• 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...

Barbel Fishing and Populations

Have barbel numbers improved or declined on your local rivers

  • The barbel numbers have increased on my local rivers

    Votes: 6 5.1%

  • The barbel numbers have not changed on my local rivers

    Votes: 19 16.2%

  • The barbel numbers have slightly declined on my local rivers

    Votes: 32 27.4%

  • The barbel numbers have sharply declined on my local rivers

    Votes: 60 51.3%
  • Total voters
    117
  • Poll closed .
I am indebted to you Graham, for doing something that I have been banging on about for the last 10 years,over the last 2 years I have been pillared, ridiculed and in some instances call a liar, who on earth would lie about what he thought was a very serious situation regarding the Barbel and its perceived and actual decline in many rivers, I cannot for the life of me understand why the premier Barbel organization will not accept that we have a problem, on one hand on the basis of publicised catches and accounts, they openly believe that there isnt a problem and we have never had so good, but when the same evidential process is used to hi light the decline in Barbel numbers, we are told they need more proof, over the last few months I have tried to lobby the movers and shakers to conduct a poll of none BS members and Bs members, this poll that you have created and is being replicated on the BS's Facebook page is a quantum leap forward in producing a viable consensus of the problem, its one of those debates that you dont want to be right,on......but I know, we are right and I also hope once the numbers have been crunched someone uses the info to do something, one thing we are desperate for is to know where the EA and the numbers involved, have been stocking fingerling Barbel over the last 20 years, which has to be part of the analysis, but thank you Graham for what you have done mate.
 
Yes Lawrence. Members here will know I raised the same concerns 4/5 years ago.

I am not saying too much as im trying not to lead. Not that any of the hard nosed lot on here would take any notice of me anyway.

If I lived next to the Nene or Trent and maybe the Wye I would probably vote no 1.

Thats why its important we get a countrywide view and BFW is the perfect place with so many skilled abx and frequent barbel anglers. Few days left to vote. Please do.

Graham
 
Whilst we would all accept that there will be numerous and perhaps even contradictory factors at play in trying to understand barbel populations, it's good poll this as a temperature test and just grasping general sentiment across all our main barbel rivers.

I have given this a lot of thought and focused my thinking on a stretch of the Kennet that I have fished regularly over the past 4 years and feel I know it very well. I have generally carried around the notion that my sessions (typically short and into darkness) will, on average, produce one fish and that hasn't changed over the 4 years. The proportion of doubles is about the same but of the rest, one thing I have noticed this season is that the average weight is lower. I do seem to have caught more fish in the 4-6lb class.

The big change for me over the past couple of seasons is where I have caught the fish. A lot have come from swims I used to stroll by heading straight for my favourite spots. And this is an example of how I think you can get some distortion in perspective. There is a swim on this section of the Kennet that was a dream to fish, almost the perfect swim (it's slight imperfection being it could be awkward to fish sometimes). It was a small straight between two bends. A long line of overhanging bushes on the opposite bank with a deep gravel gulley and walking pace flow. It was the banker of all banker swims. If it was free I would fish it (and then get annoyed with myself for not being a little more adventurous) and would catch 9 times out of 10 and often it would be a double. Then over the course of a couple of seasons it went on a major decline. For a while I perservered, imagining that it was just going through an off spell. I would then catch the odd fish and confidence would be restored. But in the end, I had to abandon the swim. It left me somewhat depressed about the well being of the Kennet. It forced me to change my approach and I started to rove more- something I hadn't really done especially at night. I started fishing 3 or 4 swims in a session and on average one would produce. With this change my catch rate was restored to the one fish a visit average. But, I was having to work much harder.

There is a regular on this stretch who has perservered with that once magnificent swim and when we chat he repeatedly tells me that the Kennet is dead.

Just what on earth happened to that swim? In the end I concluded it was down to three factors: angling pressure- which was intense, otters and habitat trauma.

Separately on the Kennet thread, I think Micky has recently posted that his catch rate has been broadly similar over the last 5 years.

Despite saying all of the above, I am nonetheless concerned about the Kennet because I think it's in a precarious position. Recruitment is by far the bigger issue for me (and much more so than otters) and whilst I have certainly been heartened by the capture of smaller fish, I remain concerned. Crayfish are a significant element of that concern and I would like to understand more about their actual impact on habitat and fish stocks. I just can't get away from the belief that their vast numbers must be having a detrimental effect on spawning grounds, fish eggs and so on.
 
