are on the right lines Jim, but wouldn't some sort of diving expedition put things beyond doubt? I have no idea how much is costs to hire one of those mini submarine (yellow would work) things but it might be cheaper than a shed load of traps and would save an enormous amount of time. The river is, apparently, very deep and slow moving so possibly ideal conditions for an underwater exploration. Some of the hire cost could also be offset by charging a small fee to anyone wanting a short dive in a bream filled dark and mysterious river. Underwater footage and samples from the river bed could be taken and I am sure that this would put this fascinating issue to bed. I think we anglers spend far too much time poncing about on the riverbank when we could learn so much more on the river bed. It's about making an effort isn't it?
 
Jim Foxall said:
Hi Richard, This topic has certainly created a great deal of interest and deserves further thought. Unfortunately, there are people on here who have created silly, puerile and unnecessary diversions. I can assure you that the bulk of the membership have no time for these time wasters. After all this is a barbel fishing forum, not some site for wouldbe comedians.

I and like minded members would like to consider the issues that you have raised, further. You have described the bottom, mud, the depth 12', little weed but some pondlife. My initial thoughts, are that there are signal crayfish present as these will remove any bait that you put in, in double quick time, especially a carpet of bait. Bait scattered about will have a much better chance. What I advocate is to put ground bait into a wire mesh cage. The ground bait must be very firm to prevent breakdown happening too quickly. I have watched crayfish attacking such a cage which is satisfying knowing full well that is all that they can do. An added bonus is that at the end of the day, you can lift the cage and recover your groudbait. Your post implies that there is very little natural food and that is why the barbel are in that stretch. As you mentioned, it is difficult to consider the various situations in an imaginary way. What would be helpful would be for you to post a few photographs showing the stretch and maybe a photo of yourself holding a capture, that would add to the atmosphere.

Finally, I would not recommend building up a "picture" of the topography of the stretch using a lead and braid. In my opinion this is far too crude a method. An Humminbird Smartcast will do the job more quickly and more accurately. Better still they will detect fish and save wasting time fishing barren areas. Most good tackle shops will hire Smartcasts for a day or a week and very reasonably too.
Click to expand...

Jim,

If thats the best bait presentation you can come up with I'm suprised you catch anything at all.......
 
I normally don't post when I've had a drink but I'm making an exception tonight because I can't understand why the sudden fixation about crayfish?
I know they are a bit of a problem on some rivers but looking at the clues Richard has offered up, i.e. steady flow, 12' deep, loads of bream, mud with scattered gravel, coloured water, lots of snails etc, it's fairly obvious to me that he is fishing on the lower Severn or somewhere similar. To the best of my knowledge there are no crayfish in the lower Severn.
 
Adrian Williams said:
I normally don't post when I've had a drink but I'm making an exception tonight because I can't understand why the sudden fixation about crayfish?
I know they are a bit of a problem on some rivers but looking at the clues Richard has offered up, i.e. steady flow, 12' deep, loads of bream, mud with scattered gravel, coloured water, lots of snails etc, it's fairly obvious to me that he is fishing on the lower Severn or somewhere similar. To the best of my knowledge there are no crayfish in the lower Severn.
Click to expand...

Give it time!

I can't imagine them not being in there really. They're in my local Tees, a mate had one on maggot a few years ago from the Barnard Castle stretch. They're up in Scotland and are present south of the Severn, I can't see how they'd bypass such a large river??
 
