• 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

Crooky. Her work is thin and misleading and it is flawed. Tell me again how many Barbel were tagged, how many rivers were sampled then tell me how many anglers were shocked that so many were in front of them. It’s a long river mate the figures are laughable. But there again it’s only to mollify those silly sods who drown worms.

PS Granny didn’t show, neither did owt else. Defiantly one of the 90 percenters me.
 
Kevin Daly said:
Crooky. Her work is thin and misleading and it is flawed. Tell me again how many Barbel were tagged, how many rivers were sampled then tell me how many anglers were shocked that so many were in front of them. It’s a long river mate the figures are laughable. But there again it’s only to mollify those silly sods who drown worms.

PS Granny didn’t show, neither did owt else. Defiantly one of the 90 percenters me.
Click to expand...

Kevin, you have discussed it with her then??
 
I have read of the demise of the barbel popultion on the Great Ouse and the fact that the finger of suspicion points towards otters. Presumably the otters moved on after devastating the fish stocks to find new food sources? If they did, then it should come as no surprise that the 'twenty tagged barbel' in Karen's study have survived. If she'd tagged several hundred and the otters are still present, perhaps the results would better reflect this.
 
Last edited:
Ian it’s so thin it’s a joke. I present for a living, trust me, it’s weak. I can see that so can others. If you do know there is much more, then you have done the girl a disservice bringing it here. You are bang on about a presentation being a series of prompts but it should headline the facts then summarise. I don’t care how you slice it there is no basis for any conclusions other than speculation. It isn’t just about otters the rivers are in poor fettle. Take the Kentish Stour it has no otters it does not need them, The EA are doing their level best to kill a lovely little river. Have a look at Ian McDonalds "Save the Kentish Stour" facebook page, their ripping its lungs out. If anyone from the EA tells you it’s sunny, nice eyes or not, take your brolly.
 
Kevin Daly said:
Ian it’s so thin it’s a joke. I present for a living, trust me, it’s weak. I can see that so can others. If you do know there is much more, then you have done the girl a disservice bringing it here. You are bang on about a presentation being a series of prompts but it should headline the facts then summarise. I don’t care how you slice it there is no basis for any conclusions other than speculation. It isn’t just about otters the rivers are in poor fettle. Take the Kentish Stour it has no otters it does not need them, The EA are doing their level best to kill a lovely little river. Have a look at Ian McDonalds "Save the Kentish Stour" facebook page, their ripping its lungs out. If anyone from the EA tells you it’s sunny, nice eyes or not, take your brolly.
Click to expand...

Me too, you must be what we term a death by powerpoint type of presenter, rather than follow the route of minimal hard material and present from experience of the subject matter. You will know that your presenter notes are far more important than slides, no point simply reading something out which the audience could simply read for themselves.

For the record, I have not tried to bring Karen's study or details of it to the forum, others have linked material, etc from the WWW, my reference in starting this thread was John Bailey's article in the Anglers Mail last week, let's remember that....... It is posters on the forum who have questioned this........ I have been careful to try get people to accept that without reading the article John wrote or by discussing Karen's research in detail directly with her, they are not really in a position to critique either.
 
Perhaps someone from admin should contact Karen to discuss some of the issues that have arisen in this thread, rather than her receiving numerous emails from site members who, to her, are total strangers.
 
She thanked the following on her final powerpoint slide:

Many thanks to;
Hull International Fisheries Institute, Environment Agency, angling clubs and land
owners that have made this project possible.
The fisheries team at Brampton, Chris Gardner and Ian Wellby for the safe capture
and tagging of adult barbel.
Martyn Lucas at the University of Durham for the use of the radio tracking
equipment.
Everyone who has helped with the collection of data.
 
Ian Crook said:
Me too, you must be what we term a death by powerpoint type of presenter, rather than follow the route of minimal hard material and present from experience of the subject matter. You will know that your presenter notes are far more important than slides, no point simply reading something out which the audience could simply read for themselves.

For the record, I have not tried to bring Karen's study or details of it to the forum, others have linked material, etc from the WWW, my reference in starting this thread was John Bailey's article in the Anglers Mail last week, let's remember that....... It is posters on the forum who have questioned this........ I have been careful to try get people to accept that without reading the article John wrote or by discussing Karen's research in detail directly with her, they are not really in a position to critique either.
Click to expand...

I seldom use PowerPoint I always try to find something tangible that my audience relate to and have some experience of. I do like to try to keep them awake as well. I do like to bulk out the words with a some facts and I always leave my opinions at home. My audiences would slaughter me if I tried to flog them this particular brand of snake venom tonic.
You made the first reference to Karen, others linked to it to show how thin your base material is.
 
In the original post it was insinuated that scientific research highlights that fish stocks are fine and that it is anglers mostly missing a trick regarding location etc.

I'd argue that JB has it totally wrong regarding the Great Ouse as EA fishery samples show year on year decline in fish masses and density, so there is scientific evidence to back up the claims of anglers that fish stocks have fallen to levels which have significantly lowered catch rates; and that is despite anglers changing location, tactics and methods.
There is a percentage of anglers who tried keep ahead of the game moving locations etc but the river is patchy to say the least (baron for a few hundred metres then a few areas with fish and so on). Former jewels in the crown have become expensive poisoned chalices.

Karen's study is brilliant on a number of levels, and I would never dream of criticising her for the work she has done. The study did not set out to be an insight into fish stock levels. Rather as an investigation into the life of barbel in the Ouse, but, because all but one of the fish survived people have incorrectly used this as an indicator to stock levels.

There is some really interesting stuff to come out of Karen's work, such as the movements of barbel throughout the year, which people really could use to help there own angling.
And some of recomendations that will come out of the study regarding habitat and improvements to spawning areas etc could be implemented on your rivers to help stop them suffering the same fate as the Great Ouse.
 
Ash Gould said:
In the original post it was insinuated that scientific research highlights that fish stocks are fine and that it is anglers mostly missing a trick regarding location etc.

I'd argue that JB has it totally wrong regarding the Great Ouse as EA fishery samples show year on year decline in fish masses and density, so there is scientific evidence to back up the claims of anglers that fish stocks have fallen to levels which have significantly lowered catch rates; and that is despite anglers changing location, tactics and methods.
There is a percentage of anglers who tried keep ahead of the game moving locations etc but the river is patchy to say the least (baron for a few hundred metres then a few areas with fish and so on). Former jewels in the crown have become expensive poisoned chalices.

Karen's study is brilliant on a number of levels, and I would never dream of criticising her for the work she has done. The study did not set out to be an insight into fish stock levels. Rather as an investigation into the life of barbel in the Ouse, but, because all but one of the fish survived people have incorrectly used this as an indicator to stock levels.

There is some really interesting stuff to come out of Karen's work, such as the movements of barbel throughout the year, which people really could use to help there own angling.
And some of recomendations that will come out of the study regarding habitat and improvements to spawning areas etc could be implemented on your rivers to help stop them suffering the same fate as the Great Ouse.
Click to expand...

Thanks Ash, one clarification though, from what Karen said, she did not believe a fish disappeared, she believed a transmitter failed, she was surprised it was only one in such a long period, she actually said it was very doubtful a single fish would have left the area completely and she did search quite far and wide and had the fish died or been eaten the chances are the transmitter would still be operational.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top