• 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 Handling: What's Acceptable?

Alex Gowney said:
Problems arise when some people let their fish go as soon as they start looking a bit lively. Barbel should always have a good 5 minutes recovery whether weighed or not as some fish look ready for release only to roll over again seconds later.
Click to expand...

This is exactly the reason why I think that the blanket campaign against keepnets is misguided.
At least while a fish is in a keepnet its easy to see if it goes belly up and sort it out. Back in the 80's when I used one as a mater of course I know that every barbel I released was fully recovered. No matter how careful I am about releasing them today I can't be 100% certain of that.


Hi Phil, are you still paying your £20?
 
Declan Doherty said:
Generally, if I hook one worth weighing, I'll get it straight on the bank - I find they're less of a handful without a rest. I'll unhook, set up the camera and scales (should only take 2 or 3mins if everything's to hand) then transfer to to the weighsling. Weigh the fish, put it back on the mat, select the self-take program on the camera, pick up the fish and get 4 or 5 shots of each side then put it straight back. As long as you point it upstream then it's fine after 30secs. Everything in 5 or 6mins max - sorted.
Click to expand...


Declan,
I assume you are pulling our legs right ! :D

If not, whats your tally of dead barbel so far !!!!!!!! :eek:
 
Adrian Williams said:
Hi Phil, are you still paying your £20?
Click to expand...

You make it sound like a hardship Adrian. It's not something anyone is forced to undertake, and really no one should be made to feel as such.
It almost, in some circles, that there's now a stigma attached to handing over the vast sum of £20.


Not here.


Damian
 
Damian Kimmins said:
You make it sound like a hardship Adrian. It's not something anyone is forced to undertake, and really no one should be made to feel as such.
It almost, in some circles, that there's now a stigma attached to handing over the vast sum of £20.


Not here.


Damian
Click to expand...

£20 would buy you this - much more useful!
 
Damian Kimmins said:
You make it sound like a hardship Adrian. It's not something anyone is forced to undertake, and really no one should be made to feel as such.
It almost, in some circles, that there's now a stigma attached to handing over the vast sum of £20.


Not here.


Damian
Click to expand...


Hi Damian.

You don't have to go getting all defensive, there's no stigma from where I'm sitting. I used code as I simply didn't want to start the old war up.
If you want to use your hard earned supporting an organisation whose only real role these days seems to be as a vehicle for one man's ego then that's your business, personally I'd rather shove wasps up my bum......Or spend the £20 on Declans keepnet.
Have a nice week, I know I will......I'll be here.

cyprus-paphos-harbour-night.jpg
 
Adrian Williams said:
Hi Damian.

You don't have to go getting all defensive, there's no stigma from where I'm sitting. I used code as I simply didn't want to start the old war up.
If you want to use your hard earned supporting an organisation whose only real role these days seems to be as a vehicle for one man's ego then that's your business, personally I'd rather shove wasps up my bum......Or spend the £20 on Declans keepnet.
Have a nice week, I know I will......I'll be here.
Click to expand...

Come on Adrian, let's not dramatise!


It's so strange how one's dislike for something or somebody sees them do things which would normally be considered out of character.
That you have a disagreement with someone, that someone does something that you don't like, is reason for concoctions of a truly fictictious nature?
It seems to be quite prevalent in society.
Obstacles may be crossed and bridges built if some learnt to stick to the facts though.

Regards


Damian
 
I'm all for making sure that we look after any caught fish, regardless of species, as best we can. However, the way that some of you go on, I'm amazed that you are prepared to stick dirty great hooks in fish gobs.:confused:

If you really wish to absolutely 100% guarantee that no fish is ever harmed I recommend that you don't bother with hooks. No need for suitable landing nets, unhooking mats, weigh slings, cameras etc etc. No danger of any fish being harmed in any way shape or form. A pair of polarized glasses and a bucket of bait would certainly be a lot cheaper. You'd not even have to pay the EA for a rod licence. Everyone's a winner.;):D
 
Chris Jones said:
I'm all for making sure that we look after any caught fish, regardless of species, as best we can. However, the way that some of you go on, I'm amazed that you are prepared to stick dirty great hooks in fish gobs.:confused:

If you really wish to absolutely 100% guarantee that no fish is ever harmed I recommend that you don't bother with hooks. No need for suitable landing nets, unhooking mats, weigh slings, cameras etc etc. No danger of any fish being harmed in any way shape or form. A pair of polarized glasses and a bucket of bait would certainly be a lot cheaper. You'd not even have to pay the EA for a rod licence. Everyone's a winner.;):D
Click to expand...

But then...




...it wouldn't be fishing would it?

Anglers are what we are, and angling is what we do. That whilst angling we try to maintain a certain amount of care goes towards those fish we catch, means what exactly?

It means exactly that, and if by way of discussion we happen to find perhaps a way of better looking after what we catch, what does it matter?
 
Adrian Williams said:
Hi Damian.