Thats an excellent post Howard, and as I said to Pete Reading recently, I have taken, what some would call is a somewhat radical view, are we really witnessing the decline of one type of Barbel,and that is the male fish, that in a normal world form perhaps 70% of a shoal of Barbel, thus giving the much larger females a degree of safety and protection in that shoal, now if that mix has been corrupted, it means that, successful spawning is threatened for obvious reasons but more importantly it makes those big females very vulnerable to Otters, because of the once safety of the shoal has been taken away (for what ever reason) they, the bigger females stick out like a sore thumb, yes, in the short term, we end with a huge spike in big Barbel being caught by Barbel angkers targeting those individual fish, but evidence that we describe as missing year classes, could be in effect and what we are acknowledging (by default) is that there are just no small males being caught because they aren't there anymore , so we have a river in the first instance of extra big barbel that dont and cant spawn anymore and then as time progress's as old age, angling pressure and Otters take their toll, we see a population collapse. Your point Howard on signal Crayfish, is worth considering, but if you take the collapse of the Temes population into account there are no signals present, yes the native white claws have always been there......but not in the epidemic proportions that we see of the Signal on some rivers...
 
With regard to the Wye Howard, I speak to Barbel fishers who have fished that river for some years and its tributaries and all are saying how it is in fact in decline, still lots of Barbel in he river but not as many as there was, or so it seems, the biggest indicator for me is the way one of the Wyes main tributaries as radically declined as a Barbel river and that is the river Lugg, I believe this is a key indicator on all rivers that have tributaries, the first thing to decline are those tributaries, because Barbel numbers fall on the main river, they then become less inclined to continually push up stream and into tributaries, because there no Barbel behind them to facilitate this and create new populations...
 
Some good posts. I purposely am not focused on causative factors for any decline or improvement.

Its simply as Howard noted a general overview.

I know Howard has done very well. Down to excellent angling.
He is also as he says relatively new to Barbel Fishing.

On the river 2-3 times a week for over a 40 year period (small gap) it was not unusual to catch in the first 25 years as many as a dozen 3-7lb fish in a session

As little as ten years ago a normal day would offer 4 or 5 fish including one or 2 doubles.

I understand there are concerns now finally raised on the RDAA site. An average season would yield over 80 doubles and hundreds of others.

As for rivers such as the Teme Ouse Bristol Avon.....now thise anglers have even more of my sympathy. It must be heartbreaking.
 
Graham, I think the poll as a litmus test is a great idea but, with respect, may be too wide-ranging. Take the Wharfe for example: judged a failing river by the EA, there are miles of river which used to hold good stocks of barbel but now only a handful are being caught. However, there are also some short stretches of the lower river where a vote by an angler fishing these would give a completely different picture.
 
I agree catch numbers are misleading but on those rivers where the water is clear it can be quite obvious that the Barbel are no longer around. I fish with someone whose ability to spot fish is extraordinary. We used to walk around a lot looking for fish, he would spot them and decide if he wanted to try for them. Now we walk stretches of river where we used to see a lot of Barbel of various year classes ad see little or nothing.
 
Anthony. As I mentioned. It's not a scientific poll, just an overview of opinion.

Of course results will be swayed by the example you mention, likewise if the guys fishing the "barren" stretches voted.

The more people that do contribute should give a clearer picture. But I accept it will only be a rough guide. But perhaps its better than No idea?

If it effects a change in approach and view from some of the key players, barbel specialist organisations and policy makers, in my opinion, so much the better.

I was invited to give my views a couple of years ago to an EA consultative Commitee.
I wrote 3 full pages based on my 40 years fishing the river. I never heard back.
 
Of course the decline is widespread, effecting all rivers it seems, but I don't know, as I am sure any of us have the defining reason(s).

But perhaps it is natures way of handling things, after all Barbel were 'forced' into the Severn system, and many others, there was the inevitable 'bloom' in numbers, the introduction was a mere 50 years ago which is nothing in a timeline for Nature, the inevitable thinning out process was always probably going to happen, besides is that such a bad thing? As we see with other species, they come and go with years, Bream Perch, and even Roach, so it maybe just a cycle.

If other species can fill the gap, then that is a good thing surely?

Although barbel numbers are down, the species is getting bigger, so not all doom and gloom.
 
Neil. I wouldn't disagree with you (blooming heck, must be going soft;))

But I guess you voted In decline.

Graham
 
I looked back through catch diaries for the last 10 years, season totals have varied wildly between 20 and 78, but the big change has been the decline since 2009 in the number doubles caught each season.
5lb+ Chub this season have suddenly become a rarity, previous seasons have produced at least half a dozen. Admittedly some sections of the river are more prolific than others so I can only speak of the section I fish. Trips to the river are pretty constant over the years, baits and techniques have varied but as a friend of mine often says "you can't catch em if they ain't there"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top