• 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...

Fish Retention

Status
Not open for further replies.
Richard Hamlyn said:
Neil,

Are you saying that I am talking rubbish or are you referring to rubbish in general as your comment is a little ambiguous. I'm sure it will be the latter..............
Click to expand...

Richard you really are special aren't you. I particularly love the fact that you pounce on what you believe might be some sort of personal attack on you, and yet earlier today you seemed perfectly happy to do just that to someone who took the time and trouble to provide you with his considered view on this matter. I never took your initial post serious at all and assumed it was just another provocative thread aimed at being disruptive and getting a reaction. Oh look- it worked, you got one! I really do hope that you find this all deeply satisfying.
 
Keepnets have come a long way since I was a lad. Back in the day people were still using knotted nets :(

I remember being proud when I got a 13' knotless micro mesh keep net back in the 80s. :p

Things have come a long way even since then. The nets are currently much softer and finer and dimensions bigger than ever. It is my opinion a barbel is far more likely to get its dorsal fin caught in the average barbelist's landing net with it's far larger mesh than any quality modern keep net.

I remember a video of a catch of barbel running to around 150 lbs below an infamous Trent weir I saw on YouTube last year. There is underwater footage of barbel in the net, resting quite peacefully and safely. The weigh-in is another matter though but that is not what is being discussed here.

Sure, barbel were coming to distress in the old school keep nets but should it still be such a taboo to keep a barbel in a quality modern net if need be? Indeed, it might be thought of as desirable to make sure the fish is recovered and does not go floating off belly up.

The situation we find ourselves in is that some big barbel have been retained for too long in something not designed for the job whilst awaiting ratification i.e. a landing net.

Stephen
 
If you run fast you could take the fish with you in your landing net :rolleyes:
 
Howard Cooke said:
Richard you really are special aren't you. I particularly love the fact that you pounce on what you believe might be some sort of personal attack on you, and yet earlier today you seemed perfectly happy to do just that to someone who took the time and trouble to provide you with his considered view on this matter. I never took your initial post serious at all and assumed it was just another provocative thread aimed at being disruptive and getting a reaction. Oh look- it worked, you got one! I really do hope that you find this all deeply satisfying.
Click to expand...

Howard,

What are you talking about dear boy. Who is it I have attacked today? Let me assure you of two things, firstly my original post is deadly serious; I take fish welfare seriously. Secondly the person who took the most time and trouble to post excellent responses was Ian Grant. On each occasion in my replies to him the first sentence on both occasions were thanking him for his time and effort.

There have been excellent and informed responses from other anglers suggesting that we might re-visit our attitudes to nets in general in the light of modern developments in tackle.

What do you find so wrong with all of this?
 
Richard Hamlyn said:
Howard,

What are you talking about dear boy. Who is it I have attacked today? Let me assure you of two things, firstly my original post is deadly serious; I take fish welfare seriously. Secondly the person who took the most time and trouble to post excellent responses was Ian Grant. On each occasion in my replies to him the first sentence on both occasions were thanking him for his time and effort.

There have been excellent and informed responses from other anglers suggesting that we might re-visit our attitudes to nets in general in the light of modern developments in tackle.

What do you find so wrong with all of this?
Click to expand...

As you say, the person that has provided the most considered advice is Ian. Ian, as I recall, is of the view that sacks are not fit for purpose at all- a no no in fact for barbel. Then that was effectively questioned in a later post ie has anyone seen a barbel die in a sack etc. Now look at your post this morning at 8.25. Who was that aimed at then?

This is the basis of the observation I made in my previous post.
 
Two FACTS regarding keep nets;
1) on a stretch of the Wye I fish where keepnets are used in matches, the MAJORITY of the barbel have dorsal fin damage. This can then cause the fish to become snagged by the leading ray of the dorsal in the mesh of one's landing net. However, I don't know what type of keepnets are now being used, or how long ago the dorsal damage was caused.
2) on a stretch of the Hampshire Avon where matches used to be held and large numbers of GRAYLING were regularly caught, significant numbers went belly up on release.

hope this helps...
 
OK a serious answer....

why not use tubes ? You are asked to when game fishing on some rivers as the EA request you to leave them in tubes and they will come along later and tag and release them! :eek:

John
 
I have frequently used sacks for barbel and as has been pointed out, no damage was done. All fish swam off strongly as long as the sack is not wound up in knots!

Years ago while fishing the Cherwell with a well known angler, I saw he had pushed two sticks into the gravel in the shallow water to keep the fish upright, no sack or net, then walking 100 yards down stream to fetch me with my camera. We walked back to his swim and the barbel was resting quite peacefully, supported by the two sticks. It was then lifted out, photographed, and swam off strongly.

Not a good idea in ten feet of floodwater though!
 
Howard Cooke said:
As you say, the person that has provided the most considered advice is Ian. Ian, as I recall, is of the view that sacks are not fit for purpose at all- a no no in fact for barbel. Then that was effectively questioned in a later post ie has anyone seen a barbel die in a sack etc. Now look at your post this morning at 8.25. Who was that aimed at then?

This is the basis of the observation I made in my previous post.
Click to expand...

Howard,

If Ian thinks my post this morning was a slight against him then I'm sure he will say so. As far as I am concerned this is a discussion and judging by some of the other posts I'm not alone in questioning this,
 
Howard Cooke said:
As you say, the person that has provided the most considered advice is Ian. Ian, as I recall, is of the view that sacks are not fit for purpose at all- a no no in fact for barbel. Then that was effectively questioned in a later post ie has anyone seen a barbel die in a sack etc. Now look at your post this morning at 8.25. Who was that aimed at then?

