Noooooo

[Graham Young]

That's a good point, in fact any successful breeding of Barbel in a stillwater would probably be a problem for the health of the lake, let alone the fry, but for a fish to breed it has to have ideal conditions, we should appreciate that as anglers, however still water barbel do not breed, unless I am wrong, because it is not the conditions that Barbel need to breed,.

Doesn't answer the question Neil, why do they need to breed to thrive?

They are not Carp.

I don't understand your Human analogy, as barbel as all animals do breed by instinct, Humans do not, in other words animals make sure the environment can support offspring, as Barbel would.

Humans also breed by instinct as other mammals do, if we didn't our species would come to an end, I will try to put the question another way. people that are starving to death continue to breed, are they thriving because they breed?

 

[Graham Young]

And how are we to know that that fish was not 'transferred' into the lake? Believe me that is a problem, many Barbel are stolen from rivers.

We don't, the same way as we can never know that it was but the fish in question looks pretty healthy to me, couldn't be that it has thrived in a still water could it?

 

[Graham Young]

Because in this context, I would choose to include it in a definition of thrive. If barbel were stocked in a stillwater and left to get on with it, didn't breed, but got on with life, grew and then died. When looking back, reflecting on the whole experience, I personally would find it difficult to say "yes, those barbel we stocked really thrived in there". But that's just me. Reproduction is so core, so primitive and so absolutely necessary that I can't see how it can be excluded from the word thrive.


Isnt that the whole point Howard? for you breeding is part of thriving and for a species as a whole I would agree, however for individual fish I don't think it is a requirement to allow the individual to thrive. its all about opinions, if Barbel were stocked in a Stillwater at a pound and 3 years later they weighed 7 pounds I would say they had thrived.

However, your human example above is an interesting one I grant you but fraught with complexity simply because of human will and intervention. But no, I don't think that would amount to thriving. Anyway, I didn't say the ability to breed was the only thing that constituted thriving. Access to sufficient food is obviously vital.

We agree on one thing then, like another poster I was years ago against Barbel being stocked into still waters, I have changed my mind, I have seen them grow in still water whereas I have seen them decline in rivers, I still would prefer them to be in rivers but see no harm in them being in still waters.

 

[Rhys Perry]

Humans also breed by instinct as other mammals do, if we didn't our species would come to an end, I will try to put the question another way. people that are starving to death continue to breed, are they thriving because they breed?

Clearly they're thriving as they're population isn't diminishing.

 

[Paul Matthews]

I am not in favour of them being stocked in stillwaters................ BUT what I am trying to say, is that they have been stocked into rivers which MAY well not be suitable........

However the main problem is the type of Stillwater which many are stocked into..... As I've said before I have caught a Barbel from a well know commercial fishery which was shedding eggs.......... They must have at least been 'going through the motions !?!?).

The whole decline could well be due to our intervention, large quantities of bait unsuitable for cyprinds, fish being stocked into rivers where they are not indigenous.......... Stock say, Catfish into a UK river they MAY thrive and breed, but the whole bio-diversity and food chain would be changed (River Ebro). Maybe inadvertently we have done that ???

Humans don't breed on instinct ?? PLEASE !!! Why do we look at a beautiful woman in the way we do ??? Primal instinct !!! We have just developed the ability to choose.......

Fish are very adaptable, do the Bream in fast flowing rivers look any less healthy than those in stillwaters ??? Which is their natural environment ???

All good points to ponder...........

 

[Graham Young]

Clearly they're thriving as they're population isn't diminishing.

Mores the pity Rhys.

 

[Graham Young]

I am not in favour of them being stocked in stillwaters................ BUT what I am trying to say, is that they have been stocked into rivers which MAY well not be suitable........

However the main problem is the type of Stillwater which many are stocked into..... As I've said before I have caught a Barbel from a well know commercial fishery which was shedding eggs.......... They must have at least been 'going through the motions !?!?).

The whole decline could well be due to our intervention, large quantities of bait unsuitable for cyprinds, fish being stocked into rivers where they are not indigenous.......... Stock say, Catfish into a UK river they MAY thrive and breed, but the whole bio-diversity and food chain would be changed (River Ebro). Maybe inadvertently we have done that ???

