• 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...

Beavers released in UK

Sorry guys let's not get carried away they are not going to be damming the Wye or Trent any time soon, generally it is small tributaries they inhabit and clearly they had minimal impact in the past...

Graham if one followed your position to its logical conclusion we would have no barbel in many English rivers as they are not indigenous but were introductions with impact on the resident species...you can't have your cake and eat it.
 
Joe Winstanley said:
No ecologist worth their salt would claim their findings to be definitive on a study of that nature Graham, not with all the factors involved.

How do you know the results of these trails depend on who is involved in them? Your basically saying that the scientists involved are all frauds?
Click to expand...


On your first point then if its not definitive it is a risk, a risk I would rather not see be taken.

Your second point seeks to put words into my mouth, please do not do that, if you think that studies and trial results are not affected by those carrying them out or by who is paying for them that's fine I have the opposite view, cynical? you bet I am and for good reason.
 
Paul Dowgill said:
Sorry guys let's not get carried away they are not going to be damming the Wye or Trent any time soon, generally it is small tributaries they inhabit and clearly they had minimal impact in the past...

Graham if one followed your position to its logical conclusion we would have no barbel in many English rivers as they are not indigenous but were introductions with impact on the resident species...you can't have your cake and eat it.
Click to expand...

I am old enough to remember barbel being introduced into some rivers and yes they did have an impact on other species, should all none indigenous species of fish bird or mammal be got rid of because they were introduced, good luck with that, lets get rid of all the sheep in this country after all they are not indigenous here, just how long has a species to be in the environment it lives in before it is considered indigenous?
 
Graham Young said:
I am old enough to remember barbel being introduced into some rivers and yes they did have an impact on other species, should all none indigenous species of fish bird or mammal be got rid of because they were introduced, good luck with that, lets get rid of all the sheep in this country after all they are not indigenous here, just how long has a species to be in the environment it lives in before it is considered indigenous?
Click to expand...

Graham I do not follow your argument - you are against previouly indigenous mammals being re-introduced on a managed, small scale but seem to be happy that non-indigenous species were introduced to our rivers whatever the consequence. Bizarre. Yes, there are certainly some non-indigenous species that should be removed if it were possible, American signal crayfish for one and in some areas sheep should be removed as well but that is another debate that has been aired before.
 
Graham Young said:
On your first point then if its not definitive it is a risk, a risk I would rather not see be taken.

Your second point seeks to put words into my mouth, please do not do that, if you think that studies and trial results are not affected by those carrying them out or by who is paying for them that's fine I have the opposite view, cynical? you bet I am and for good reason.
Click to expand...

Sorry if you feel I'm putting words in your mouth Graham, but that does appear to be the jist of what you are saying and your reply seems to confirm that. What you are alluding to is deliberate bias, e.g. he who pays the piper etc. I find it unlikely that a high profile and well respected research Professor, in this case a hydrologist/soil scientist, would but their professional reputation on the line by setting up a flawed trail. Before the findings of research such as this can be published and used by policy makers as credible guiding evidence, they are required to undergo a rigorous vetting procedures known as the peer review process (see here: http://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-peer-review-27797).
 
Paul Dowgill said:
Graham I do not follow your argument - you are against previouly indigenous mammals being re-introduced on a managed, small scale but seem to be happy that non-indigenous species were introduced to our rivers whatever the consequence. Bizarre. Yes, there are certainly some non-indigenous species that should be removed if it were possible, American signal crayfish for one and in some areas sheep should be removed as well but that is another debate that has been aired before.
Click to expand...

Just when have I ever said that? words in mouth yet again, I will not comment further.
 
No Graham it is an interpretation of your point which i felt was not clear but seemed to imply that you did not mind non indigenous species being introduced and were aware they impacted on other species... if this is incorrect please explain what you meant as to me this does contradict your earlier post. Or feel free to ignore :)
 
Paul Dowgill said:
No Graham it is an interpretation of your point which i felt was not clear but seemed to imply that you did not mind non indigenous species being introduced and were aware they impacted on other species... if this is incorrect please explain what you meant as to me this does contradict your earlier post. Or feel free to ignore :)
Click to expand...

As you have asked for an explanation out of respect I will try to give you one but I doubt very much if it will be what you wanted to hear.

I have over the years seen indigenous and none indigenous creatures get into our waterways none imo (that's the important bit its only my opinion) have added anything to the riverine environment, in fact most if not all have been disastrous for angling they have been yet something else that has brought some rivers to the edge. Beaver are imo yet another straw being added to the camels back.