Either way, Jim has a point and the reason I and I'm sure many more anglers who consider this Forum as a site to exchange information about catching our chosen quarry have not posted is because as usual it has been hijacked by people who think that they are 'Funny' and think they have a point to make although in most cases I struggle to grasp what that is:(

Please don't get me wrong as I welcome 'a healthy debate' but some of the people replying to this and many other posts have no intention to contribute any positive ideas or theories:(

Mods, please sort this out or this great forum will just deteriarate into yet another p-ss taking site

Yours in anticipation

Keith
 
Adrian Williams said:
I normally don't post when I've had a drink but I'm making an exception tonight because I can't understand why the sudden fixation about crayfish?
I know they are a bit of a problem on some rivers but looking at the clues Richard has offered up, i.e. steady flow, 12' deep, loads of bream, mud with scattered gravel, coloured water, lots of snails etc, it's fairly obvious to me that he is fishing on the lower Severn or somewhere similar. To the best of my knowledge there are no crayfish in the lower Severn.
Click to expand...

Not in the lower Severn? Well, OK....but what about after it has rained heavily and it becomes the higher Severn...are they in it then?

Cheers, Dave.
 
Keith Humphreys said:
Either way, Jim has a point and the reason I and I'm sure many more anglers who consider this Forum as a site to exchange information about catching our chosen quarry have not posted is because as usual it has been hijacked by people who think that they are 'Funny' and think they have a point to make although in most cases I struggle to grasp what that is:(

Please don't get me wrong as I welcome 'a healthy debate' but some of the people replying to this and many other posts have no intention to contribute any positive ideas or theories:(

Mods, please sort this out or this great forum will just deteriarate into yet another p-ss taking site

Yours in anticipation

Keith
Click to expand...

Keith, have sent a couple of PM's to you. Cheers.
 
Ade
I would disagree with you there but I suppose it depends on your definition of the upper, middle and Lower. Sounds to me like the guy is describing the lower sections of the middle.
 
Richard,
Have you tried baiting up using big baits, 30mm size?..I found when fishing the lower severn big baits kept most of the Bream away, though some still managed to get hooked..That said though Richard i always found the Bream moved in first and Barbel were not to far away..
 
Keith Humphreys said:
Either way, Jim has a point and the reason I and I'm sure many more anglers who consider this Forum as a site to exchange information about catching our chosen quarry have not posted is because as usual it has been hijacked by people who think that they are 'Funny' and think they have a point to make although in most cases I struggle to grasp what that is:(

Please don't get me wrong as I welcome 'a healthy debate' but some of the people replying to this and many other posts have no intention to contribute any positive ideas or theories:(

Mods, please sort this out or this great forum will just deteriarate into yet another p-ss taking site

Yours in anticipation

Keith
Click to expand...

Keith,

Just ignore them, they probably sink to the "tee hee let's send cryptic messages to each other" level because they have no knowledge to impart. I always found that during my match fishing days it was always the more successful anglers that were prepared to share information.

Anyway back to the river. I'm sure that Ronnie and Reggie are present but to my knowledge (and others as we communicate very regularly) none of us has ever landed one on the stretch so I am prepared to discount them. The Barbel themselves are are of all sizes but if I were to break my catches down I would say that less than 10% are under 3lbs, 40% are between 3lbs and 6lbs, 30% are between 6lbs and 9lbs and 20% are over 9lbs with 11.6 being my personal best but others have comfortably beaten this. In between the Barbel Bream to 9lbs stop you from getting bored and its just a case of pulling them in and being happy about it until the Barbel put in an appearance. Incidentally the Bream actually pull back a bit so they are not too much of a pain. I spent an afternoon once with the groundbait feeder and caster with artificials on the hook and had over 100lbs in a matter of hours which made a nice change.

Another feature of the place is the way the fish respond to the weather. All of us on the stretch have experienced "perfect" days when all the indicators say we should catch well and have only had 2 or 3 fish. Then there are really bright hot and sunny days when we have emptied the place....there is just no pattern to it. One possible clue is that generally speaking when it is up a few feet and heavily coloured then the fishing suffers. If you sit it out wirh smelly meat or similar you will get a fish but very often these days turn into one fish wonders. Again the experience of the rest of us is similar so I think we can discount differing angling styles.