Humans don't breed on instinct ?? PLEASE !!! Why do we look at a beautiful woman in the way we do ??? Primal instinct !!! We have just developed the ability to choose.......

Fish are very adaptable, do the Bream in fast flowing rivers look any less healthy than those in stillwaters ??? Which is their natural environment ???

All good points to ponder...........

Good post Paul.

Just one thing, I cant remember choosing on a Friday night it was more like what was available at the time

 

[Howard Cooke]

We agree on one thing then, like another poster I was years ago against Barbel being stocked into still waters, I have changed my mind, I have seen them grow in still water whereas I have seen them decline in rivers, I still would prefer them to be in rivers but see no harm in them being in still waters.

Yes I see that. I suppose my view is that if a fish is unable to fulfil a fundamental purpose, then it would not have thrived because taking it to its ultimate conclusion, if barbel only existed in stillwaters then this could only be so by design, by manufacture, by restocking, otherwise, they would become extinct.

However, there is of course a similar argument if they are put into rivers that can not sustain them-perhaps not from the point of view of breeding but because of available food sources or general water quality etc.

But I guess we are not talking about mutual exclusivity here- a choice we have to make between where stocking/re stocking takes place. If stillwater fishery owners stock their fisheries with barbel and do so following all the guidelines and safeguards (see the EA's position on the conditions generally needed to ensure barbel can survive and grow-typically I think this means low or very low density of carp stock and not barbel taken from rivers) then so be it. For me, barbel belong in rivers and that's where I choose to fish for them.

I also don't think that barbel are just fish (I know you haven't said this but it has come up a few times in the thread). Surely to the barbel angler, BFW members even, they represent more than that? Isn't that why debates such as this get as heated as they do sometimes? I don't think I would be alone in saying that rivers can carry such majesty and mystery and for many of us, it's where our fishing began so I don't think it's a surprise that we have some emotional responses to this topic and I hope that never changes. I don't think it's really about elitism or fish snobbery. I would take the same position with whatever fish we were talking about. It's just that we happen to be talking about barbel, my favourite species, on a barbel fishing forum.

It's been said many times in this thread, it is down to personal choice as to whether or not someone fishes stillwaters for barbel and there does seem to be support for the fact that they can survive very well and grow and so in that sense, flourish. But without an ability to reproduce it is ultimately an alien environment. Yes I know that being out of the water is too, but it is of course temporary and in the vast majority of instances, you would hope, it amounts to a simple and short interruption to their otherwise settled existence.

Angling is a very broad church, becoming broader maybe and barbel in stillwaters is perhaps just one evolution of our sport. And certainly, for those that can't fish rivers but love barbel, this provides them with that opportunity. I just hope that the need for commercial gain would not make fishery owners consider stocking barbel in stillwaters that could not sustain them for a meaningful period such that they suffered unnecessarily. When that happens naturally it's hard enough, but by human design, a great deal worse.

 

[Ash Gould]

Im a barbel angler and love the species, and love fishing for them in their natural riverine environment. I hold them in the highest regard.

But, I am also of the opinion that it is important not to loose sight of the fact that they are just a fish. Perhaps the just makes it sound too harsh.

No one has actually provided evidence that barbel can not breed in stillwaters. It is a logical hypothesis based on the conditions needed for barbel to spawn but until someone categorically provides evidence that it is impossible i will keep an open mind to it. Barbel have evolved to survive and would surely take advantage of any gravelly areas near to inflows or outflows in lakes if such conditions were present where they were stocked? Granted, the majority of stocked barbel will be into fartpduddles where conditions will not be conducive to successful spawning but I dont think it will bother the fish.

Carp are thought to rarely be successful in their spawning attempts in lakes (if others are using conjecture then why the hell not), yet that doesnt stop them going at it most years and they seemingly do alright. Who is to say the barbel dont try and spawn in lakes?

 

[Ian Hugo Arnott]

There are barbel that live in rivers and swim wild and free, and there are Stillwater barbel that don't.

I prefer to fish rivers but who am I to criticise those who want to catch them from lakes, at least it keeps those 'anglers' away from the rivers.

