• 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...

Do Barbel Thrive on Neglect?

D

David Tainton

Senior Member
Hi All,
One of the things I find enjoyable in my fishing is to find/fish stretches with very little angling pressure or presence. Nowadays this is not that difficult-stretches on the Lower Severn (particularly below Upton), may only be fished by singular individuals if at all, and even Rivers where there is consistent attention (Loddon etc) there are plenty of lightly fished stretches. Whilst fishing through another blank-I wondered if Barbel do prosper by neglect (like some other species eg Rudd), in relation to size, shoal size/numbers?
I would imagine that bait choice would/could be different-also the fishes daily routines would be aligned to the natural food supply.
From experience on the Severn, there are plenty of fish to be found in lightly fished areas-places where very little bait goes in, and if it does there are plenty of other species which will help scoop up anything that is on the bottom, this I imagine would hold true of other rivers. It will be interesting to find out over the coming seasons how many pockets of Barbel are found in new areas (away from angling pressure)-though I would think the people who find them will keep locations a secret (quite rightly)-only hope I am lucky enough to find such a shoal!

Cheers DT
 
Barbel probably do thrive in a natural environment where there is one less predator to worry about. This having been said, I would suspect the average weight of fish might be lower than those in areas where huge amounts of high protein baits are being shovelled in on a daily basis.
 
I would imagine that without quantities of bait going in the population would generally find equilibrium with the natural larder available and therefore that would determine how well they thrived. I think angling 'pressure' as such doesnt have much to do with it as the Kennet see's a lot of fisherman but the population of barbel continue to thrive - namely because of the bait chucked in I would think.
 
A very interesting question; I feel a lot depends on the type of river concerned. I agree with the bait theory keeping up weights on popular stretches and this would lead to the conclusion that barbel thrive on angling pressure. A big river like the Severn can take a lot of pressure but the fish can easily move away from it, often simply by moving across the current to the other side. Smaller rivers are a different story. The Cherwell is one such river where the barbel didn't thrive on pressure. With such a small head of very localised fish in tight swims it didn't take a lot of pressure to both scatter the fish and cause them to lose weight as the inevitable repeat captures showed.
 
I agree, interesting queastion. The barbel in Adam's Mill didn't do too bad, and they got a fair amount of pressure. However, a stretch only a couple of miles away saw literally no pressure, then turned up a 19-6 to someone fishing for perch with lobworms.

So who knows??!!
 
Tim Walden said:
I agree, interesting queastion. The barbel in Adam's Mill didn't do too bad, and they got a fair amount of pressure. However, a stretch only a couple of miles away saw literally no pressure, then turned up a 19-6 to someone fishing for perch with lobworms.

So who knows??!!
Click to expand...

Possibly the 19-6 was afish that had travelled down from Adams Mill due to pressure Tim? Or perhaps just a nomadic fish, after all wasn't one of that shoal called the Traveller?
 
One classic example is the Upper Upper Severn which is no more than a trout stream. Access is tough, the banks are incredibly tough and as a result it is only lightly fished. However, I know its done barbel over 11, bream over 11 and even a 6lb tench (!!).

Even though life must be difficult for the barbel in such a place they do seem to get rather large!
 
I'm pretty sure that there was one small grou of barbel, with a couple on monsters present, in that stretch awat from the Mill. As far as i'm aware these never originated from Adam's Mill.

However Alex, these are only my thoughts and they have been formed by talking to other people, so i may be completely wrong!!
 
I believe it depends on how you define thriving. I think a neglected Barbel in very good conditions would achieve a weight in the region of 12lbs. A Barbel getting the benefit of quite a lot of anglers old fashioned type baits, maggots, hemp, meat etc, would achieve a weight between 14 and 15lbs. For some time I believe the national record was a 14lb+ plus fish from the railway bridge swim on the Royalty. We know a Barbel getting the benefit of lots of modern baits, pellets, boillies, etc, can reach a weight of over 20lbs.
I fish a river that has very good water quality, and as a result a very good natural food chain. I fish stretches that receive some but not a great deal of angling pressure. I have yet to catch a double from these stretches, although I have come close. ''The swim'' that gets all the pressure, and the food did a 15lb+ season.

Therefore I believe if the criteria for thriving is weight, the answer is no they do not. However there are other criterias to concider. I believe some of the Barbel I have caught are stunningly pretty fish, yes I can be a bit soppy.

I do not think it would be possible for a Barbel to get anywhere near the national record without eating massive amounts of anglers baits, despite global warming.

I make no moral judgement. If you fish for the biggest, good luck. If size is not that important to you, good luck.
Shaun
 
Interesting point of view that Shaun and hard to disagree with. It has always puzzled me why fish can show such a big variation in size as opposed to other creatues like birds.
 
Alex Gowney said:
Interesting point of view that Shaun and hard to disagree with. It has always puzzled me why fish can show such a big variation in size as opposed to other creatues like birds.
Click to expand...

Good point, we all know if you keep a goldfish in a bowl he can only go to an appropiate size, but put him in your pond and he will grow bigger at an alarming rate.
 