I am not a scientist I am not particularly well educated but I have fished rivers for over 55 years and I think that what I have seen over the years is platform enough for me to hold an opinion, you may not agree with it but I wont loose any sleep over it.

Your interpretation and I quote..... "you are against previouly indigenous mammals being re-introduced on a managed, small scale but seem to be happy that non-indigenous species were introduced to our rivers whatever the consequence. Bizarre" is wrong and I would ask you to point out to me please where I have ever said that, if that's the way you interpreted my post then that is not my problem it is yours as it was incorrect.

I only have a few things that I would like anyone on here to answer if they will.

Do you believe that Barbel are only indigenous to eastern flowing rivers and before anyone answers please check out the course of the Trent as laid out by cartographers.

Why do some anglers have this indigenous obsession? shall we try to bring the Burbot back?

How long does a species have to be in a water to be considered indigenous, 2/3/4/5 generations or never?

How long does a previously indigenous creature have to be absent from these shores before it is considered no longer indigenous 500/1000/2000 years? remembering that river ecology is very much changed from long ago when these creatures were to be found wild.

How many members on here would not be fishing for Barbel were it not for stockings into rivers legal and illegal, would you sooner they didn't fish for them at all as they were not indigenous to those rivers where they now thrive?

Finally and personally I am glad that so many anglers have the chance to fish for what I consider to be the finest fish in our rivers and I am against anything that might impact on our rivers as reintroductions of other creatures meant or accidental have had without proof positive that they wont have any impact other than good, that proof as far as I can see is not there. The riverine environment is under more pressure now than ever before it doesn't need adding to imo of course.
 
Graham thanks for the lengthy reply

Do you believe that Barbel are only indigenous to eastern flowing rivers and before anyone answers please check out the course of the Trent as laid out by cartographers.

Re barbel distribution from a 1990 paper by Alwynne Wheeler et al
The barbel was originally a fish with a relatively restricted range in the British Isles. However, despite the general environmental degradation of many British rivers, and in contrast with some native freshwater fishes, the barbel is now more widely distributed than it was a century ago. It may even be more abundant numerically.

Like many I fish the Wye but patently barbel are not indigenous to this river and many others in England and in some were illegally introduced - from what you are saying you are obviously happy with this? If the 100 years cited by Wheeler is correct i would suggest that this is no way long enough to suggest it is indigenous to that river system. Of course that is not to say that we wont fish for them or we are not pleased about the distribution, in fact coarse anglers in the main accept they are there and take advantage of this. There are others though who think differently. Not surprising then that salmon anglers still on occasion get upset with the coarse lot given they feel their game river has been changed by the introduction of alien/invasive species such as barbel.

Why do some anglers have this indigenous obsession? shall we try to bring the Burbot back?

I am not sure that anglers do when it comes to fish and unfortunately to the best of my knowledge the burbot is extinct. However, some, myself included, do see the river environment as being much more than just fish so mammals that were driven out by people should form part of that but unlike the fish in some rivers not introduced illegally.

How long does a species have to be in a water to be considered indigenous, 2/3/4/5 generations or never?

How long does a previously indigenous creature have to be absent from these shores before it is considered no longer indigenous 500/1000/2000 years? remembering that river ecology is very much changed from long ago when these creatures were to be found wild.

There is a lot of debate in scientific literature about this. Indigenous essentially means a species that is in an area that has had no input from humans - generally the period from which they start is after the last Ice Age c12000 years ago. If we go back to beavers they have been around for c10 million years much longer than us and were indigenous here until about 1000AD and 1600AD in Scotland - so unless extinct certain creatures will always be classed as indigenous., as far as i know they never lose this tag so to speak.


So essentially the barbel is actually a new kid on the block in many rivers and of course we do not really know what impact it has had as there have been no studies, anecdotally speaking to old timers on the Wye they suggest there are now far fewer chub and silver fish - is the this the impact of barbel or other factors i do not know but patently the barbel are flourishing. The otter, beavers, voles and a host of other creatures were part of our river environments for centuires as are certain species of fish. They all existed quite happily before humans intervened. So can i suggest not worrying about the beavers in Lydbrook or anywhere else, as the biggest threat to our rivers is us and the way we live and treat the environmmet.

I hope this answers your questions to some degree.
 
