• 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...

Reasons for Barbel population decline

It's well documented as to the rise and fall of fish populations and there is only one...habitat they live in.

Theory of evolution or should it be said for fish "survival" becomes very apparent very quickly underwater. Fish,the food chain in inland waterways and oceans live is an environment that we create intentionally or unintionally...and we do it very quickly

I do find it it odd to blame pellets of the oily type when it's said in many rivers the lack of invertebrates and the food chain being seriously disrupted by umpteen reasons as we all know about ie' i'm not even going to list it

Question is...it's one thing trying to understand the other is taking action that creates affect.

How do you do it then?

Cheers
Jason

Anyone remember me!
 
Jason

Accept everything you have said regrding habitat etc etc.. But looking at the potential reason for so many rivers in such short period of time. It's an avenue worth exploriing and investigating, that's all.

Cheers

Graham
 
Jason Bean said:
It's well documented as to the rise and fall of fish populations and there is only one...habitat they live in.

Theory of evolution or should it be said for fish "survival" becomes very apparent very quickly underwater. Fish,the food chain in inland waterways and oceans live is an environment that we create intentionally or unintionally...and we do it very quickly

I do find it it odd to blame pellets of the oily type when it's said in many rivers the lack of invertebrates and the food chain being seriously disrupted by umpteen reasons as we all know about ie' i'm not even going to list it

Question is...it's one thing trying to understand the other is taking action that creates affect.

How do you do it then?

Cheers
Jason

Anyone remember me!
Click to expand...

I guess the point is we are trying to better understand the various, often interrelated dynamics that effect our rivers and their occupants- and specifically in this case, barbel. We will undoubtedly encounter both natural/environmental (floods etc) and non-natural/environmental (pollution) factors plus perhaps a load of other stuff. We may already understand what the key incredients are but perhaps not their relativity. None of us are, I don't think, scientists/ecologists or whatever else it is you need to be to work through the analysis with a high degree of competence, but contributors are giving it a right good go and asking the questions. That's all to the good and keeps the debate going.

Once that deeper understanding has been obtained then perhaps it becomes possible to start thinking about what should and can be done. And that leads to a further debate about what, realistically, is in our power to change or effect and what, quite frankly isn't. Our individual and indeed combined resources are naturally very limited which means directing those limited resources in areas that yield the best return. You would think that habitat improvement works and the creation of safe havens for fry would be a great start and mostly requires the time and effort of committed enthusiasts. That might be a good or even a great answer on some rivers but perhaps not on others- if there are much more fundamental issues.

Facts, facts and more facts. Kick the tyres on everything and then kick them a bit more. No agendas, no egoes, just a pursuit of the best truth we can find. Understand, share, mobilise, act. Stuff like that.

What's great is- so many people seem to care and that's a good start.
 
Absolutely concur with Lol...... your words ring loud Howard..... and should be heard elsewhere too.
It is all about exactly as you have described it...some of it may be old hat...some not... but something is going on and we have to do something and fast.
 
The Environment Agency says the figures look bad because the EU's assessment criteria have been tightened..That was part of the statement they released regarding pollution issues on rivers..


Oh dear..

Seems to me the EA have been hoodwinking most people because the criteria they were meeting before was lapse to say the least and made them look good..

Like I have said time and time again, the EA are there for damage limitation purposes, shut the door after the horse bolts type scenario..

They are powerless and serve Corparations rather than the environment..

Money before the Environment seems to be the order of the day.
 
It gets worse when you realise that 'Good Ecological Status' isn't actually that good, it's a definition shaped more by politics than it is by ecology.

To all those considering voting UKIP at the election - please bear in mind that UKIP have made a clear pledge to do away with the Nitrate Vulnerable Zone regulations.

As things stand this the ONLY set of legislation that serves to try and protect our rivers from nitrate pollution and it's been proven to work! UKIP reject the proven science as it's doesn't fit in with the personal ideologies of Stuart Agnew UKIPs Agricultural spokesman. Guess what - he's an intensive poultry farmer!
 
Thing is and we cannot get away from the fact it's a political problem...you'd think in angling a social pastime it would not make much difference. But the more serious angler as to understand who will look after our precious island the best.

To be honest creak, paddle and poo springs to mind........and I don't think there.s any kind of smiley you can put on that
 
All, I just wanted to report that the BS has agreed to fund a full literature review which will be undertaken by two independent scientists (and can let you know who once we have permission from the individuals concerned). The review will explore the existing published scientific papers related to coarse fish diet provided by anglers with fishmeal-based pellets as a focus. This is being combined with specific and controlled diet experimental research which will be long term, by definition, and follows on from the stable isotope analysis work the BS has already funded. As and when I get further details I will share them.

Thanks to Graham Elliott and all other contributors to this interesting debate. It was most definitely an important factor in the BS committing funds to the projects mentioned above.
 
Thats very good to hear Howard.

Can I ask that any work includes the relevant difference in outcomes between the diet consisting of salmon feed pellets and "fish friendly" pellets.

And that any investigation includes the views from manufacturers supplying (and selling) uk bait suppliers regarding suitable products for coarse fish.

As I mentioned previously, the two major suppliers HAVE informed me that salmon feed pellets will cause undesirable effects to coarse fish. Hopefully some proper research will underpin what they say and lead to some clear recommendations to anglers.

My email correspondence is available as required.

Good News.

Graham
 
Many thanks Graham. I will double check the position regarding salmon feed pellets and many thanks for the offer of the email correspondence you have available.
 
Graham as you know most of my fishing is focused on the Thames and one thing is for sure and that is that small barbel and chub are thin on the ground (on the three stretches I fish at least and from what i hear most of the middle and lower river).

I do think that outside of a few popular fishing areas that it is highly unlikely that fishmeals are to blame for poor recruitment on the Thames. I don't believe that the amount being used are significant in comparison to the enormous amount of natural food in the river (I appreciate that in smaller rivers it is a different matter entirely - although 79% of diet !! How were these figures obtained?).

On the Thames I suspect that wider issues around natural recruitment are the issue, Otters, Crays, Mitten crabs, lack of suitable spawning areas, floods killing fry, gender issues due to female hormones in water etc etc

I do agree there are issues with hi oil pellets. It seems to be quite widely accepted amongst the carp world that the issues with Mark Simmonds early Fisher Pond strain came about by them being grown too fast on a diet on high oil pellet. Split ribs and swim bladder lumps were quite common and although they reached large sizes they died young - liver damage in their early life seems to limit their age.

I believe that fish farmers no longer raise carp on exclusively pellet and now mix wheat and maize and the like. I think also that hi oil pellets are limited and lower oil carp pellets are used for the most part.
 
How interesting that the river Trent is brim full of fish, including barbel, and all species within it enjoy superb recruitment. And all that after having tons and tons of pellets chucked in over the years. I suppose the BS barbel police are going to totally discount rivers like the Trent cos these rivers success doesn't match up to this latest BS run crackpot theory?

And how much of the BS R&C money is going to be spent on all this hogwash?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top