The variation could be down to year class perhaps? some get a better start in life one season than the next, and even within the same brood you do get 'shooters' which in trout farming eat their young brethern and grow at an alarming rate compared to their brothers and sisters - i think this is where the simmo strain of carp came from, and maybe it might be applicable to barbel? please feel free to correct me if im wrong :confused:
 
Thriving

Would have to agree with Shaun on this one-condition/health of the fish is very important to me, and whilst I will always try to catch the largest fish I can, I do not fish stretches because they hold big fish. Some of the most enjoyable fish I have caught were from areas no one else fished (not that I saw anyone anyway!). I also do not think it takes that much feed going into a stretch to help fish gain weight-as I think they eat it over nad above what they munch naturally. The opportunities for finding neglected shoals are getting less, but there is still plenty to search for, and I think fish will move a lot, though whether this is to get away from angling pressure I do not know. I caught an 8 pounder on the local river at one end, then 6 days later caught the same fish 1 mile downstream.

Cheers DT
 
Hi men,

Not sure if they thrive , or just have a better quality of life , as catching them must impact on their well being in some way no matter how little . There is a bit of water Dave where me and sue sat on a five bar gate waiting for you and Webster to come up the wheat field;). On that bit over 3 seasons we only see 3 other anglers !, and only ocationally the odd one opposite .so , it was under fished .

We made our own swims , all along the long stretch , and often watched them go about their daily life at close quarters . As it was " our " stretch according to the local farmer , we got to know lots of spots , caught lots of fish . In all that time we only see 1 fish that was bigger than anything we had caught , although we did have some nice fish , they were on par for the surrounding area .

It was our heaven , and we will return very soon , as there is more to fishing than catching fish .


Hatter
 
Roman Vann said:
The variation could be down to year class perhaps? some get a better start in life one season than the next, and even within the same brood you do get 'shooters' which in trout farming eat their young brethern and grow at an alarming rate compared to their brothers and sisters - i think this is where the simmo strain of carp came from, and maybe it might be applicable to barbel? please feel free to correct me if im wrong :confused:
Click to expand...

I agree Roman but what I meant was why don't other creatures, such as birds, show such a big size variation. As an example, you don't get shooters out to bag a PB pheasant or grouse!
Not sure about reptiles though, don't know anything about them.
 
Alex Gowney said:
I agree Roman but what I meant was why don't other creatures, such as birds, show such a big size variation. As an example, you don't get shooters out to bag a PB pheasant or grouse!
Not sure about reptiles though, don't know anything about them.
Click to expand...

Hi Alex,

Reptiles continue growing their entire lives. Theoretically, there is no upper size limit, other than that caused by death. Fish are similar, with genetics, early stage environmental conditions and food availability being other limiting factors.

I think the only reason you don't get shooters out trying to bag PB pheasant or grouse is because they are not bothered about size....so they don't bother weighing them. Also, the majority of pheasants are farm bred, so most will be driven and shot at a similar age. Grouse moors are host to drives and shooters as regular as clockwork....with, I assume similar results. I would not be surprised if size differences would be more noticeable if they were left to their own devices.

You have only to look at the recent furore over the shooting of the two red stags, the 'Exmoor Emperor' and the 'Goodleigh Giant' to know that certain critters definitely grow to huge and exceptional sizes if left alone long enough. Some of the huge carp we have seen in our lakes over the years almost certainly gained that size as a result of a combination of good genes, readily available, highly nutritional food....and an unnatural life span due to strict protection by doting anglers.

All in all, I think a lot of creatures WOULD show greater size differences if they were allowed to grow and were as protected from human predation as our coarse fish are....or should I say WERE :rolleyes:. I think we may see a levelling out of fish sizes in years to come, certainly in smaller rivers near dense population areas, or those heavily affected by otters etc. Fairly or not, otters have a reputation for taking the larger fish by choice (If it is true, I would think it is probably because the bigger fish are older and slower, hence easier to catch) Either way, time will tell. It's certainly an interesting subject.

Cheers, Dave.
 
Last edited:
I used pheasants as an example because they are a sporting quarry Dave. Birds that are generally left to their own devices, e.g. protected species, don't exhibit the same vast range of size difference as fish. All adult birds will be much of a muchness e.g. most adult cock pheasants may weigh about 3lb but who could make a statement saying what an adult carp would typically weigh? I suppose it's down to the ability of the skeleton to continue growing in reptiles and fish(all cold blooded creatures?) but not in other (warm blooded?) creatures after a certain time span.
 
Alex Gowney said:
I used pheasants as an example because they are a sporting quarry Dave. Birds that are generally left to their own devices, e.g. protected species, don't exhibit the same vast range of size difference as fish. All adult birds will be much of a muchness e.g. most adult cock pheasants may weigh about 3lb but who could make a statement saying what an adult carp would typically weigh? I suppose it's down to the ability of the skeleton to continue growing in reptiles and fish(all cold blooded creatures?) but not in other (warm blooded?) creatures after a certain time span.
Click to expand...

I know Alex....the pheasant bit was a little tongue in cheek.

I noticed that the Simmo strain of carp were mentioned earlier as examples of fish growing larger than usual due to being 'fast starters'. In fact these fish are the result of selective breeding program carried out by Mark Simmonds, designed to produce fish that are fast growing throughout their lives....which they certainly are when compared to other strains...Leneys for example. However, anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that this success came at a cost. Apparently a lot of the early batches of these fish are already dying, at a maximum (exceptional) size in the region of the low 40's. In other words, accelerated growth may have lead to a shortened lifespan, with the consequence that the maximum size attainable could be barely half that of slightly more natural strains. The other drawback to them of course....which is a fact....is that many of that strain are plug ugly critters :D

Cheers, Dave.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top