As far as what I have picked up with snippets of news, the area in the Forest od Dean is a contolled site so any mass exodus is not going to happen just yet. The advantage with Beavers is one of flood control in that pools upstream act as natural controls to downstream flooding. But then again I see potential in farming these critters, in fast America is a good example of wealth these things created. Also there is a potential for some natty headware for us that are off the grid anglers.
But of course I am getting carried away , we need to see how the Barbel Society see this and decide what will be best for us all.
 
Paul Dowgill said:
Graham thanks for the lengthy reply

Do you believe that Barbel are only indigenous to eastern flowing rivers and before anyone answers please check out the course of the Trent as laid out by cartographers.

Re barbel distribution from a 1990 paper by Alwynne Wheeler et al
The barbel was originally a fish with a relatively restricted range in the British Isles. However, despite the general environmental degradation of many British rivers, and in contrast with some native freshwater fishes, the barbel is now more widely distributed than it was a century ago. It may even be more abundant numerically.

Like many I fish the Wye but patently barbel are not indigenous to this river and many others in England and in some were illegally introduced - from what you are saying you are obviously happy with this? If the 100 years cited by Wheeler is correct i would suggest that this is no way long enough to suggest it is indigenous to that river system. Of course that is not to say that we wont fish for them or we are not pleased about the distribution, in fact coarse anglers in the main accept they are there and take advantage of this. There are others though who think differently. Not surprising then that salmon anglers still on occasion get upset with the coarse lot given they feel their game river has been changed by the introduction of alien/invasive species such as barbel.

Why do some anglers have this indigenous obsession? shall we try to bring the Burbot back?

I am not sure that anglers do when it comes to fish and unfortunately to the best of my knowledge the burbot is extinct. However, some, myself included, do see the river environment as being much more than just fish so mammals that were driven out by people should form part of that but unlike the fish in some rivers not introduced illegally.

How long does a species have to be in a water to be considered indigenous, 2/3/4/5 generations or never?

How long does a previously indigenous creature have to be absent from these shores before it is considered no longer indigenous 500/1000/2000 years? remembering that river ecology is very much changed from long ago when these creatures were to be found wild.

There is a lot of debate in scientific literature about this. Indigenous essentially means a species that is in an area that has had no input from humans - generally the period from which they start is after the last Ice Age c12000 years ago. If we go back to beavers they have been around for c10 million years much longer than us and were indigenous here until about 1000AD and 1600AD in Scotland - so unless extinct certain creatures will always be classed as indigenous., as far as i know they never lose this tag so to speak.


So essentially the barbel is actually a new kid on the block in many rivers and of course we do not really know what impact it has had as there have been no studies, anecdotally speaking to old timers on the Wye they suggest there are now far fewer chub and silver fish - is the this the impact of barbel or other factors i do not know but patently the barbel are flourishing. The otter, beavers, voles and a host of other creatures were part of our river environments for centuires as are certain species of fish. They all existed quite happily before humans intervened. So can i suggest not worrying about the beavers in Lydbrook or anywhere else, as the biggest threat to our rivers is us and the way we live and treat the environmmet.

I hope this answers your questions to some degree.
Click to expand...


Not really Paul but that's life I only have one more thing to say on this subject and that is that you have once again misinterpreted part of my post or read something into it that was not there, it is the highlighted part of your post. I have never said what you have posted and to be honest I see no point in continuing this debate if I am to be constantly accused of saying some things that I clearly haven't said.
 
Graham Young said:
As you have asked for an explanation out of respect I will try to give you one but I doubt very much if it will be what you wanted to hear.

I have over the years seen indigenous and none indigenous creatures get into our waterways none imo (that's the important bit its only my opinion) have added anything to the riverine environment, in fact most if not all have been disastrous for angling they have been yet something else that has brought some rivers to the edge. Beaver are imo yet another straw being added to the camels back.

I am not a scientist I am not particularly well educated but I have fished rivers for over 55 years and I think that what I have seen over the years is platform enough for me to hold an opinion, you may not agree with it but I wont loose any sleep over it.

Your interpretation and I quote..... "you are against previouly indigenous mammals being re-introduced on a managed, small scale but seem to be happy that non-indigenous species were introduced to our rivers whatever the consequence. Bizarre" is wrong and I would ask you to point out to me please where I have ever said that, if that's the way you interpreted my post then that is not my problem it is yours as it was incorrect.

I only have a few things that I would like anyone on here to answer if they will.

Do you believe that Barbel are only indigenous to eastern flowing rivers and before anyone answers please check out the course of the Trent as laid out by cartographers.