Regards,

Hugo

 

[Neil Smart]

Mores the pity Rhys.

You asked about 'breeding' with humans vs fish

My take on it is that humans can breed without any reference to sustainability, other life forms generally do not breed without ensuring there is food to feed the young or the young can obtain food for themselves due to location.

The clue is that we are as humans apart from certain monkeys, copulate without the need to actually breed and we seem a bit relaxed as to the consequences. Of course with other species mating / spawning is the real deal

(I am grinning writing this ) I have really moved off topic and the next comment would be unmarried mothers absent fathers and council houses, but I am trying to make a point albeit perhaps rather badly.

 

[Ian Hugo Arnott]

Neil,

I don't actually think that fish think about the implications of their spawning, and I am sure that your post is tongue in cheek.

Like mere mortals, they just can't help themselves. I believe that it is called instinct.

Regards,

Hugo

 

[Jeff Collins]

You asked about 'breeding' with humans vs fish

My take on it is that humans can breed without any reference to sustainability, other life forms generally do not breed without ensuring there is food to feed the young or the young can obtain food for themselves due to location.

The clue is that we are as humans apart from certain monkeys, copulate without the need to actually breed and we seem a bit relaxed as to the consequences. Of course with other species mating / spawning is the real deal

(I am grinning writing this ) I have really moved off topic and the next comment would be unmarried mothers absent fathers and council houses, but I am trying to make a point albeit perhaps rather badly.

I disagree Neil, rats and other rodents aswell as rabbits will breed like.....erm rabbits. They will also eat until everything is gone, Australia os a perfect example of this with mice, rabbits etc just wiping themselves out by decimating there food supply followed by cannibalistic behaviour.

 

[Graham Young]

You asked about 'breeding' with humans vs fish

My take on it is that humans can breed without any reference to sustainability, other life forms generally do not breed without ensuring there is food to feed the young or the young can obtain food for themselves due to location.

The clue is that we are as humans apart from certain monkeys, copulate without the need to actually breed and we seem a bit relaxed as to the consequences. Of course with other species mating / spawning is the real deal

(I am grinning writing this ) I have really moved off topic and the next comment would be unmarried mothers absent fathers and council houses, but I am trying to make a point albeit perhaps rather badly.

No Neil I asked why it was that breeding was needed to thrive.

thrive


/θrʌɪv/


verb

verb: thrive; 3rd person present: thrives; past tense: thrived; past tense: throve; gerund or present participle: thriving; past participle: thriven





(of a child, animal, or plant) grow or develop well or vigorously.

"the new baby thrived"


•

prosper; flourish.

"education groups thrive on organization"


synonyms: flourish, prosper, grow vigorously, develop well, burgeon, bloom, blossom, do well, advance, make strides, succeed;


shoot up;

boom, profit, expand, go well, grow rich

"there are several foliage plants that thrive in a window box"

•

flourishing, prosperous, prospering, growing, developing, burgeoning, blooming, healthy, successful, advancing, progressing;

luxuriant, lush, prolific;

booming, profitable, expanding;

informalgoing strong

"a thriving business


Cant see any mention of breeding in that definition.

 

[Graham Young]

Yes I see that. I suppose my view is that if a fish is unable to fulfil a fundamental purpose, then it would not have thrived because taking it to its ultimate conclusion, if barbel only existed in stillwaters then this could only be so by design, by manufacture, by restocking, otherwise, they would become extinct.

However, there is of course a similar argument if they are put into rivers that can not sustain them-perhaps not from the point of view of breeding but because of available food sources or general water quality etc.

But I guess we are not talking about mutual exclusivity here- a choice we have to make between where stocking/re stocking takes place. If stillwater fishery owners stock their fisheries with barbel and do so following all the guidelines and safeguards (see the EA's position on the conditions generally needed to ensure barbel can survive and grow-typically I think this means low or very low density of carp stock and not barbel taken from rivers) then so be it. For me, barbel belong in rivers and that's where I choose to fish for them.