This is the basis of the observation I made in my previous post.
Click to expand...

fo·rum
/ˈfôrəm/
Noun

A meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged.
An Internet message board.

Self explanatory I would have thought.
 
Adrian Williams said:
fo·rum
/ˈfôrəm/
Noun

A meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged.
An Internet message board.

Self explanatory I would have thought.
Click to expand...

I am aware what a forum is Adrian. And in the spirit of that definition, I have simply been exchanging my own views and ideas-in particular, on issues of motive, approach and, perhaps, hypocrisy. I don't believe I ever questioned the validity of the thread or anyone's right to post. That is not my place. I assume that is the role of the moderators.
 
Hi Howard,
I have experienced over years on forums there are ******s that come on to show there more educated on writing or expressing themselves.
I have also seen there are very genuine people that will give there all to help. Then get smashed for saying too much.
I have seen and met some of the best anglers that are on forums and say very little!
I just come and go as I please notice the ****ers and only fall for there bait now and again.
Ignore them, help those you wish, dont get baited and fish enjoy your hobby as there are people on forums that will try and end your enyoyment.
Why ? they dont have a life ;)
 
This forum may not be perfect but it's probably one of the best, the members soon get wind of anyone getting out of order and in a way it is self moderated.
Calling other members ****ers is probably not for the best I would suggest, I can't see anything in this thread that warrants that!!
As said it is a forum and yes there is some attempt at wit at times, but no need to get paranoid.
 
I appreciate that Howard, the point I was trying to make was it is a place to exchange views, exchange being the operative word. On a subject like retention there will never be a definitive answer as both sides of the argument have a certain validity.
It could be said that if we are that worried about the welfare of the fish then perhaps we should not be fishing for them in the first place.
 
Adrian Williams said:
I appreciate that Howard, the point I was trying to make was it is a place to exchange views, exchange being the operative word. On a subject like retention there will never be a definitive answer as both sides of the argument have a certain validity.
It could be said that if we are that worried about the welfare of the fish then perhaps we should not be fishing for them in the first place.
Click to expand...

Many thanks Adrian and I do see what you are saying. The basis of my observations though were nothing to do with the subject matter or anyone's right to engage in debate-I would never be that presumptuous. Regards. Howard.
 
I am sorry for saying we have some anchors on forums ? But we do :D
 
Was it agreed that fish tubes are accepted as a method of fish retention. If you dont have a telephone reception, a mate fishing with you and you need to wait or go and look for assistance?
 
Adrian Williams said:
fo·rum
/ˈfôrəm/
Noun

A meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged.
An Internet message board.

Self explanatory I would have thought.
Click to expand...

Well pointed out that man !

Would it not be better to voice opinions of supposed ''attack'' nature via pm's and not on open forum ? We are all aware that the anti's look in on
this and other forums and will have a field day with this one. Discussing openly the merits of fish retention, possible damage to fish etc:eek: and music to their ears of fish deaths,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
 
my views/grey areas

some good food for thought here and i can see the argument for using a net or a tube:eek:
never thought i'd say that!
now the fishes safety is paramount to me but i won't be carrying either a tube or keepnet with me!
when i land a barbel no matter of it's size i unhook in the water if i've got a shallow bank to the water and leave it upright(important)
small barbel don't usually need as much time to recover but just incase get it.
the bigger fish one i might weigh for instance usually do and i'll peg my net down and sort the weighing scales and camera out.
the fish as a quick weigh and picture and then put back in the net to recover.
if the bank is high to the water it makes things tricky but same again i leave the fish in the net for 5 mins but with the hook still in.
i then unhook it on my mat and weigh if NECESSARY,now im going to prattle on about kudos again here!
i wouldn't ever put a fish under any undue stress if possible as i'm sure most other angler's wouldn't.
very contradictory what im going to say but if i couldn't ENSURE a fishes safety then i wouldn't claim a record(witnesses needed)
i was fortunate enough to catch a couple of very special fish the first i was with a friend who did the honours:)
the 2nd i was on my own and the said friend was 20 mins away now the area i fished had a lovely shallow gravel area and i rested the fish upright there while waiting!
i didn't carry on fishing i was stood in the water and alongside the fish till my friend arrived.i never took my eyes of the fish and she remained upright and comfortable.
if i'd of been on a high bank i wouldn't of done the same,she'd of been rested as said previous and back she'd go.
now using a net or a sack can you keep a proper check on the fish?

would they have hole's big enough to allow oxegen to pass through their gills?

in summer these practices are even more important due to warm water,low oxegen,poor conditioning of fish due to spawning.

richard mention's playing fish hard and to this a agree the sooner they are netted the better for the fish!

a barbel will fight to the net possibly the reason why we fish for them!
apparently the acid's in their bellys effect their balance after a long fight and that's why they go belly up.
 
John Young said:
Was it agreed that fish tubes are accepted as a method of fish retention. If you dont have a telephone reception, a mate fishing with you and you need to wait or go and look for assistance?
Click to expand...

What is this obsession with you that you feel to put the Barbel's welfare after the need to take a picture of the thing?

In my opinion any method of retaining Barbel is asking for trouble, they are not as robust as Carp, keep nets, sacking, tubes whatever you like to mention just does not cut it.

But then again some like the Kudos thing I suppose what rocks your boat? Is it a good double fish Barbel pictured with the Rolex wearing Angler eh? :rolleyes:

Bet your a plastic Man U too. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top