Why do some anglers have this indigenous obsession? shall we try to bring the Burbot back?

How long does a species have to be in a water to be considered indigenous, 2/3/4/5 generations or never?

How long does a previously indigenous creature have to be absent from these shores before it is considered no longer indigenous 500/1000/2000 years? remembering that river ecology is very much changed from long ago when these creatures were to be found wild.

How many members on here would not be fishing for Barbel were it not for stockings into rivers legal and illegal, would you sooner they didn't fish for them at all as they were not indigenous to those rivers where they now thrive?

Finally and personally I am glad that so many anglers have the chance to fish for what I consider to be the finest fish in our rivers and I am against anything that might impact on our rivers as reintroductions of other creatures meant or accidental have had without proof positive that they wont have any impact other than good, that proof as far as I can see is not there. The riverine environment is under more pressure now than ever before it doesn't need adding to imo of course.
Click to expand...

Do you believe that Barbel are only indigenous to eastern flowing rivers and before anyone answers please check out the course of the Trent as laid out by cartographers. I think the theory that the first post-glacial barbel repopulations were in watercourses that connected to the east coast is a credible one, but the truth is we will never know for sure.

Why do some anglers have this indigenous obsession? shall we try to bring the Burbot back? No idea really, I think it stems from salmon and trout anglers. Burbot - yes definitely!

How long does a species have to be in a water to be considered indigenous, 2/3/4/5 generations or never? How long does a previously indigenous creature have to be absent from these shores before it is considered no longer indigenous 500/1000/2000 years? remembering that river ecology is very much changed from long ago when these creatures were to be found wild. As Paul said. Personally I prefer to think in terms of native and non-native species, with those that are problematic being labelled ‘invasive non-native species’. Obviously not all non-native species are considered to be problematic, far from it. Little Owls and the Brown Hare being good examples, as well as trees such as Sweet Chestnut. I would place barbel in this category as well, although I’m sure some game anglers won’t agree.

How many members on here would not be fishing for Barbel were it not for stockings into rivers legal and illegal, would you sooner they didn't fish for them at all as they were not indigenous to those rivers where they now thrive? Fair point, and no I wouldn’t. That’s not to say I would necessarily be comfortable with barbel being stocked into river systems like the Exe, but then I might take a different view if I lived in the SW.
 
Graham Young said:
Not really Paul but that's life I only have one more thing to say on this subject and that is that you have once again misinterpreted part of my post or read something into it that was not there, it is the highlighted part of your post. I have never said what you have posted and to be honest I see no point in continuing this debate if I am to be constantly accused of saying some things that I clearly haven't said.
Click to expand...

were illegally introduced - from what you are saying you are obviously happy with this?

Graham - there is a question mark at the end so it is a question and not a statement saying you agree with this - i should have put 'are' before 'you' to make it clearer.
 
Neil Smart said:
As far as what I have picked up with snippets of news, the area in the Forest od Dean is a contolled site so any mass exodus is not going to happen just yet. The advantage with Beavers is one of flood control in that pools upstream act as natural controls to downstream flooding. But then again I see potential in farming these critters, in fast America is a good example of wealth these things created. Also there is a potential for some natty headware for us that are off the grid anglers.
But of course I am getting carried away , we need to see how the Barbel Society see this and decide what will be best for us all.
Click to expand...


It certainly is controlled you should see the fencing (to keep us out as well as them in) and the topography is challenging. It will take some time for mass to occur as only 2 were introduced and if they breed the young will stay for a couple of years...if breeding is successful the plan i understand is to remove them as beavers are territorial but this is all for the future...
 
Paul Dowgill said:
were illegally introduced - from what you are saying you are obviously happy with this?

Graham - there is a question mark at the end so it is a question and not a statement saying you agree with this - i should have put 'are' before 'you' to make it clearer.
Click to expand...

Then that's all sorted then onward and upward :)
 
I thought barbel were indigenous to east flowing uk rivers that were historically connected to mainland europe??
 
Bob Watson said:
I know that they were introduced into the likes of the Wye, Severn, Ribble etc
Click to expand...

John Berry makes the point in his excellent book about barbel (the name of which escapes me) that landscape before and during the retreat of the glacial ice sheets saw a lot of mass shift in rock, water and ice. This and the fact that the Thames and Severn systems were once geographically closer together raises the possibility that barbel may have been present elsewhere in England - we will never know though unless some archaeological evidence turns up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top