If you want to use your hard earned supporting an organisation whose only real role these days seems to be as a vehicle for one man's ego then that's your business, personally I'd rather shove wasps up my bum......Or spend the £20 on Declans keepnet.
Click to expand...


Adrian and Graham,

whilst I realise that what I might write from here on may well be perceived predictable on account of me yet again defending the indefensible, I will, for what it is worth, state that I have really only ever defended because I have felt that factually, matters which the Society have really done quite well with have not been given due praise.

Above, again, I find myself reading that which can only be described as a contrived, albeit brief narration, on how poorly things are. I am again compelled to discuss that which for my liking are really the facts of the matter.

Of the £20 odd that goes towards the BS coffers, what do you think happens to it once in the bank account?
I have here an excellently presented copy of the BS accounts of 2009 as given to those in attendance at the AGM.
Those areas funded directly by the income generated from membership fees I would imagine to include;

Research and Conservation
Barbel Fisher
Newsletter
Postage/Stationary/Telephone
Membership costs
Trophies
Internet
Insurance
Advertising
Committee expenses

Now look at every single one of those, and then tell me which that nasty Chairman has his dirty little fingers in, using for his own means.

What really, both of your positions come down to, is the fact that someone you may not have cared for before, made some decisions you cared even less for - decisions that riled you in the extreme. However, those decisions had nothing to do with what constitutes the Society as an organisation, or as a whole.

It is much easier for the human mind to become disassociated with that which it considers an issue, rather than struggle to overcome it. It is also much easier to lay blame elsewhere with that disassociation.

There are many many more things to the Society than those decisions or opinions made or held by one person you seem not to be able to let go off, than you really give credit for. It is a shame that you cannot distinguish that.


Regards


Damian
 
Damian Kimmins said:
But then...




...it wouldn't be fishing would it?

Anglers are what we are, and angling is what we do. That whilst angling we try to maintain a certain amount of care goes towards those fish we catch, means what exactly?

It means exactly that, and if by way of discussion we happen to find perhaps a way of better looking after what we catch, what does it matter?
Click to expand...


A matter of degree?

Assuaging guilt complexes...........

False idolatry............

Anthropomorphism............

Competitive egos................

Who applies antiseptic to wounds or hook-holds? Who applies a counter-remedy for missing "slime-coat" after handling? Who names their fish? Or offers a sentimental platitude as they swim off?
And who then talks about it and attempts to "set standards"?

Where do you draw the line beyond impaling a fish on a sharpened hook and playing it to partial or near-exhaustion for the pleasure of doing so?

Personally I think they should be grateful we don't kill them and eat them. At least they get a second chance. :cool:
 
Why o why do we have to have this pathetic BS slagging/ point scoring behaviour creeping in again , it does my head in ! Leave it out for pitys sake . And before you ask I am not a member :(
 
When i have a barbel on the bank heres what i do...
1..put fish on bank
2..have a fag and cup of coffee
3..get scales and camera out
4..have a walk along the river to clear my thoughts..
5..check no otters are watching
6..remove hook
7..contact EA for correct un-hooking procedure
8..problem solved the fish is now dead..
9..leave carcus for mink to eat..
10..go to pub for a pint..

Come on guys if you need to debate on how to handle a fish you shouldent be fishing un supervised..and attacking various parties is nothing to do with handling fish..:eek::eek::eek::eek:
 
Damian Kimmins said:
But then...




...it wouldn't be fishing would it?

Anglers are what we are, and angling is what we do. That whilst angling we try to maintain a certain amount of care goes towards those fish we catch, means what exactly?

It means exactly that, and if by way of discussion we happen to find perhaps a way of better looking after what we catch, what does it matter?
Click to expand...

No, it wouldn't be fishing as such. As I said, I've no problems with looking after any fish as best you can. However, the whole barbel police, thou shalt do as I say, rubbish leaves me cold. We'll be going down the approved landing net, approved unhooking mat route before long. God forbid that the average angler or a matchman catches a barbel, uses a landing net that's a touch too small, doesn't have an unhooking mat or, horror of horrors, uses a keepnet!
As long as someone isn't causing unnecessary problems or worse, leaving fish injured, dead or dying, what's the big problem? I'll always do whatever I can to either follow specific fishery rules or apply my own self imposed best practice. I may fall short in that occasionally though and I've now got little doubt that I'll fall short of some folks idea of what's right. What I will not do is preach to others. Ultimately, I stick hooks in fish, tire them to exhaustion and drag them out of their natural environment for my pleasure. I'll do my damnedest to get them back to that environment with the minimum fuss or damage as I, or the fishery rules, see fit.
 
The 'Barbel Police', preaching?
I don't know about that being the case here. If however, you feel happy enough in the knowledge that you are doing what you can to ensure the safe return of those fish you catch, then so be it.
The Barbel Society's well thought of handling code is what was devised to offer those new to the sport a way of feeling certain about what they are doing - it is a best practice guide, a recommendation of what to do in the event of catching a barbel - nothing else.
Any association with that and preaching or the 'Barbel Police' is purely of your own making.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top