I also don't think that barbel are just fish (I know you haven't said this but it has come up a few times in the thread). Surely to the barbel angler, BFW members even, they represent more than that? Isn't that why debates such as this get as heated as they do sometimes? I don't think I would be alone in saying that rivers can carry such majesty and mystery and for many of us, it's where our fishing began so I don't think it's a surprise that we have some emotional responses to this topic and I hope that never changes. I don't think it's really about elitism or fish snobbery. I would take the same position with whatever fish we were talking about. It's just that we happen to be talking about barbel, my favourite species, on a barbel fishing forum.

It's been said many times in this thread, it is down to personal choice as to whether or not someone fishes stillwaters for barbel and there does seem to be support for the fact that they can survive very well and grow and so in that sense, flourish. But without an ability to reproduce it is ultimately an alien environment. Yes I know that being out of the water is too, but it is of course temporary and in the vast majority of instances, you would hope, it amounts to a simple and short interruption to their otherwise settled existence.

Angling is a very broad church, becoming broader maybe and barbel in stillwaters is perhaps just one evolution of our sport. And certainly, for those that can't fish rivers but love barbel, this provides them with that opportunity. I just hope that the need for commercial gain would not make fishery owners consider stocking barbel in stillwaters that could not sustain them for a meaningful period such that they suffered unnecessarily. When that happens naturally it's hard enough, but by human design, a great deal worse.[/QUOTE]



That about sums it up for me Howard, better put than I could ever manage.

 

[Neil Smart]

I disagree Neil, rats and other rodents aswell as rabbits will breed like.....erm rabbits. They will also eat until everything is gone, Australia os a perfect example of this with mice, rabbits etc just wiping themselves out by decimating there food supply followed by cannibalistic behaviour.

I have done a quick search on 'Cannibal Rabbits in Australia' and came up with nothing Jeff except reference to a 'game' about zombie Rabbits which I don't think is what you are alluding too.

I have a wild mouse(s) in the Garage / Shed / Garden that is certainly very good at knowing how to locate any scraps of food, the pellets and boilies have kept them going 'thru winters past, and just last week the little blighters have been seen on the bird table Our Jack the Springer is very good at locating them, and is in a constant state of alert, often 'sweeping' the garden shed and garage for fresh movements, but alas doesn't finish the job as a Cat would. I have relocated a few to the green nearby but they always return.

Sorry what was your point? :confused:

 

[Neil Smart]

No Neil I asked why it was that breeding was needed to thrive.

thrive


/θrʌɪv/


verb

verb: thrive; 3rd person present: thrives; past tense: thrived; past tense: throve; gerund or present participle: thriving; past participle: thriven





(of a child, animal, or plant) grow or develop well or vigorously.

"the new baby thrived"


•

prosper; flourish.

"education groups thrive on organization"


synonyms: flourish, prosper, grow vigorously, develop well, burgeon, bloom, blossom, do well, advance, make strides, succeed;


shoot up;

boom, profit, expand, go well, grow rich

"there are several foliage plants that thrive in a window box"

•

flourishing, prosperous, prospering, growing, developing, burgeoning, blooming, healthy, successful, advancing, progressing;

luxuriant, lush, prolific;

booming, profitable, expanding;

informalgoing strong

"a thriving business


Cant see any mention of breeding in that definition.

I'm sure there are, can you roll me one too

 

[Neil Smart]

Neil,

I don't actually think that fish think about the implications of their spawning, and I am sure that your post is tongue in cheek.

Like mere mortals, they just can't help themselves. I believe that it is called instinct.

Regards,

Hugo

It is a Philosopher we need Hugo, we have done with science on here.

 

[Jeff Collins]

Neil it was rats and mice that will cannibalise, you obviously live upto your names sake. If you want to get rid of mice use peppermint oil, I had an infestation in my garage and lost two good nets and the majority of a cork handle over winter. I googled mice deterrent and some aussie bloke is seen on you tube using the oil on his car.
To date I've not been troubled with mice.

The only downside is peppermint oil is pricey.

 

[Paul Bassinder]

One thing is certain to me from reading this thread and that is that anglers will never be of one voice on anything and therefore any attempt promote a unifying umbrella body that we can all subscribe to is doomed.

There will now follow posts disagreeing with every word and perceived inference I have written.

Paul