They fish are in superb condition (not a braid cut in sight) and fight really well. Some of the smaller fish behave like they are on steroids and rip off down the river while the larger fish tend to plod a bit more and use their weight. We have some evidence of multiple captures but we get the impression that many of these fish have never seen a hook before. But the fact remains that if you put out a large bed of feed then both the Barbel and the Bream really seem to shy off it.

I know we are not meant to understand fish but I find it fun to try.
 
Kevin Daly said:
Ade
I would disagree with you there but I suppose it depends on your definition of the upper, middle and Lower. Sounds to me like the guy is describing the lower sections of the middle.
Click to expand...


I know what you are saying Kev there is often a bit of confusion over what constitutes the upper, middle and lower on a river which is 220 miles long.
I have always considered Worcester to be the start of the lower or the end of the middle with Diglis weir being the natural demarcation, I am aware however that others would say the lower river is the tidal region below Tewksbury but to me that is the tidal.

I have heard the stretch between Stourport and Worcester being described as the upper lower but to me it will always be the lower middle, the middle being defined as the river between Shrewsbury weir and Diglis though some would say it extends up as far as the confluence with the Vernwy at Melverly.
That would actually make more sense geographically and in a fishery sense as the river character does definitely change above that point and the fish species go from being predominately coarse below the confluence to predominantly game above, though the chub fishing between Newtown and Welshpool can be as good as anywhere in the country.
That of course would make the bit between Melverly and Shrewsbury the the lower upper or the upper middle and the upper going from Melverly to the source, though in a fishing sense it is fairly barren on the mountain above Llanidloes.
:D
 
Last edited:
Adrian Williams said:
..............I have always considered Worcester to be the start of the lower or the end of the middle with Diglis weir being the natural demarcation, I am aware however that others would say the lower river is the tidal region below Tewksbury but to me that is the tidal.
Click to expand...

Agree Ade. The river below Tewks gets tidal influence on alternate weeks, so I refer to it as the tidal. Once below Maisemore or Gloucester (depending on which leg you take) it's virtually tidal every day, sometimes big sometimes small.
 
Adrian Williams said:
I know what you are saying Kev there is often a bit of confusion over what constitutes the upper, middle and lower on a river which is 220 miles long.
I have always considered Worcester to be the start of the lower or the end of the middle with Diglis weir being the natural demarcation, I am aware however that others would say the lower river is the tidal region below Tewksbury but to me that is the tidal.

I have heard the stretch between Stourport and Worcester being described as the upper lower but to me it will always be the lower middle, the middle being defined as the river between Shrewsbury weir and Diglis though some would say it extends up as far as the confluence with the Vernwy at Melverly.
That would actually make more sense geographically and in a fishery sense as the river character does definitely change above that point and the fish species go from being predominately coarse below the confluence to predominantly game above, though the chub fishing between Newtown and Welshpool can be as good as anywhere in the country.
That of course would make the bit between Melverly and Shrewsbury the the lower upper or the upper middle and the upper going from Melverly to the source, though in a fishing sense it is fairly barren on the mountain above Llanidloes.
:D
Click to expand...

And the moral of this is to never nit pick with a welshman!
 
I'll be honest Steve, despite being born and living within smelling distance of the river all my life (apart from a few years in the forces) I am not really familiar with it below Upton. One thing which has always puzzled me is why you can be fishing on a calm still day below Worcester when out of nowhere standing ripples will appear moving upstream despite the absence of any wind or boats.
 
Richard,

You need to understand the relationship between the fish population and the food they eat. If your feed is not in tune with the scene under the surface then you will at worse only scare the fish, at best achieve poor results.

My theory is that the fish are well fed and spread out. They have little need to congregate except maybe in certain situations. They are used to finding individual items of natural food over large areas and adopt a meandering, grazing feeding behaviour, with little need to compete over concentrated, inert beds of bait. They are wandering, taking mouthfuls of food here and there when they find it.

But I believe my theory is irrelevant, and likely wrong, it is your theory that is important.

Course It could just be youre not giving the fish enough time to settle over the feed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top